Deo Sharan Uraon vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SC 25 for the State.

The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

“1. (i) That an appropriate writ may be issued quashing the order dated 21.10.2016 as contained in Annexure-5, after proper enquiry

passed in Misc. Application No. 226/2016 under Section 49G of Bihar Tenancy Act, by which the Collector (Respondent No.2) granted

permission to one Sugiya Devi for selling land in question on the basis of report submitted by Circle Officer, Purnea Sadar (Respondent No.

4) without issuing notice to the other share holders/and the petitioner without hearing the share holders of the property.

(ii) And pass such other order or orders for which the petitioner is found entitled.â€​

The petitioner claims to be husband of Sugiya Devi in favour of whom the Collector, Purnea had granted permission by order dated 21.10.2016 to

sell 0.48 acres of land.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that thereafter his wife passed away on 18.05.2017, which fact was recorded in the official register on

30.05.2017, for which certificate has also been issued. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent no. 6 has got a fraudulent Power of Attorney

purportedly executed by his wife on 15.11.2017, by getting a different lady to appear before the Registering Authority. It was submitted that from the

registration of death of the wife of the petitioner on 30.05.2017, the Power of Attorney executed on 15.11.2017 itself become fraudulent. It was

submitted that the respondent no. 6, based on such Power of Attorney has also executed sale deeds to various persons for part of the said 0.48 acres

of land.

In view of the relief claimed, though the Court finds that there is strong presumption with regard to contention of the petitioner being correct, since

there is a death certificate with regard to the wife of the petitioner having died on 18.05.2017, and much after that the respondent no. 6, getting Power

of Attorney from her executed/registered, based on which he has executed sale deeds in favour of various persons, the Court in its present jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not consider it appropriate to go into such issues which are to be adjudicated purely on facts after

adducing evidence and arriving at findings, for which, the petitioner has to institute appropriate proceedings, before the appropriate authority, in

accordance with law, both on the civil as well as criminal side, for cancellation of the sale deeds/Power of Attorney as also for alleged criminal and

fraudulent act of the respondent no. 6 of getting Power of Attorney in his favour purportedly from the wife of the petitioner, who had died months

prior to execution of such Power of Attorney.

In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to institute appropriate civil and criminal proceedings, as he may

deem fit and proper, before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, which shall be considered on its own merits, without being prejudiced by

the present order.