Authority is not title: the Gurugram land case that settled power-of-attorney sales

The Gurugram case

The case began as a petition from a company, Suraj Lamp and Industries. It said that in 1991 a family sold it two and a half acres in Wazirabad village, Gurgaon (now Gurugram), through an agreement of sale, a general power of attorney and a will, for Rs 7,16,695. Years later, it said, another party obtained a registered power of attorney over the same land from the same family and the earlier power of attorney was cancelled. By 2009 the dispute had produced criminal complaints and a petition before the Supreme Court. (1)

Two Supreme Court judges used the petition to look at the wider practice. They called it a typical example of an irregular process spreading across the country, and asked the Union and five states, including Haryana, how common it was. (1)

Why people used the route

The 2009 order lists who resorts to these "power of attorney sales" on freehold land: vendors with imperfect title who cannot or do not want to execute a registered deed; buyers who want to put undisclosed money into property without a public record; and buyers avoiding stamp duty and registration charges. (1) The order adds that, when prices rise, vendors who sold without a registered document are tempted to sell again, and that the result is disputes over possession and title. (1)

What the Court held

In 2011 a three-judge bench held that transfer of immovable property by sale can only be by a registered deed of conveyance. It held that sale agreement, power of attorney and will transactions do not convey title and do not amount to a transfer, and that a power of attorney is "not an instrument of transfer". It also said an agreement to sell does not, of itself, create any interest in the property. (2, 3) The Court said the ruling would not unsettle past transactions already acted upon; it applies going forward. (3)

The Supreme Court repeated the position in 2019. (3)

What the Court did not hold

The Court was careful to protect genuine transactions. It said its observations were not meant to affect the validity of sale agreements and powers of attorney in genuine transactions. A person can give a power of attorney to a spouse, child, sibling or relative to manage affairs or to execute a deed of conveyance, and development agreements with builders remain a separate, regulated matter. (2, 3)

So a power of attorney is still useful. It evidences authority to act for an owner. What it cannot do is stand in for the conveyance that moves title.

Why this matters for off-market land today

Off-market deals often arrive through a chain: owner, relative or attorney, broker, another broker. The Supreme Court's distinction gives a clean way to test each link.

• Authority asks whether the person offering the asset can act for the owner. Evidence is a signed mandate letter, a board resolution, a registered power of attorney, or a chain of written attestations. (5)
• Title asks whether the owner owns the asset. Evidence is a chain of registered conveyances, not a statement.

Market research reaches the same place from another direction. Knight Frank's H1 2026 warehousing report says viable industrial land is scarce, held back by fragmented ownership, unresolved title chains and inconsistent zoning. (4)

Limits of this note

This is a plain-language summary of public judgments, not legal advice. The law on powers of attorney has developed in later cases, and genuine transactions are judged on their facts. Take legal advice on any specific parcel.