Judgment : Ravi S. Dhavan, J. 1. THERE are two writ petitions which are pending. The first petitioner is common to both the writ petitions. One has been filed against the Union of India and the other against the State of U. P. One writ petition has been pending at the High Court for the last 16 years. This writ petition is numbered as Writ Petition No. 4599 of 1980 : Retired Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price, M. B. E., 'Kelspring House', Ayasgarth, Layburon, North York's. D. L. 83, A. J. England, filed through his counsel one Raghubar Dayal Mittal, Advocate of Meerut through Mr. Harold Sarkies, 74, Boundary Road, Meerut, the executor of the registered will dated 12th April, 1979, executed by J. A. W. Price v. Union of India. The petitioner J. A. W. Price, deceased, was the brother of the petitioner No. 1. The other is Writ Petition No. 9354 of 1985 : Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price (shown as residing in England) through power of attorney holder Arshad Riaz Khan and H. A. Sarkies, the executor of the will of late J. A W. Price v. State of U. P. and others. In the second petition, Harold Sarkies, petitioner No. 2 in the first petition, has not been made party. The array of parties of the second writ petition on the format itself discloses that Harold Sarkies as an executor of the assets of J. A. W. Price is supposed to have issued a power-of-attorney to Arshad Riaz Khan who has arranged the filing of this second writ petition. 2. WHILE the Court does not know what may have happened to Harold Sarkies, the executor, aforesaid, but an application filed on 13 March, 1996 discloses that Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price, residing in England, has died. Substitution, in effect, has been prayed by the person who holds the power-of-attorney, i.e., Arshad Riaz Khan. Now, the aforesaid, Arshad Riaz Khan contends that he is acting as an agent of the executor of the assets of Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price. A probate was granted by the High Court in England. The executor of the assets of Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price is indicated as Midland Bank Trust Company Limited. In short, the Court may place on record what the Issues in the two writ petitions are. Col. A. M. L. Price. A probate was granted by the High Court in England. The executor of the assets of Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price is indicated as Midland Bank Trust Company Limited. In short, the Court may place on record what the Issues in the two writ petitions are. The writ petition which was filed In 1980. It was brought to the High Court when Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price was alive. The Union of India, in reference to grants made of cantonment lands, has resumed the grant so made to the predecessor-In-Interest of Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price. The grant had lapsed by efflux of time. These are grants of military land managed by the Cantonment Board under the Cantonments Act, 1925. While resuming the grant, it was indicated to the holders of the grant that the Government of India was prepared to offer them a sum of Rs. 86,100 as the value of the authorised structures standing on the Site B. No. 56-57, corresponding to G. L. R. (Government Law Register), Survey No. 221, Meerut Cantonment, measuring 2.479 acres. This has otherwise been described as the Royal Hotel, Meerut. The notice to quit and deliver possession and the offer for the authorised structures at Rs. 86,100, is contained in a communication dated 17th April, 1980, No. 701/337/RandL /LandC/79/9822/D (Lands), Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. This communication is appended as Annexure 17 to the writ petition. Another communication of the same date announces to Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price that the property, aforesaid, will be assumed on the consideration indicated at 10.00 hours on 25th May, 1980. These two communications or the action of the Government of India are impugned by a certiorari in Writ Petition No. 4599 of 1980. 3. IN the second writ petition, a communication from the District Magistrate and Collector, Meerut, dated 21st July, 1985 intimated Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price that the property in question has, IN effect, escheated to the State and a receiver has been appointed for it. This action of the District Magistrate and Collector, Meerut, is challenged IN Writ Petition No. 9354 of 1985, which has also been pending for eleven years. 4. THIS Court has reservations whether the merits of this writ petition or any Issue, at present, can be debated In view of the fact that Lt. Col. This action of the District Magistrate and Collector, Meerut, is challenged IN Writ Petition No. 9354 of 1985, which has also been pending for eleven years. 4. THIS Court has reservations whether the merits of this writ petition or any Issue, at present, can be debated In view of the fact that Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price who may have filed the writ petition, is now dead. Ostensibly, the petition had been filed by the person who holds the power of attorney. THIS is one Arshad Riaz Khan of Meerut. The status of this person as holding a power of attorney, could not be beyond that of an agent of the principal. The principal was Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price. With his death, the status of the person who holds his power of attorney, disappears. The Writ Petition of 1980 indicates that the property has been assumed by the Government of India with compensation determined for authorised structures. The compensation may yet be available as the nature of the asset of this compensation is 'movables'. If it still lies with the Union of India and is available to these who may be entitled to it, the rightful claimants may apply to receive It. But, before the Court there are no rightful claimants, and there is no submission nor a document on record that these claimants are aware that such a compensation is available and the rightful claimants would like to receive this compensation. After Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price died, on his will a probate was granted by the High Court In England. On the will, executors were appointed. The order of the District Probate Registry at Winchester, of the grant made by the High Court of Justice, indicates that the Midland Bank Trust Company Limited. Probate Operations Department (Account 14006324) Deacon House, 192 Eyre Street Sheffield South Yorkshire is the Executor. This application seeks substitution by deleting the name of the petitioner from the array of parties and further seeks amendment to the writ petition by replacing the name of Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price with that of Midland Bank Trust Company Limited, England, through the power of attorney holder Arshad Riaz Khan, Manager, Royal Hotel, The Mall, Meerut Cantonment. This request cannot be granted by the High Court as easily as it is sought 5. THE Court draws attention to the Indian Succession Act. Col. A. M. L. Price with that of Midland Bank Trust Company Limited, England, through the power of attorney holder Arshad Riaz Khan, Manager, Royal Hotel, The Mall, Meerut Cantonment. This request cannot be granted by the High Court as easily as it is sought 5. THE Court draws attention to the Indian Succession Act. 1925 which, in no uncertain terms, mentions that of movables, the law of domicile will operate and of immovables, the law of country where the asset is situated. Again, the status of Arshad Riaz Khan has switched from being an agent of Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price to an agent of the executors. Plainly, the question is how much of the assets of the person who came as the petitioner before the Court should be held by the executor. Midland Bank Trust Company Limited. THE Court is of the opinion that inasmuch as the executor can hold only as much as the power of attorney may represent. 6. FURTHER, when the Union of India exercised its sovereign function to resume its grant, and possess the land under the erstwhile grant, on 25th May, 1980 at 10.00 hours coupled with a stipulation in terms of the grant that in lieu of the structures and buildings, a sum of Rs. 86,100 would be offered to those who hold the grant, the receiving of this amount may be the possible issue for the executors. Whether the executors will be able to resist the alleged actionable claim and challenge the action of the Union of India while exercising its sovereign power to assume a grant when the person to whom it was made is not available, will be a debatable question. To continue to hold a grant of an immovable property in the hands of an executor who was otherwise domiciled in England is writ large with complications. But, the grant having been determined and a compensation for the buildings on the land which was the subject of the grant available, the executors will need to consider the option as is now available to the estate of the deceased whose executors they are. They will also have to seriously reflect on the law of domicile as it applies in India. They will also have to seriously reflect on the law of domicile as it applies in India. The purpose of the executors coming in is that all available assets should be rounded up and delivered to the beneficiaries after giving the account of it to the appropriate court which had appointed them. What the beneficiaries cannot hold, the executors cannot hold. If the grant has been assumed by the Federal Government as it saw the end of it by efflux of time, there is no actionable claim left on this immovable asset in favour of someone living outside India. Of movables, the asset is available to a rightful claimant though domiciled outside India. This is the law. 7. IN the circumstances, the merits of the petition, regard being had to the circumstances that the petitioner was domiciled in England and the property is immovable, cannot be made an Issue in these proceedings of writ jurisdictions. 8. BUT giving due regard to the circumstances that there are executors appointed by the High Court in England, a petition may lie In the Probate and Testamentary Jurisdiction on the amount which was made available by the Government of India to the person to whom the grant had been originally made when it was resumed by Government of India. The compensation for the valid structures on the land the grant of which was assumed, may yet be available to the executors, provided they apply and approach this High Court in Its appropriate Jurisdiction. The issue of the grant itself cannot be pursued except by the person to whom it was made and his progeny for the duration of the period of the grant, that is, such persons may question the resumption of the grant only. If it has not been validly resumed by the Government of India already. As monetary consideration as compensation for the valid structures had been offered by the Government of India, claim to this amount may be made by the rightful claimants before the appropriate division of the High Court by the heirs or next-of-kin ; validly appointed executors not excluded. But, the latter would have to petition the High Court directly as the liability to account for the estate of the deceased is a personal responsibility. 9. But, the latter would have to petition the High Court directly as the liability to account for the estate of the deceased is a personal responsibility. 9. THE reliefs sought by the two writ petitions cannot be granted, regard being had to the circumstances that the person who could hold the grant, is dead, and the grant has been resumed. THE consequential effects of the resumed grant, such as compensation for the valid structures on the land, if available, may permit an action before the appropriate division of the High Court. 10. THESE Writ Petition Nos. 4599 of 1980 and 9354 of 1985, are consigned to the record as dismissed. Costs on parties. The Registrar, High Court will send a copy of this order to : 1. The Executors The Midland Bank Trust Company Limited, Probate Operations Department (Account No. 14006324), Deacon House, 192, Eyre Street. Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England and to Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Writ Petition No. 4599 of 1980 : Retired Lt. Col. A. M. L. Price, M. B. E. (now deceased), Velspring House, Aysgarth, Layburon, North. Yorkshire, D.L.83, A. J. England, and another v. Union of India and others.