Point of Law: Power of attorney and the Mutation Entry based on registered Sale-deed through the Power of Attorney continued to exist as the documents till such documents are declared by the Court of appropriate jurisdiction to be null and void or canceled, where the respondents have not taken any action, also deserves consideration.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-state, learned Advocate, Mr. S.P. Majmudar waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8.

2. This petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India is filed with following prayers:

“A) That Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated. 29.9.2017 passed by learned Special Secretary in Revision Application MVV/HKP/AMD/100/13 at Annexure-A, Order passed by Mamlatdar, Dascroi dated 19.3.2010 in RTS Dispute Case No.36 of 2010 at Annexure-J, Order passed by Dy. Collector dated 16.3.2012 in RTS Appeal case no.794/2011 at Annexure-K and order passed by learned Collector, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.86 of 2012 at Annexure-L and be pleased to order to certify the disputed entry no.5431 dated 5.11.2009 and mutate the name of the petitioners in the revenue record of the subject land, that is, 6779 sq. meters of Block No. 339 (New Block No.387).

(C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, by way of interim relief, your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 29.9.2017 passed by learned Special Secretary in Revision Appln. MVV/HKP/AMD/100/13 at Annexure-A, Order passed by Mamlatdar, Dascroi dated 19.3.2010 in RTS Dispute Case No.36 of 2010 at Annexete-J, Order passed by Dy. Collector dated 16.3.2012 in RTS Appeal case no.794/2011 at Anhexure-K and order passed by learned Collector, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.86 of 2012 at Annexure-L and be pleased to direct the respondents not to sell, transfer, or alienate or to make any change in the revenue record of the subject land.

(D) Grant such other and further relief(s) as deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.”

3. It is the case where the Mutation Entries on the basis of Power of Attorney and Sale-deed in favour of the petitioners was canceled on the ground of the objections taken by the respondent Nos. 7 and 8.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that all the Authorities below have appreciated the fact that entry was based on the registered Sale-deed executed by the respondent Nos.7 and 8 through their Power of Attorney holder and therefore, while such Power of Attorney and the registered Sale-deed are continued to be valid document, the Authorities are required to act upon it. Moreover, the respondent Nos.7 and 8 have not challenged the registered Sale-deed in any Civil proceedings and therefore, there is no order of Court to set aside the Power of Attorney as well as Sale-deed.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the Revenue Authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction in considering the objections raised by the respondent Nos.1 and 7 that the Power of Attorney is not a genuine Power of Attorney and was canceled and therefore, the Sale-deed based on such canceled Power of Attorney, cannot be acted upon. However, in absence of any legal pronouncement of canceling the irrevocable Power of Attorney, the Revenue Authorities were legally bound to act upon the documents namely the registered Sale-deed by the Power of Attorney holder. While doing so, the Revenue Authorities have acted like Civil Court and giving effect of setting aside the Sale-deed, which only Civil Court can do.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has taken this Court through the chronology of the event to indicate that father of the petitioners had paid the consideration to the father of the respondent Nos.7 and 8. This position even after death of the father was accepted by the respondent Nos.7 and 8, but now with the increase in value of the land, the respondent No.7 and 8 have taken Uturn and raised revenue disputes.

7. It is submitted that delibera