Leasehold-to-freehold conversion requires enforceable authority and possession; a collusive decree cannot create a right to convert.

Leasehold-to-freehold conversion under Clause 13 of the Conversion Scheme was unavailable because the applicant was neither the holder of a valid subsisting power of attorney nor otherwise vested with an enforceable legal right in the property. The decree for specific performance did not cure the absence of title or satisfy the scheme's requirement that the application be made by a person authorised by the lessee, sub-lessee or allottee and supported by proof of possession and the required linkage. The Supreme Court held that writ mandamus could not issue without an existing legal right, and the High Court's direction for conversion was unsustainable. The appeal succeeded and the conversion claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent, on the basis of a decree for specific performance and a power-of-attorney arrangement, was entitled to seek conversion of the leasehold property into freehold under Clause 13 of the Conversion Scheme.

Analysis: Clause 13 permitted conversion in cases where the lessee, sub-lessee or allottee had parted with possession, but only when the application was made by a person holding power of attorney from the lessee, sub-lessee or allottee to alienate the property, and when possession and the requisite linkage were established. The respondent was neither the holder of a subsisting power of attorney nor the owner of the property, and the decree for specific performance was treated as collusive because the suit was filed by persons who were not parties to the original agreement and was used to bypass stamp duty, registration charges and unearned increase payable to DDA. The decree did not cure the respondent's want of title or bring him within Clause 13. In writ jurisdiction, mandamus could issue only where a legal right existed, and on the date of the writ petition the respondent had no such enforceable right to demand conversion.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to conversion of the property under Clause 13, and the High Court's direction for conversion could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was set aside, the appeal succeeded, and the respondent was left to pursue any permissible remedy in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who is neither the holder of a valid subsisting power of attorney nor otherwise vested with an enforceable legal right in the property cannot claim leasehold-to-freehold conversion under a scheme that expressly requires such authority and proof of possession.

---