ORDER : 1. Under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the second respondent District Magistrate/Collector, Allahabad with a prayer to grant freehold rights in favour of the petitioner and the other co-lessees in respect of lease hold nazul plot of land No. 124-B, Civil Lines Station, Allahabad. 2. A registered lease deed was executed on 18.12.1948 by the Governor of United Provinces through Commissioner, Allahabad in respect of the aforesaid nazul plot No. 124-B, Civil Lines Station, Allahabad having an area of 1 acre and 931 square yards i.e. 4825.13 square meters in favour of Late Gajadhar Prasad Bhargava, the father of the petitioner, initially for a period of 30 years with the renewal clause for two terms of 30 years each. 3. The aforesaid lease holder of the said land died leaving behind five sons and two daughters including the petitioner. One of his sons Someshwar Nath Bhargava is already dead and is succeeded by his widow Smt. Rajni Bhargava and two daughters Smt. Taru Bhargava and Smt. Radhika Bhargava. Accordingly, at present, the following are the only heirs and legal representatives of Late G.P. Bhargava who are entitled to succeed him: 1. Amarnath Bhargava (Petitioner) 2. Rameshwar Nath Bhargava 3. Pradeep Bhargava 4. Rakesh Bhargava (from 1 to 4 all sons) 5. Madhuri Bhargava 6. Ranjana Bhargava(from 5 to 6 both daughters) 7. Smt. Rajni Bhargava 8. Smt. Taru Bhargava 9. Smt. Radhika Bhargava (from 7 to 9 successors of Someshwar Nath Bhargava) 4. The State Government came out with a scheme for grant of freehold rights in favour of the occupants of the nazul land vide Government Order dated 01.12.1998. 5. The petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid Government Order applied for grant of freehold rights in the aforesaid lease land to the extent of 4370 square meters only as against the total area of 4825.13 suqare meters vide Application No. 2701 dated 12.3.1999 and deposited 25% of the estimated freehold charges i.e. Rs. 3,05,900/-. The aforesaid application of the petitioner was processed and a report was invited from the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad. 3,05,900/-. The aforesaid application of the petitioner was processed and a report was invited from the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad. The Nagar Nigam, Allahabad submitted its report dated 20.11.2001 recommending for the grant of freehold rights in respect of the aforesaid land clearly mentioning that the total area of the plot is 4825.13 square meters whereas petitioner has applied for freehold rights in respect of 4370 square meters only and that the petitioner has submitted consent letters of all the co-lessees. It was also stated that the petitioner as well as the co-lessees are agreeable that the aforesaid land be converted into freehold in the name of all the co-lessees. Since an area of 167.22 square meters has been transferred by one of the co-lessees Smt. Madhuri Bhargava, it may be excluded. The said report further records that the lease in respect of the said land is existing and is to expire on 31.03.2008. 6. The A.D.M. Nazul, on verification of the entire facts and documents, in its report existing on the file reiterates the above facts and that there is no legal impediment in granting freehold rights to the co-lessees and for issuing the demand letter accordingly. 7. However, in spite of above, the respondents failed to issue the demand letter for the balance amount so as to grant freehold rights either to the petitioner or to any of the other co-lessees. 8. The petitioner, therefore, was compelled to file Writ Petition No. 73442 of 2010 which was disposed of on 13.2.2010 directing the District Magistrate to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for freehold rights within a fixed period of time. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the request of the petitioner for freehold rights was rejected on 20.04.2012 by the then District Magistrate. This order was again challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 31544 of 2012. It was allowed on 31.07.2012 and after quashing the impugned order, the matter was remanded to the District Magistrate to re-decide the application after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. It is in pursuance to the above directions that the application of the petitioner for granting freehold rights in the aforesaid nazul land has been rejected again by the District Magistrate by the impugned order dated 19.10.2012. 9. It is in pursuance to the above directions that the application of the petitioner for granting freehold rights in the aforesaid nazul land has been rejected again by the District Magistrate by the impugned order dated 19.10.2012. The petitioner's application/ representation for freehold rights has been rejected primarily on two grounds that the petitioner is the sole applicant and the other co-lessees have not applied for freehold rights. Secondly, the petitioner is not entitle to represent the other co-lessees in the absence of their power of attorney and that, if any, they are of no value as they are not registered. 10. We have heard Sri Naveen Sinha, Senior Counsel representing the petitioner and Smt. Sarita Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 11. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are transferees of a part of the aforesaid nazul land which was transferred by one of the co-lessees. They allege that in respect of the land so transferred in their favour, they have been granted freehold rights in accordance with the Government Order dated 01.12.1998 and that they have no objection if the remaining area of the aforesaid nazul land is converted into freehold in the name of heirs of the original lessee. They are actually not opposing the claim of the petitioner or the other co-lessees. 12. There is no dispute to the fact that application for freehold rights in the above land was moved by none other than the petitioner himself in his individual name in respect of the entire area of 4370 square meters by depositing 25% of the estimated amount for the whole of it. Therefore, the application was for freehold rights in respect of whole of the above land. 13. We do not find from the Government Order dated 01.12.1998 that application for freehold cannot be moved by only one of the co-lessees in respect of the whole area. 14. It may be pertinent to remind that a co-lessee has equally right in each and every portion of the land as the other co-lessees unless there is division/partition which is not the case here. Therefore, the petitioner being one of the co-lessees has full and complete rights in every inch of the aforesaid nazul land and is entitle to apply for freehold rights individually. Therefore, the petitioner being one of the co-lessees has full and complete rights in every inch of the aforesaid nazul land and is entitle to apply for freehold rights individually. The other co-lessees may join him or oppose him or may file separate applications. 15. This apart, petitioner on objection being raised had submitted affidavit dated 02.11.2001 of all the co-lessees consenting for the grant of freehold rights in respect of the said land on the application of the petitioner. The veracity of the said affidavit is not disputed. Thus, any irregularity with regard to moving of application for freehold rights by the petitioner in his single name stands cured and there remains no technical defect in granting freehold rights over the land in favour of the co-lessees on the application of the petitioner. In fact with the above affidavit on record, the application of the petitioner for freehold rights stands converted into that of all the co-lessees. 16. In addition to above, it is also on record that the other co-lessees namely Sri Rakesh Bhargava, Smt. Madhuri Bhargava and Smt. Rajni Bhargava, Smt. Ranjana Bhargava have given power of attorney dated 10.01.1991 to the petitioner to seek freehold rights in respect of the above property. Sri Pradeep Bhargava gave power of attorney to the same effect on 17.02.1990. Smt. Radhika Bhargava gave power of attorney on 29.08.2008 whereas Smt. Taru Bhargava gave it on 30.08.2008. The power of attorney of Rameshwar Bhargava is of dated 29.08.2008. 17. In this way, the power of attorney of all the co-lessees or the successors of the original lease holder Late G.P. Bhargava are on record. 18. The authenticity or the genuineness none of the above power of attorney is not disputed. The District Magistrate only states that they are unregistered and as such on their basis, petitioner has no locus to demand freehold rights in the above property on their behalf. 19. The above reason contained in the impugned order is bereft of any merit and cannot be sustained in law. 20. Learned Standing Counsel is unable to show any provision in the Registration Act which requires compulsory registration of power of attorney more particularly when it is not in respect of transfer of any immovable property. 21. 19. The above reason contained in the impugned order is bereft of any merit and cannot be sustained in law. 20. Learned Standing Counsel is unable to show any provision in the Registration Act which requires compulsory registration of power of attorney more particularly when it is not in respect of transfer of any immovable property. 21. It may be pertinent to mention here that all the co-lessees by the aforesaid power of attorneys authorised the petitioner to apply on their behalf and to get the property converted into freehold. None of the said power of attorneys authorises the petitioner to sell or transfer the property. 22. It is well settled that a power of attorney is not an instrument which purports to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest to or in any immovable property. It itself does not constitute to create or extinguish any right in respect of any immovable property. The issue as to whether a power of attorney is required to be compulsorily registered under the Registration Act, 1908 came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court presided over by the then Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud (now Judge, Supreme Court of India) in the case of Krishna Kant Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2014 (6) ADJ 720 . The Court, after considering the nature of the instrument of power of attorney and the provisions of the Registration Act as well as certain precedents of the Supreme Court held that a power of attorney is not compulsorily registerable under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act provided that it is executed and authenticated in the manner mentioned in Section 32-A/33 of the said Act which means in case they are executed outside India, they should be executed before and authenticated by Notary public as is the case before us. There is no whisper on part of the District Magistrate that the power of attorneys as produced by the petitioner have not been duly executed or have not been authenticated as provided under Registration Act. 23. No contrary decision has been cited on behalf of respondents to the effect that a power of attorney, if not registered, is a waste paper and cannot be acted upon. 24. 23. No contrary decision has been cited on behalf of respondents to the effect that a power of attorney, if not registered, is a waste paper and cannot be acted upon. 24. In view of the above, the objection that since the power of attorney of the other co-lessees submitted by the petitioner are not registered are of no value is not tenable and is not acceptable. 25. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad is hereby quahsed and a mandamus is issued directing him to proceed in accordance with the Government Order dated 01.12.1998 for the grant of freehold rights in respect of nazul plot No. 124-B, Civil Station, Allahabad in favour of all the heirs/successors of the original lease holder Late G.P. Bhargava for an area of 4370 square meters excluding 167.22 square meters which has already been converted into freehold in the name of Chandrakanta Sawla, the predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and to issue a demand for the balance amount so as to complete the proceedings as far as possible within 4 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. 26. In concluding our opinion, we would like to refer to paragraph No. 6 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad wherein he has stated that out of total of 3910 applications received for grant of freehold rights as per the Government Order dated 31.12.1998, 1872 applications have already been decided meaning thereby that 2038 applications are still pending. We hope and trust that the District Magistrate will do his best to process even these applications and complete the freehold proceedings at the earliest which may not go beyond 31st December, 2019 as already 20 years have elapsed from the commencement of the scheme. 27. The writ petition is allowed with costs.