1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in this group of petitions. Rule. Ms. Sangita Vishen, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for Respondent State in all the petitions. Rule is fixed forthwith. As the counsels have agreed for final disposal, these matters were taken up for final hearing.

2. In this group, three petitions have been filed by respective petitioner for redressing Circular dated circular dated 8/12/2010 and 7/1/2012 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issued by the respondents, which according to the petitioners amounted to imposing undue, unwarranted and illegal restrictions upon the petitioners right to have registration in accordance with the provision of section 70 of The Registration Act 1908. As all the petitioners are involving common challenge on common grounds, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment & order.

3. The petitioners have entered into an agreement for sale of property which have been directed in the respective agreement and when they presented these documents for registration, on the strength of the impugned circulars the insistence was made to comply with the conditions mentioned there under. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this insistence the present petitions have been filed as stated herein above. The Court at this stage is of the considered view that the fine facts in respect of property or the execution would be not required to be referred to as nothing turns up there upon so far as the legality and validity of those circulars are challenged and, therefore, this Court is not referring to the facts in order to avoid unnecessarily going into details which are really not germane for deciding legality & validity of the circulars. Suffice it to say that the challenge to the circulars is essentially by those persons seeking registration and when they are subjected to comply with the conditions and therefore, the validity and justification of the conditions are to be examined in the petitions.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners contended that existing circular dated 7/1/2012 which is in fact clarifying the earlier circular dated 8/12/2010, provides additional conditions to be fulfilled by the person presenting the document for registration under the provision of Registration Act 1908. These conditions are not prescribed by way of amendment to the existing provision, nor are they forming part of any legitimate statutory exercise, resulting into incorporation of those conditions under permissible way in law, so that compliance thereof could be insisted legally. The provisions of Power of Attorney Act entitles the persons to act as an attorney i.e. donee on behalf of the donor. Provisions of Power of Attorney Act are not in any manner whittled down and or clubbed or circumscribed in any way. In other words, provisions of Power of Attorney Act, 1882, are still holding the field and therefore, persons are entitled to execute power of attorney and under provisions of the Act the donee that is attorney has all the rights to carry out the functioning assigned to him or entrusted to him under the Power of Attorney Act, 1882, which may include execution of document on behalf of donor and presenting said document for its registration. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus contended that when Power of Attorney Act itself makes it abundantly clear that the donee or attorney of the donor or principal is fully entitled to execute the document, registration whereof is compulsory and when the power itself is sufficient enough to indicate that the donee, i.e. attorney is entitled even to present the same; then, in view of provisions of Registration Act, especially provision 30 to 32 of the Act, the power of attorney is not to do anything further than merely presenting document along with legible copy of power of attorney document. Therefore, the power of attorney who is himself executant of the document on behalf of the principal, i