Rajasthan High Court | Power of Attorney Holder Cannot Mutate Property After Principal’s Death | Execution of POA Ends Automatically Under Section 201 Contract Act, Mutation Void
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand has dismissed a writ petition challenging mutation proceedings relating to disputed agricultural land. The court upheld orders of the subordinate authorities, holding that the power of attorney executed by a deceased individual could not be relied upon for the validity of subsequent sale transactions. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with the court observing that no interference was warranted in the orders of the lower revenue authorities and appellate bodies. It was clarified that any other remedy available to the petitioner under law would not be prejudiced by the observations contained in this decision.
The matter concerned agricultural land originally belonging to five brothers, sons of one Heera, namely Onkar, Rama, Sukhdeo, Suwa, and Panchu, each holding a one-fifth share. All five executed a registered power of attorney in favour of Chandi Ram on 22 September 1988. Acting under this power, Chandi Ram executed a registered sale deed on 9 June 1995 in favour of Sharda Devi and Nirmala Devi, who subsequently sold the same land to the petitioner through a sale deed dated 22 February 2006. On this basis, the petitioner’s name was entered in the mutation records of the disputed land.
The Tehsildar, however, passed an order on 14 December 2017 altering the mutation in favour of the respondents, without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this order before the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal on 7 December 2021. The Board of Revenue also dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 14 January 2025. Aggrieved, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court challenging the orders of the revenue authorities and the Board.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the mutation entries had been wrongly altered without jurisdiction, as Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 was not applicable to the case. It was submitted that if the respondents disputed the validity of the sale deed, they ought to have approached the civil court for cancellation of the deed or filed a suit under Section 188 of the Act of 1956. Instead, they filed an application under Section 136 before the Tehsildar, who lacked jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court, including Municipal Board, Barmer Tr. Exec. Officer vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2015 (1) RRT 10) and Parmeshwar vs. Naurang & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1236/2022, decided on 22 August 2024).
Conversely, counsel for the respondents argued that the husband of respondent no. 1, Panchu, died on 16 April 1990, well before the sale deed executed on 9 June 1995. It was therefore argued that Chandi Ram could not have conveyed Panchu’s one-fifth share, since the power of attorney stood extinguished on Panchu’s death under Section 201 of the Contract Act, 1872. On this basis, the sale deed was void to the extent of Panchu’s share, and the mutation in favour of the petitioner was untenable. Reliance was placed on judgments including Ritesh Tiwari & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ((2010) 10 SCC 677) and Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo vs. State of Bihar & Ors. ((1999) 8 SCC 16).
The court recorded that the land originally belonged to the five brothers, each with a one-fifth share. It noted: “It appears that the husband of the respondent No.1, i.e., Panchu along-with other four brothers executed a registered power of attorney in favour of one Chandi Ram on 22.09.1988 and on the basis of the same, the said power of attorney sold the subject land to Sharda Devi and Nirmala Devi by executing a registered sale deed in their favour on 09.06.1995 and on the basis thereupon, Sharda Devi and Nirmala Devi have further sold the subject land in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of the said sale deed dated 22.02.2006, mutation entry of the subject land was entered into the name of the petitioner.”
The court further recorded: “Perusal of the orders passed by the Appellate Courts indicate that husband of the respondent No.1, i.e., Panchu expired on 16.04.1990, hence, under these circumstances, both Appellate Courts below were of the view that the 1/5 share of the Panchu could not have been sold by power of attorney-Chandi Ram, after five years of his death. Taking note of the aforesaid fact, it was found that the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner qua the 1/5 share of Panchu was not valid.”
The court observed the settled position of law: “It is the settled proposition of law that after death of an individual, the execution of power attorney of such individual comes to an end automatically in terms of Section 201 of the Act of 1872, hence, under these circumstances, the revenue entries made in favour of the petitioner were not tenable and the same has been rightly quashed by the Tehsildar.”
In conclusion, the court stated: “This Court finds no error in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, which warrants any interference of this court. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.”
The Bench concluded the matter with explicit directions embedded in the operative portion of the order. It recorded that “This Court finds no error in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, which warrants any interference of this court. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.”It was further clarified: “Before parting with this order, it is made clear that in case, the petitioner avails any remedy available to him under law, the observations made by this Court and by the Sub-ordinate Courts will not come in his way.” Additionally, the court directed: “Stay application and all pending application, if any, also stand dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Mehrish with Mr. Rakesh Saini
For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta
Case Title: Smt. Kamla Khinchi v. Smt. Kamla W/o Panchu (since deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:34669
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6212/2025
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
