Unregistered GPA Sales Create No Title In JJ Colony Properties: Delhi High Court

Possession of property acquired through unregistered General Power of Attorney (GPA) and 'Agreement to Sell' documents lacks legal sanctity, as the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that such transactions do not convey title or interest in immovable property. The ruling reinforces the prohibition against the sale of license-based allotments under the Jhuggi Jhopri Removal Scheme, declaring occupants holding such properties through notarized documents as unauthorized.

A Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta heard the regular first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court was presiding over a challenge against a trial court decree which had ordered the eviction of an occupant from a property in JJ Colony, Madangir, originally allotted under the Jhuggi Jhopri Removal Scheme (JJR Scheme).

Invalidity of Unregistered Documents and JJR Scheme Prohibitions

The Court scrutinized the documents produced by the appellant, which included a notarized GPA, agreement to sell, and a Will. It was observed that the property was originally allotted to the respondent’s father on a license basis under the JJR Scheme in 1967. The Court noted that the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) guidelines do not permit such sales. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/ conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of ‘GPA sales’ or ‘SA/GPA/will’ not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53-A of the Act."

The Court relied on the principles laid down in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) Through Director Vs State Of Haryana And Another to reiterate that the 'pernicious practice' of GPA sales must end, as they do not constitute valid transfers of leasehold or freehold property.

Non-Joinder of Parties and Possession Status

Addressing the appellant’s contention that the suit was bad for non-joinder of his son (the alleged purchaser), the Court found no merit in the argument. Since the documents relied upon created no legal interest, the son was not a necessary party for the passing of an effective decree. The Court noted that the appellant admitted to being in possession, yet failed to show any legal authorization from the original allottee's estate to hold such possession.

The Court has the following directions:

"...the appellant/defendant and his family members have been directed to remove themselves from the suit property within two months of the passing of the decree. ...this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree dated 31st January, 2023 and it is upheld. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed."

Background

The dispute arose regarding property No. O1st/73, JJ Colony, Madangir, which was allotted to Gheesa Ram in 1967. After his death, his son (the respondent) discovered that his brother, Shyam Sunder, had purportedly sold the property to the appellant's son and handed over possession in 2016. The respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction and possession, contending the sale was illegal under the JJR Scheme. The appellant claimed the respondent had relinquished his share for cash and that the purchase was lawful. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, prompting the current appeal. The High Court, after perusing DUSIB evidence and applying the Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) Through Director Vs State Of Haryana And Another precedent, dismissed the appeal, holding the appellant to be in unauthorized possession.

Case Details:
Case No.: RFA 302/2023
Case Title: Daulat Ram V. Ram Singh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Paranjay Chopra, Mr. Mukesh Yadav and Mr. Arjun Yadav, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Umang Tyagi, Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Mr. Roshan Lal and Ms. Varinda Chaturvedi, Advocates.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 7525