IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/B) No. 4 of 2011 Jashwant Singh & others. ………. Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand. ..………. Respondent Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, with Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging insertion of Section 129-B and Sub-Sections 3, 4 & 5 in Section 154 of The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the said “Act”), by the 2003 Amending Act. In that regard, we have already rendered a judgment in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 3 of 2011. We reiterate what has been held there. 2. In addition to that, petitioners have challenged the validity of insertion of Section 152-A in the said Act. The said inserted section is as follows: “152-A. (1) A bhumidhar with transferable rights may execute power of attorney for transfer of land in favour of persons who are covered under sections 171, 172, 174 or 175 and in case no such person is existing, such Power of Attorney may be executed in favour of any other person with the prior permission of the Collector of the district or of the Indian consulate in case of persons living abroad. (2) A registered Power of Attorney to sell the land executed on or before 12.9.2003 shall be valid if the sale deed on the basis of such Power of Attorney is executed on or before 31.3.2004, irrespective of any time limit provided in such Power of Attorney, unless extended by the Collector of the district for reasons to be recorded in writing.” 3. In the writ petition, it is being contended that the said provision, contained in a State legislation, is contrary to the provisions contained in a Central legislation known as The Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882 2 (hereinafter referred to as the “1882 Act”). It is being contended that the said inserted Section 152-A is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 2 of the 1882 Act. Section 2 of the 1882 Act is as follows: “2. Execution under power-of-attorney. – The donee of a power-of-attorney may, if he thinks fit, execute or do any instrument or thing in and with his own name and signature, and his own seal, where sealing is required, by the authority of the donor of the power; and every instrument and things so executed and done, shall be as effectual in law as if it had been executed or done by the donee of the power in the name, and with the signature and seal, of the donor thereof. This section applies to powers-of-attorney created by instruments executed either before or after this Act comes into force.” 4. A look at the said section would make it amply clear that the same, in any way, does not holdout that donor of a power-of-attorney can grant the same in favour of all and sundry, as is the conception of the writ petitioners. Instead, Section 2 of the 1882 Act makes it abundantly clear that an action of a power-of-attorney holder would be deemed, in law, as the action of the power-of-attorney granter. Therefore, we cannot hold that the newly inserted Section 152-A of the said Act is in contravention of any of the provisions of the 1882 Act. 5. It was contended by the petitioners that the restriction is unreasonable. It was contended that if a person having land in Uttarakhand, but staying away from Uttarakhand, has to execute a power- of-attorney in favour of a person not mentioned in Sections 171, 172, 174 or 175 of the said Act; he would be required to take permission of the Collector and such a restriction is bereft of any reason. We are unable to accept the contention. Normally, a power-of-attorney would be given to those persons, who are closely related to the power-of-attorney granter and they have already been mentioned in Sections 171, 172, 174 and 175 of the said Act. If a person does not have such a person to act as a power- of-attorney holder, then he is required to appoint somebody else and the only restriction is in the matter of appointing such a person, where permission of the Collector is a necessity. This has been done in order to ensure that the power-of-attorney holder is a person identifiable for he has 3 to be identified by the Collector before the permission is granted to appoint him as a power-of-attorney holder. The learned Advocate General submits that the said insertion was made in order to avoid any person purporting to act as an attorney without in fact having been thus appointed. We see no reason to interfere with the said imposition and, accordingly, pronounce that there is no scope of interference with insertion of Section 152-A in the said Act. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 22.09.2011 22.09.2011 G