The cancellation of a power of attorney must be executed by all legal heirs for validity; disputes over property rights should be resolved in civil court.

ORDER :

1. Both these writ petitions are concerning the same subject matter and also between the same parties and therefore, with the consent of all the counsel, the writ petitions are heard together.

2. The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.26472 of 2022 challenges the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.Ye2/See.Ma.No. 31/2020, dated 01.09.2022. The other writ petition in W.P.(MD)No. 25251 of 2024 has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to conduct a survey of the petitioner's land.

3. I have heard Mr.C.Venkateskumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.26472 of 2022 and the third respondent in W.P. (MD)No.25251 of 2024, Mrs.S.Jeyapriya, learned Government Advocate, for the official respondents, Mr.J.Mathesh, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024.

4. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.26472 of 2022 is that the properties comprised in Survey Nos.421/1, 2, 4, 5 etc, of a total extent of 13 Acres 60 cents at Kalappakulam Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, then, Tirunelveli District and now, Tenkasi District, originally belonged to the petitioner's father, late Nagoor Meeran Rawother, who had purchased the same under a registered sale deed.

5. According to the petitioner, after the death of his father in the year 1991, the legal heirs entered into a registered partition deed on 05.05.1997, which was also duly registered in document No.523/1997 before the Sub Registrar, Sankarankovil. It is the further case of the petitioner that all the legal heirs had appointed one Ashraf Ali as a power agent to deal with the subject property. According to the petitioner, the power agent indulged in illegal activities and committed misappropriation and therefore, the petitioner cancelled the power of attorney issued to Ashraf Ali on 23.08.2004. It is the further case of the petitioner that the power agent had executed a sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024 and the petitioner also gave a complaint against the said purchaser before the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District on 24.03.2014 and subsequently criminal complaint on 04.02.2015 and there been no action taken. The petitioner had also filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18239 of 2014 before this Court and F.I.R in Crime No.23 of 2015 is pending against the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024 and others.

6. The further case of the petitioner is that the purchaser mutated patta in his name and the petitioner therefore approached the District Collector, Tirunelveli and made a complaint. The District Collector, in and by proceedings dated 29.07.2015, directed the Tahsildar, Sankarankovil, to conduct an enquiry. The Tahsildar, after conducting a peace committee meeting on 06.08.2015 by proceedings dated 14.08.2015 ordered registration of patta in the name of the petitioner's father.

7. Aggrieved by the said order of the third respondent viz., the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024, preferred an appeal to the second respondent, who allowed the said appeal accepting the case of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.25251 of 2024. The petitioner preferred the revision petition to the District Revenue Officer on 20.09.2019 and pending the said revision, in view of the District bifurcation, a fresh revision has also been preferred before the first respondent on 03.10.2020. However, the first respondent by order dated 01.09.2022 held that cancellation of power of attorney by the petitioner is not valid. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent has not taken note of the findings of the District Collector, Tirunelveli, in the earlier proceedings dated 07.08.2019 and has passed a contradictory order, mechanically and without any application of mind.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the revenue authorities are not empowered to hold enquiry as to validity of any document, which can be declared only by civil Court and the