JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. In this writ application, the order as contained in Annexure-8 dated 18.1.1982 is under challenge. By reason of the aforementioned order, the Additional Collector, Ranchi (Ceiling) held that the amount payable to the original petitioner by way of compensation under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') can not be disbursed unless the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 is settled by a competent Court. 2. By virtue of a power of attorney dated 24.10.1972 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, the original petitioner appointed the respondent no. 3 as an agent for the purposes of taking out the amount of compensation under the Act. In the said power of attorney it was mentioned as follows:- "I also agree and confirm that this power of attorney deed shall not be cancelled in any case unless the proceedings of the above Zamindary compensation case no. 441 of 1955-56 is closed. The aforementioned power of attorney is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. 3. According to the petitioner (the original petitioner) meaning thereby Khan Bahadur Habiburrahman cancelled the said power of attorney by a notice dated 26.2.1974 as contained m Annexure-5 as also by executing the deed of revocation of power of attorney dated 21.5.1974 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application. 4. The learned court below by the reason of the impugned order purported to have held that the compensation amount can not be disbursed unless and until the dispute by and between the original petitioner and respondent is settled by a competent court. It appears that respondent no. 3 Bishwanath Sahu entered into an agreement with him pursuant where of he spent a huge amount. However, it appears that during the pendency of this writ application the petitioner has died and by an order dated 5.2.1988, the application for substitution filed on behalf of the petitioner was allowed. This power of attorney, therefore, has come to an end and thus cannot be enforced. 5. In this view of the matter the order as contained in Annexure-8 now can not be sustained. However it goes without saying that the respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to enforce his claim as against the substituted petitioner, if the same is permissible in law before an appropriate forum. 6. 5. In this view of the matter the order as contained in Annexure-8 now can not be sustained. However it goes without saying that the respondent no. 3 shall be entitled to enforce his claim as against the substituted petitioner, if the same is permissible in law before an appropriate forum. 6. With the above observations and directions this writ petition is allowed and the order as contained in Annexure 8 is hereby quashed. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to cost.