In 2012, the state government had made it incumbent upon the registrar of properties to issue notice to owner of the property, if a deal was sought to be struck by property dealers. Besides the provision of issuing notice to original property owners by officials, the government had also mandated such PoA holders to file affidavits and furnish various details about the owner, his wish etc. before the authorities.

This provision was challenged before the high court by some petitioners through senior advocate Deven Parikh, who argued that the conditions imposed on PoA holders during property transactions were in violation of the Registration Act as well as the Power of Attorney Act.

The circular has an overreaching effect on the Central law, which is illegal, argued Parikh. Witho ut making amendment in the Power of Attorney Act, which grants certain powers to PoA holders, the state government cannot make provisions by issuing office orders which are in violation of a law.

The state government defended its gesture by arguing that the provisions were incorporated in the circular to restrict chances of any fraud being committed.

The court was not convinced with the government’s contention and observed, “The law of the land takes care of the fraud, if committed.“