Bombay High Court
Sunil Baburao Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 16 January, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:1181
1 28-0WP.1341-13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1341 OF 2013
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9634 OF 2013
IN WP/1341/2013
SUNIL BABURAO JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh M.N.
AGP for Respondent/State : Mrs. R.R. Tandale
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. A.S. Bajaj
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : JANUARY 16, 2024
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for contesting respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner was the Power of Attorney of
Suryabhan Gajarya Sonawane. He was the owner of the suit land.
The dispute was open before the Tahsildar, Aurangabad for
restoration of the land being it was a land owned by the
scheduled tribe. Said order is placed at page No.50. The title
shows that the said application was filed through three persons as
power of attorney for Suryabhan Gajrya Sonawane. The Tahsildar
decided the dispute on 28.02.2008. Against the said order, the
present respondent No.2 had preferred the petition before the
MRT. The MRT Aurangabad by its order dated 17.10.2011
2 28-0WP.1341-13.odt
quashed and set aside the order of the Tahsildar. Against the said
order, the present petitioner has preferred the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in
pursuance of the order of this Court dated 21.09.2016, the
petitioner filed a civil application No.9634 of 2013 contending
that since the original contestant/petitioner died, the present
petitioner being a power of attorney has no right to prefer the writ
petition impugning the order of the MRT. The statement has also
made in affidavit in Civil Application that the legal heirs of
Suryabhan Sonawane had impugned the order of the MRT by writ
petition No.8266 of 2011. That writ petition was disposed of as
withdrawn.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
matter pertains to the lands of the tribes which were grabbed
illegally. Other Bhills have filed the writ petition; however, they
learnt that the jurisdiction lies with the Tahsildar. Therefore, they
withdrew the said writ petition.
5. Against this, learned counsel for respondent no.2
referring to the judgment in Writ Petition No.8266 of 2011
submits that the legal heirs of the original petitioner - Suryabhan
Gajrya Sonawane had preferred the writ petition. However, they
withdrew the same.
3 28-0WP.1341-13.odt
6. A small question is whether a power of attorney
continue after the death of the executant. The law is well settled
that a power of attorney terminates automatically upon the death
of the executant. It is valid in his life time. The rights of General
Power of Attorney ceases on the death of executor.
7. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent
no.2 was supported with the documents. The title clause of the
petition shows that the petitioner has filed this writ petition in his
personal capacity. Since the executant of the power of attorney
died, the petitioner had no right to impugn the judgment and
order. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
8. All civil applications stand disposed of.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
Mujaheed//
