JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. Facts of present case in brief are that -: (a) Petitioner has purchased land in question by way of sale deed dated 14.10.1991. The sale deed was executed by Khadak Singh S/o Sher Singh on basis of an unregistered power of attorney dated 23.07.1989 executed by Ram swaroop the tenant holder. (b) During consolidation proceedings, the petitioner has filed objections before Assistant Consolidation Officer that on basis of above referred sale deed, his name be recorded in revenue records. Other objections were also filed. 2. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 04.03.2006 held that power of attorney was a valid document and transaction based on said attorney would legally permissible. (b) During consolidation proceedings, the petitioner has filed objections before Assistant Consolidation Officer that on basis of above referred sale deed, his name be recorded in revenue records. Other objections were also filed. 2. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 04.03.2006 held that power of attorney was a valid document and transaction based on said attorney would legally permissible. Relevant part thereof is quoted below -: ^^fcdzh }kjk gLrk{krj.k dk eq[; vk/kkj dCtk gkrk gSA iM+rky ds le; fookfnr Hkwfe xkVk la[;k 122] 179 ij Jherh lUrks"k ifRu jes'kpUn dk dCtk ik;k x;k tks 10 o"kZ iwoZ ls crk;k x;k vkSj vkdkj i= 2d esa fookfnr Hkwfe ij Jhefr lUrks"k dk cSukesa ds vk/kkj ij dCts dk vUnkt gSA blds vfrfjDr czge flag iq= fryd jke dks lUrks"k dh vkjs ls ijh{k.k djk;k x;k gSA czge flag xzke lHkk f'kjts}kj dk rRdkyhu iz/kku gS rFkk cgcyiqj mDr xzke lHkk ds vUrxZr gSA xokg dk dFku gS fd ^^fookfnr Hkwfe dks eSaus ns[kk gSA Hkwfe ij lUrks"k vkSj muds ifr jes'k pUn dk gh dCtk gS ekSds ij xsgwa dh Qly [kM+h gSA bl izdkj xokg us fookfnr Hkwfe ij Jhefr lUrks"k dk dCtk fl) fd;k gSA izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls dksbZ ,slk lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k gS ftlls fookfnr Hkwfe ij mudk dCtk flag gksA blds vfrfjDr LFky ij xzke ys[kiky ls tkap djkbZ xbZ ys[kiky pd oknh us Hkh fnukad 21-05-05 dks fookfnr Hkwfe ij Jherh lUrks"k ifRu jes'k pUn ds dCts dh iqf"V dh gSA bl izdkj mijksDr leh{kk ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gaw fd cSukek fnukad 14-10-91 [kM+d flag ctfj;s eq[rkjs vke jkeLo:i cgd lUrks"k 'kekZ iRuh jes'k pUn ,d oS/k gLrkarj.k gS rFkk mDr gLrk{kj.k ds vk/kkj ij Jherh larks"k 'kekZ fookfnr Hkwfe dh ladze.kh; Hkwfe/kj gSA cSukek fnukad 13-11-92 jkeLo:i cgd vkseorh vkfn vkSj cSukek fnukad 01-12-92 jkeLo:i cgd ikykjke vkfn vf/kdkj {ks=ghu ,oa /kkjk 52 V~kLQj vkWQ izkWiVhZ ,DV ls ckf/kr gS vr% 'kwU; nLrkost gSA ftuds vk/kkj ij fookfnr Hkwfe esa izfroknhx.k dks dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrsA vr% rnuqlkj lHkh okn fcUnqvksa dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA fookfnr Hkwfe xkVk la[;k 122@1-72] 179@2-529 ls jke Lo:i iq= ys[kwjke ds uke vkdkj i= 45 ds [kkrk la[;k 80 ubZ xkVk la[;k 135@0-080] 137@0-0160] 163@0-790 ,oa 209@0-040 cus gSaA vr% cSukek fnukad 14-10-91 ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr Hkwfe mDr ij jke Lo:i ds LFkku ij Jhefr larks"k iRuh jes'k pUn dk uke izfrLFkkfir fd;k tkuk mfpr gSA** (Emphasis Supplied) 3. Aforesaid order was challenged by respondents before Appellate Authority. Aforesaid order was challenged by respondents before Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 03.06.2006 rejected the appeal and relevant part thereof is mentioned below -: ^^;g eq[kR;kjukek i=koyh esa fnukad 29-03-1989 vafdr gSA eq[kR;kjsukesa dh izLrqr Nk;k izfr izekf.kr 'kqnk gS blds laca/k esa vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd ;g eq[kR;kjukek jftLVMZ ugah gS vkSj lu~ 1975 ds okn viathd`r vkys[k dk dksbZ egRo ugha jg tkrk gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k eq[kR;kjsvke fnukad 29-03-89 viathd`r vkys[k gSA jftLV~s'ku ,DV 1908 la'kksf/kr ¼1977½ dh /kkjk 17 esa izkfo/kkfud fd;k x;k gS fd eq[kR;kjsvke iathd`r nLrkost gksuk pkfg, fdUrq iz'uxr eq[kR;kjsvke iathd`r ugha gS ftlls bl dFkr eq[kR;kjsvke fnukad 29-03-89 ds vk/kkj ij [kM+d flag iq= 'ksj flag dks jkeLo:i dh lEifRr dks fodz; djus dk vf/kdkj ugha FkkA bl izdkj [kM+d flag iq= 'ksj flag }kjk fu"ikfnr fodz; i= fnukad 14-10-91 'kwU; nLrkost dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA 'kwU; nLrkost ds vk/kkj ij fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks dksbZ Hkh vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gks ldrs gSaA voj U;k;ky; us blh fcUnq ij fopkj u djds xaHkhj Hkwy dh gSA blds vfrfjDr dfFkr eq[R;kjs vke viathd`r dh oS/kkfudrk dks izfri{k }kjk fl) ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,slh n'kk esa bl viathd`r vfl) eq[kR;kjsvke ds vk/kkj ij [kM+d flag iq= 'ksj flag }kjk fu"ikfnr fodz; i= fnukad 14-10-91 ds vk/kkj ij Jherh lUrks"k iRuh jes'kpan dks dksbZ gd izkIr ugha gks ldrkA bl lansgtud nLrkost ds lEcU/k esa pdcUnh va/dkjh }kjk vius fu.kZ; esa dksbZ foospuk ugha dh gSA bl izdkj voj U;k;ky; dk vkns'k xEHkhj :i ls =qfViw.kZ gSA 'kwU; nLrkost ds vk/kkj ij voj U;k;ky; }kjk nkf[ky [kkftj dk vkns'k ikfjr djds xEHkhj ewy dh gSA vihykFkhZx.k us vius i{k esa jkeLo:i }kjk fd;s x;s nksuksa cSukesa dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi nkf[ky dh gS vkSj dfFkr i{k Jherh lUrks"k us Hkh vius i{k esa eq[R;kjsvke [kM+d flag }kjk fd;s x;s cSukes izekf.kr izfrfyfi nkf[kr dh gSA fdlh Hkh i{k us cSukesa ds iwoZ nLrkost nkf[ky ugha fd;s gSaA vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s x;s izekf.kr izfrfyfi cSukeksa fnukad 01-12-92 ls Li"V gksrk gS fd jkeLo:i us xkVk la0 122 jdck 6 ch?kk 16 cLos dk jftLVMZ cSukek ikykjke o bZ'oj flag vkfn ds gd esa fu"ikfnr fd;k gSSA bl izdkj nwljk cSukek dh Nk;kizfr ls Li"V gksrk gS fd jkeLo:i iq= ys[kk jke us xkVk la0 179 jdck 10 ch?kk dk cSukek fnukad 13-11-92 dks Jherh vkseorh vkfn ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr djds iathd`r djk;k gSA cSukek fnukad 13-11-92 tks jkeLo:i us xkVk la0 179 dk fd;k gS izfri{k ml cSukesa dh xokg lkbZnkl dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;lk gS ftlesa mYys[k gS fd ;g cSukek QthZ gS cSukek jkeLo:i us ugha fd;k gS] nwljk 'kiFk i= gjh'k dqekj iq= jkeLo:i dk izLrqr fd;k gS ftlesa mYys[k gS fd ;g cSukek jkeLo:i }kjk ugha fd;s x;s gSaA cfYd fdlh vU; O;fDr dks jkeLo:i cukdj cSukek djk;s x;s gSA vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd bu 'kiFk i=ksa dk dksbZ egRo ugha gS D;ksafd izfri{k esa 'kiFkdrkZvksa dh izLrqr 'kiFk i=ksa esa vafdr rF;ksa dh iqf"V gsrq C;ku nsus ds fy, izLrqr ugha fd;k gS ftlds dkj.k mus ftjg djus dk volj Hkh ugha fn;k x;k gSA eSa bl rdZ ls lger gaw fd izfri{k dks pkfg, Fkk fd mu nksuksa 'kiFkdrkZvksa dk U;k;ky; esa ftjg ds fy, izLrqr djuk pkfg, Fkk ;g nksuksa 'kiFk i= egRoghu gSA mijksDr ds vk/kkj ij ewy Lokeh jkeLo:i Fkk [kM+d flag dks viathd`r eq[kR;kjsvkes ds vk/kkj ij Jherh lUrks"k ds gd esa cSukek djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha FkkA izfri{k us bl fookfnr eq[r;kjukes dks Hkh Hkh fl) ugha djk;k gS tcfd vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls dgk x;k gS fd ;g eq[kR;kjukek QthZ gS vkSj jkeLo:i us fu"ikfnr ugha fd;k gSA blfy, eq[kR;kjukesa dks oS/kkfud fl) djus dk izfri{k Jherh lUrks"k ij Fkk] ftldk fuokZgu djus esa og lQy ugha gq,A vr% viq"V eq[kR;kjukek }kjk Jherh lUrks"k ds gd esa fd;kl x;k cSukek uy ,.M ok;saM gSA blds vk/kkj ij fookfnr Hkwfe esa Jhefr lUrks"k dks dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrs gSaA blds foijhr ewy [kkrsnkj jkeLo:i }kjk fu"ikfnr fd;s x;s cSukeksa ij dksbZ lUnsg ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% U;k;ky; dk iz'uxr vkns'k fLFkj j[kus ;ksX; ugha gSA** (Emphasis Supplied) 4. Against the order of Appellate Authority, petitioner has filed a revision petition and same was also dismissed by an order dated 03.09.2007. Against the order of Appellate Authority, petitioner has filed a revision petition and same was also dismissed by an order dated 03.09.2007. Relevant part thereof is reproduced below -: ^^vc ns[kuk ;g gS fd D;k eq[kR;kjukek dk Hkkjrh; jftLV~s'ku ,DV ds vuqlkj iathdj.k gksuk vfuok;Z gS vFkok ughaA bl laca/k esa foi{kh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us esjk /;ku bf.M;u jftLV~s'ku ,DV 1908 dh la'kksf/kr /kkjk 17¼2½ dh vksj vkd`"V djrs gq, dgk fd eq[kR;kj ukek dk iathdj.k gksuk vfuok;Z gSA blds fojks/k esa fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/k0 dks /kkjk&85 dks mf)r djrs gq, bl ij cy fn;k gS fd eq[kR;kjukesa dk iathdj.k gksuk vfuok;Z ugha gSA eSa fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds bl er ls lger ugha gaw D;ksafd mufd }kjk Hkk0 lk{; vf/k0 dk /kkjk 85 dh tks O;oLFkk mf)r dh x;h gS mlds vuqlkj eq[kR;kjukesa dk ik= iathdj.k] blds fu"iknu dk vius vki esa i;kZIr lk{; ugha gS rFkk bl O;oLFkk esa eq[R;kjukes dks iathdj.k ls NwV iznku dh x;h gS ,slk ugha gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ dk vU; rdZ gS fd eq[kR;kjukek fnukad 29-03-89 vkSj mlds v/k/kkj ij ij fodz; i= fnukad 14-10-91 ds fujLrhdj.k dk okn flfoy U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk tks fuxjkuhdrkZ ds i{k esa fMxzh gqvk gSA vkSj flfoy U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh ikcUnh jktLo U;k;ky;ksa ij gSA bl laca/k esa i=koyh ij miyC/k flfoy U;k;ky; eqfUlQ eokuk esjB ds okn la0 129@92 jkeLo:i cuke Jherh lUrks"k vkfn esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 27-03-96 ¼QnZgdke½ dh Nk;kj izfr ds voyksdu djus ij ik;k x;k fd jkeLo:i dh vksj ls Jherh lUrks"k o [kMd flag dks i{kdkj cukrs gq, eq[kR;kjukek fnukad 29-03-89 ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k cSukek fnukad 14-10-91 dks QthZ o 'kwU; dgrs gq, fuLrkjhdj.k dk okn izLrqr fd;k Fkk tks fnukad 27-03-96 dks oknh jkeLo:i dh vuqifLFkfr o izfroknh dh mifLFkfr esa lO;; [kkfjt gqbZ gSA bl vkns'k ds fo:) jkeLo:i ds }kjk lkfcd fEcj izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k tks fnukad 21-02-98 dks lO;; fujLr dj fn;lk vFkkZr fofoy U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 27-03-96 eq[kR;kjukek vFkok cSukek ds xq.knks"k ds vk/kkj ij ugha cfYd vne iSjoh esa [kkfjt fd;k x;k gS tks jktLo U;k;ky;ksa ds fy, jsltqMhdsVk dk izHkko ugha j[krk gSA bl izdkj esa fo}ku cUnksoLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh {kjk ikfjr vkns'k esa fdlh izdkj dh fof/kd ,oa rF;kRed Hkwy ugha ikrk gS rFkk mlesa fdlh gLr{ksi dh vko';drk ugha gSA ;g fujxjkuh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** (Emphasis Supplied) 5. Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that there is no mandatory requirement that power of attorney be registered. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a judgments of Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy and others, (1979) 2 SCC 601 and Manik Majumder and ors. v. Dipak Kumar Saha (D) thr. LRs and others, 2023 INSC 34 . 6. Per contra, Sri S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned order that since power of attorney was not registered, therefore, sale deed executed in pursuance of said power of attorney was void. 7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 8. In order to consider rival submissions, relevant paragraph of Syed Abdul Khader (supra) is mentioned below -: "15. An incidental submission may be disposed of at this stage. It was urged that the Power of Attorney, Exh. P-1 is legally invalid and defective in form and that the supplementary document Exh. P-2 does not render it valid. The defect pointed out is that when Exh. P-1 was offered for registration the Sub-Registrar has nowhere noted in his endorsement that the donors of the power who executed the Power of Attorney, Exh. P-1 were identified to him by someone known to him or they were personally known to him. Undoubtedly the Sub-Registrar in order to be satisfied that there is no impersonation may require some person known to him to identify those who admit execution before him but in case the persons who have executed the deed before him are known to him the failure to endorse that fact on the deed does not render the deed invalid. In any event if those who executed the deed admit having executed the deed, the fact that the Sub-Registrar failed to endorse the fact of the persons being known to him would not render the deed invalid. A general power of attorney is not a compulsorily registrable document. No rule or regulation was pointed out to us in support of the submission that it was obligatory for the Sub-Registrar to make the endorsement that those who have executed the deed were either personally known to him or were identified by someone known to him. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention and it must be rejected." (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Another judgment was passed in Manik Majumder (supra). Therefore, there is no merit in the contention and it must be rejected." (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Another judgment was passed in Manik Majumder (supra). However, since there was a difference of opinion by Members of Bench, therefore, vide order dated 13.01.2023, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench. Relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter:- "In view of difference of opinion in the matter, Registry is directed to place the papers before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders for constituting a larger Bench to decide the controversy." 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, no reliance could be placed on Manik Majumder (supra). 11. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Kant Mishra v. State of U.P. and another, 2014 SCC Online All 15649 has held as follow -: "10. The same principle was laid down in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana [2011 (89) ALR 445 (SC).] . The relevant observations are: "A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorises the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him (see section 1A and section 2 of the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882). It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee." 11. Having regard to this position in law, the Supreme Court held in paragraph 24 of the aforesaid judgment that the Courts will not treat transactions of the nature of general power of attorney sales as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances "as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property". 12. Following these decisions of the Supreme Court, it is clear that a power of attorney does not require compulsory registration under section 17(1)(b) for the simple reason that the donor by the execution of the document only authorises the donee to act on his behalf and the instrument itself does not create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest to or in immovable property." (Emphasis Supplied) 12. In a very recent judgment, the Supreme Court of Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, 2023 INSC 1016 has considered prior judgments on issue and held as follows -: "10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries ( supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 11. Law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document. Even the judgment of this Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays down the same proposition. Reference may also be made to the following judgments of this Court: (i). Ameer Minhaj v. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar ( (2018) 7 SCC 639 ) (ii). Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi (In Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022) (iii). Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited v. Amit Chand Mitra (In SLP (C) No. 15774 of 2022) 12. The embargo put on registration of documents would not override the statutory provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered documents with respect to immovable property. Once this is the settled position, the respondent could not have maintained the suit for possession and mesne profits against the appellant, who was admittedly in possession of the property in question whether as an owner or a licensee. 13. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) would be prospective is also misplaced. 13. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) would be prospective is also misplaced. The requirement of compulsory registration and effect on non-registration emanates from the statutes, in particular the Registration A ct and the Transfer of Property Act. The ratio in S uraj La mps & Industries ( supra) only approves the provisions in the two enactments. Earlier judgments of this Court have taken the same view." 13. Considering the above referred judgments, specifically judgment passed recently in Shakeel Ahmed (supra) wherein after considering of earlier judgments, Supreme Court has held that basis of unregistered power of attorney and sale-deed, no one would acquire any right on the property. 14. In the aforesaid circumstances and since there is no dispute that power of attorney was not registered in the present case, therefore, in view of Shakeel Ahmed (supra), I do not find any ground for interference since power of attorney was not registered, therefore, any sale made on basis of said power of attorney would have no legal consequence. 15. Accordingly, writ petition being sans merit is dismissed.