1. Dispute over lease deeds for acquired khatedari land issued to a GPA holder; allegations of forgery and cancellation of power of attorney; regularization by JDA. (Para 2 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 19 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
Metrocity Vikas Samiti – Appellant
Versus
Mahesh Kumar Jain S/o Maliram Jain – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3691, 3740, 6754, 6768 of 2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9002 of 2023
Decided On : 26-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Amit Kuri, Ayush Sharma, Dharma Ram, Nandini Mirdha, R.K. Daga, Rahul Singh Chauhan, Ajeet Kumar Bhandari, Namo Narayan Sharma, Khushboo Rathore, A.K. Sharma, Ashish Sharma
For the Respondents: R.B. Mathur, Sandeep Pathak, Manish Bhadiwal, Pramod Singh, Anil Mehta, Yashodhar Pandey, Banwari Lal Sharma, Rahul Vishnoi
For the Appellants : Amit Kuri, Ayush Sharma, Dharma Ram, Nandini Mirdha, R.K. Daga, Rahul Singh Chauhan, Ajeet Kumar Bhandari, Namo Narayan Sharma, Khushboo Rathore, A.K. Sharma, Ashish Sharma
For the Respondents: R.B. Mathur, Sandeep Pathak, Manish Bhadiwal, Pramod Singh, Anil Mehta, Yashodhar Pandey, Banwari Lal Sharma, Rahul Vishnoi
A General Power of Attorney does not transfer title to immovable property. Legally valid transfers require registered instruments. Unregistered lease deeds based on forged documents are void, and disputes regarding the validity of such agreements must be adjudicated by a Civil Court, not an administrative tribunal.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 - Rules 20, 26 and 31 - Transfer of land - Documentary evidence - Requirement for lease deeds to be registered - An unregistered lease deed is not legally valid evidence for the transfer of land and cannot create a vested right in favor of the allottee. (Paras 11 and 12)
(B) Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 - General Power of Attorney (GPA) - Scope - A power of attorney is a creation of agency and does not ipso facto constitute an instrument of transfer of immovable property, regardless of clauses claiming it to be irrevocable or authorizing sale. It does not confer valid title upon the grantee. (Paras 20 and 21)
(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 54 and 55 - Registered instrument - Any contract of sale or agreement to sell that is not a registered deed of conveyance does not confer title nor transfer any interest in immovable property, except for limited rights under Section 53-A. (Para 21)
(D) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal - The Appellate Tribunal of a development authority lacks competence to adjudicate the validity of private agreements between parties; such issues are strictly within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
Land acquired by a development authority was subject to a reservation letter for developed land in favor of original landowners. A third party claimed rights over the land based on a GPA and unregistered lease deeds obtained via consent letters. The landowners cancelled the GPA and alleged the consent letters were forged, a fact later supported by a forensic laboratory report. The development authority cancelled the lease deeds, but an appellate tribunal set aside that cancellation and ruled in favor of the third party. This order was challenged before the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the lease deeds were unregistered and therefore void under the applicable rules. The third party's actions—specifically issuing a legal notice for specific performance after claiming to have obtained lease deeds—indicated the documents were not authentic. The court reaffirmed that a GPA does not transfer title and that the appellate tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on the validity of the agreements.
Issues: Whether unregistered lease deeds obtained through forged consent letters confer legal title; whether a General Power of Attorney acts as a conveyance deed; and whether an administrative appellate tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine the validity of private contracts.
Ratio Decidendi: A GPA is an agency agreement, not a tool for transferring title. For any transfer of immovable property to be legally binding, it must be executed via a registered instrument as per the Transfer of Property Act and relevant local rules. Documents found to be forged do not create legal rights. Furthermore, the validity of a contract is a matter of civil adjudication and cannot be determined by an administrative tribunal.
Result: All writ petitions allowed and the order of the Appellate Tribunal set aside; appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- property law
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contended lease deeds were forged, unregistered, and based on cancelled GPA; respondent claimed valid transfer; JDA raised jurisdictional and non-joinder issues. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Court found lease deeds invalid due to unregistered status, forged consent, cancelled power of attorney; JDA tribunal exceeded jurisdiction and findings were perverse. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 )
4. A power of attorney does not confer title; unregistered lease deeds and forged consent letters create no legal right; transfers must follow legal procedures. (Para 20 , 21 )
5. Writ petitions allowed; Appellate Tribunal's order set aside; appeals by Mahesh Kumar Jain dismissed. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
6. Does a power of attorney confer title to immovable property?
No. A power of attorney is an agency, not a conveyance. It does not transfer title unless registered as a deed of conveyance. It merely authorizes acts on behalf of the grantor. (Para 20 , 21 )
7. Are unregistered lease deeds valid evidence of title?
No. Under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1974, lease deeds must be registered. Unregistered lease deeds are not legally admissible and create no rights. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. Can forged documents confer any legal right?
No. Documents based on forged signatures are void ab initio and do not create any rights. The court found consent letters with forged khatedar signatures invalid. (Para 11 , 13 , 19 )
9. Does an appellate tribunal have jurisdiction to decide validity of agreements?
No. Only civil courts can adjudicate the validity of agreements. The JDA Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by making observations on agreement validity. (Para 16 )
10. Is cancellation of a power of attorney relevant to subsequent transfers?
Yes. If a power of attorney is cancelled before a transfer, any act done after cancellation without authority is invalid. The court noted the GPA was cancelled before lease deeds were obtained. (Para 10 )
ORDER :
1. Since the issue involved in all these five writ petitions is identical and the impugned order is same, hence all these five writ petitions are being decided by a common order.
2. The facts which emerges from the pleadings are that the original appellant-Mahesh Kumar Jain filed four different appeals before the Appellate Authority, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short, 'Appellate Tribunal, JDA') mentioning therein that Khasra Nos. 92, 94, 95, 100 and 104/572 situated at Village Mangyawas, Tehsil Sanganer, belong to Shri. Prabhu and Shri Dhanna both sons of Shri Ramdev. The suit property was Khatedari land of Prabhu and Dhanna. On 28.06.1991, the Jaipur Development Authority (for short, 'the JDA') acquired the said land and the award with regard to the land situated in aforementioned Khasras was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 28.06.1991.
On 13.12.1995 the aforesaid Khatedars and Roopwas Model Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti entered into an agreement for sale with respect to the aforesaid property for developing a housing society in the name and style of Metrocity Vikas Samiti. In the said agreement it was agreed that the aforesaid Khatedars will cooperate with the society for ensuring that the aforesaid property will be transferred in the name of the society as per law. At the time of signing of the agreement the Vikas Samiti paid the consideration amount and issued receipt to the Khatedars and physical possession of the said property was also handed over to the Vikas Samiti.
On 10.04.2002 the aforesaid Khatedars executed an agreement in favour of one Mahesh Kumar Jain with regard to the aforesaid property. As per the agreement, the Khatedars have to execute a General Power of Attorney in favour of Mahesh Kumar Jain to enable him to obtain necessary approval from the JDA on behalf of the Khatedars. In furtherance of the aforesaid agreement, a General Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of Mahesh Kumar Jain by the recorded Khatedars.
On 11.04.2002 the aforesaid Khatedars executed a compromise / agreement in favour of the JDA in order to obtain 15% developed land in lieu of compensation for the acquired land.
On 02.08.2002 the JDA issued a reservation letter for 15 % developed land in lieu of compensation in favour of aforesaid Khatedars.
On 19.08.2002 the recorded Khatedars through a registered letter cancelled the Power of Attorney dated 12.08.2002. An information with regard to cancellation was also published in the newspaper.
On 03.09.2002 Mahesh Kumar Jain obtained unregistered lease for 15 % developed land allotted to the recorded Khatedars against the acquisition of the aforesaid property.
On 01.02.2003 Mahesh Kumar Jain sent a registered notice to the recorded Khatedars for execution of the lease deed in his favour stating that in case they fail to execute the sale deed in his favour, he shall file a suit for specific performance. The aforesaid Khatedars on 22.02.2003 sent reply to the legal notice dated 01.02.2003 denying therein that there is no requirement for execution of the lease deed sought by Mahesh Kumar Jain as the agreement dated 10.04.2002 is not valid and is forged one.
On 21.10.2005 the Vikas Samiti entered into a further agreement with the recorded Khatedars for purchase of the aforesaid land. The agreement clearly states that the same was executed in furtherance of the agreement dated 13.12.1995. The Vikas Samiti in furtherance of the agreements developed the housing society and issued allotment letters to several individuals.
On 23.09.2002 the acquisition for the purposes of development of Prithvi Raj Nagar was cancelled. The said cancellation was on account of order dated 20.09.2013.
To regularize the land allotted to its members, the JDA issued public Notifications dated 04.06.2020, 15.06.2020 and 08.07.2020 which were challenged by Mahesh Kumar Jain in the appeals filed by him before the JDA Appellate Tribunal.
The JDA Appellate Tribunal vide its judgment dated 03.02.2022 allowe
