9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 421 - HC - Indian LawsValidity of General Power of Attorney (GPA) - registry through GPA - challenging the constitutional validity of the circular dated 27.04.2012 stating that a conveyance of an immovable property cannot be executed on the basis of GPA as relying on Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. 2011 (10) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Held that - The Supreme Court has not said that in no case a conveyance can be registered by taking recourse to a GPA. As long as the transaction is genuine, the same will have to be registered by the Sub-Registrar. There is distinctly a specific reference to the fact that, a person may enter into a development agreement with a land developer or builder for development of a parcel of land or for construction of apartments in a building, and for this purpose a power of attorney empowering the developer to execute sale agreements or conveyances in regard to individual plots of land or undivided shares in the land relating to apartments in favour of prospective purchasers can be executed or to his spouse, son, daughter, brother, sister or a relative to manage his affairs or to execute a deed of conveyance. Therefore, the directions contained in the impugned circular were quite contrary to the observations made by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the same was to be set aside.
Issues:
Challenge to circular issued by Divisional Commissioner regarding registration of conveyance based on GPA, Will, or Agreement to Sell. Analysis: The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an allegedly illegal circular issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, as violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in "Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana." The petitioner entered into a collaboration agreement with the owner of an immovable property and obtained a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and a Will, which were duly registered. The circular in question directed Registrars/Sub-Registrars not to register conveyances based on GPA, Will, or Agreement to Sell. The petitioner argued that the circular misinterpreted the Supreme Court's observations in the Suraj Lamp case, which allowed registration of genuine transactions based on GPA. The court agreed with the petitioner, setting aside the circular as contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment. The respondents contended that the transaction between the petitioner and the property owner aimed to evade stamp duty, justifying the resistance to register the document. They argued that the transaction should be treated as a sale subject to a higher stamp duty rate. The court noted that there was no order refusing registration and emphasized the need to examine the circular's validity. The court highlighted the Supreme Court's clarification that genuine transactions based on GPA are permissible for registration. The court found the circular's directions contrary to the Supreme Court's position and set it aside. The court directed the respondents to assess the genuineness of transactions during registration and to issue speaking orders if they find any document not fit for registration. The writ petition was disposed of in light of these directions, allowing for genuine transactions based on GPA to be registered, in accordance with the law and the Supreme Court's judgment in the Suraj Lamp case.
|
