As per case facts, original khatedars' land was acquired by JDA. They subsequently entered into an agreement to sell with Roopwas Model Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti (Metrocity Vikas Samiti) for ... a housing society. Later, Mahesh Kumar Jain also obtained an agreement for sale and Power of Attorney from the khatedars for the same land. However, the khatedars cancelled his Power of Attorney and denied the agreement. Despite this, Mahesh Kumar Jain obtained unregistered lease deeds for developed land in his name. The land acquisition was later cancelled. Metrocity Vikas Samiti developed a housing scheme, and JDA issued public notices for regularization. Mahesh Kumar Jain challenged these regularization notices before the JDA Appellate Tribunal, which allowed his appeals, setting aside JDA's notices and directing JDA to hand over land to him. The petitioners (Metrocity Vikas Samiti, Hari Narain Sharma, and JDA) appealed to the High Court, arguing that Mahesh Kumar Jain's claims were based on forged and unregistered documents, and the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. The question arose whether Mahesh Kumar Jain held valid rights to the land based on unregistered lease deeds and a disputed Power of Attorney, and if the Appellate Tribunal correctly adjudicated these claims. Finally, the High Court, citing Apex Court judgments, ruled that unregistered documents and a Power of Attorney do not confer title to immovable property. It found the Tribunal's order perverse and beyond its jurisdiction in adjudicating agreement validity. The High Court set aside the Appellate Tribunal's order and dismissed Mahesh Kumar Jain's original appeals, thus upholding the JDA's regularization process.