Abhinava Upadhya, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava and Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 4.2.2003 by which, the Assistant Housing Commissioner cancelled the registration and allotment in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners on the basis of submission of caste certificate of reserved category of SC/OBC were allotted house in the year 2002. A complaint was received regarding registration and allotment as well as the caste certificate. 3. A report was submitted that the caste certificates were obtained by showing wrong address. Exercising the power under Regulation, the allotments were cancelled on 31.3.2002. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 31.3.2002 which petition was allowed on 15.4.2002 on the ground that the impugned order did not disclose that the District Magistrate or respondent no.1 had given any opportunity to the writ petitioners. 4. Subsequent to the order of this Court, notices were issued to the power of attorney holders as well as the allottees at their given address by the U.P.Avas Evam Vikash Parishad. Although power of attorney holders appeared before the U.P.Avas Evam Vikash Parishad and submitted their reply but the original allottees never appeared. Subsequently, the U.P.Avas Evam Vikash Parishad directed the power of attorney holders to appear along with the original allottees with original documents on 3.10.2002. 5. The original allotttees never appeared nor any original documents were produced by the power of attorney holder.The Assistant Housing Commissioner being satisfied that the original papers regarding allotment being not produced, he exercised the power under Regulation for cancellation of allotment and consequently the allotments were cancelled by the order dated. 4.2.2003. 6. The U.P.Avas Evam Vikash Parishad issued individual notice to the original allottees to appear and satisfy about the original documents including the caste certificate and other relevant proof of identity. The U.P.Avas Evam Vikash Parishad not being satisfied as neither the original documents were produced nor the original allottees had appeared, cancelled the allotment which order is under challenge in this writ petition. 7. The allotment by the U.P.Avas Evam Vikash Parishad under the scheme was for the benefit of allottees who were of a particular category for which the scheme was floated. 7. The allotment by the U.P.Avas Evam Vikash Parishad under the scheme was for the benefit of allottees who were of a particular category for which the scheme was floated. The U.P.Avas Evam Vikash Parishad noticed that the power of attorney holders without there being relevant documents pertaining to allotment are in possession and original certificates on the basis of which allotments were obtained have not been produced nor the allottees having appeared before the U.P.Avas Evam Vikash Parishad, has cancelled the allotment. Cancellation of the allotment has been effected after due notice to the allottees and the persons occupying the premises on the basis of power of attorney. We do not find any error in exercise of the power by the Assistant Housing Commissioner.. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment in Special Leave Petition(C) no.13917 of 2009 - Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & another decided on 11.10.2011. The Apex Court in the said judgment has held that a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property which observations were made in para 15 of the judgment which is quoted below: "Therefore, a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court in Asha M. Jain Vs. Canara Bank 94(2001)DLT 841, that the 'concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction' when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent that recognize or accept SA/GPA/WILL transaction as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a case wherein the Apex Court has observed that if the documents relating to SA/GPA/WILL has been accepted, acted upon by the Development Authority, they could not be disturbed merely on account of the above judgment. This fact has been mentioned in para 18 of the judgment. 10. Reliance on the said judgment by the petitioner is misplaced. This fact has been mentioned in para 18 of the judgment. 10. Reliance on the said judgment by the petitioner is misplaced. The present case is not one where allotment has been cancelled on the judgment of the Apex Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & another (Supra). In the preset case, cancellation of allotment has been effected on the grounds mentioned as above. 11. Therefore, the writ petitioners can not take any benefit from the above judgment. 12. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. _____________