✦ High Court of India · 29 Oct 2025

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL vs Board of Revenue Uttarakhand

Case Details High Court of India · 29 Oct 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
29 Oct 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,012 words

Acts & Sections

Smt. Seema Tandon after validly obtaining permission from learned Collector, under Section 157-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 and as the sale was made after complying with the relevant provisions the Board of Revenue rightly dismissed the revision of the petitioners.

6. The counsel for the respondent no.4 relying upon his counter affidavit submits that the grandfather of the petitioners had himself sold the first half of the property to him vide sale deed dated 21.07.2008 and the remaining half of the property was sold to him by the power of attorney holder vide sale deed dated 03.01.2011 and he after taking permission from learned Collector, under Section 157-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 has exercised his legal rights to dispose of his property to 3 Smt. Seema Tandon.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it is quite clear that the power of attorney dated

23.11.2009 was never revoked by the grandfather of the petitioners and the father of the petitioners who was the power of attorney holder on the basis of power of attorney sold the said property to respondent no.4 vide sale deed dated 03.01.2011. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner’s that they are the legal heirs and owners of the property in dispute on the basis of will dated 11.03.2011 is utterly misconceived and against the settled provision of law as it is a trite law that a will can only be validly effective or come into force after the date of the death of testator unless it is revoked. It is an admitted fact that the testator died on 08.08.2012 and the power of attorney holder had already on the basis of the said power of attorney sold the property on 03.01.2011 therefore the will did not stand. In the above circumstances the learned courts of Tehsildar, Collector, Board of Revenue did no illegality in passing the impugned orders.

8. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 29.10.2025 4

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments