Supreme Court: The present appeal assailed the judgment passed by Patna High Court (‘the High Court’), wherein the appellant’s petition challenging the vires of Rules 19(xvii) and 19(xviii) of Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 (‘Bihar Registration Rules’), mandating mutation proof for property registration, was dismissed. The Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., stated that, considering the nascent stage at which the empirical data is translated as mutation into the relevant records, restraining registration till the jamabandi is effected would be illegal, as it has a direct impact on the right and freedom to purchase and sell property. Thus, the Court held that the prescription of mentioning and production of jamabandi allotment or holding allotment as a pre-condition for registration of a legally presented document under impugned sub-rules is arbitrary and illegal and as such, liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and quashed the Notification introducing the impugned sub-rules. Further the Court highlighted deficiencies in the land registration system and requested the Law Commission to examine this issue in detail, after consulting the Union, the States, as well as experts in the field of information and technology, and prepare a report on the said issue.
Background
Rules 19(xvii) and 19(xviii) of the Bihar Registration Rules were introduced through 2019 Amendment, and the effect of these newly amended sub-rules was that the registering authorities could refuse registration of an otherwise validly presented document on the ground that it did not carry the mutation proof, i.e., proof of jamabandi allotment or holding allotment in the seller’s favour. Bihar Registration Rules and its Amendment in 2019, were made in the exercise of the rule making power of the Inspector General of Registration under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 (‘the Act’).
Aggrieved by this additional requirement introduced by the impugned sub-rules, several writ petitions were filed before Patna High Court, alleging that the addition of sub-rules to Rule 19 was ultra vires and beyond the scope of Section 69(1)(a)(aa) of the Act. Further, it was stated that the process of land surveys is yet incomplete in Bihar, making it impossible for owners to obtain jamabandi, to be able to freely deal with their properties. However, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
A. Validity of the impugned sub-rules
The Court noted that the existing sub-rules of Rule 19 are the conditions precedent to enable the registering authority to be certain about the identity of the property of the executant. Whereas, the impugned sub-rules were qualitatively distinct, as for the first time, the sub-rule prescribes ‘mentioning’ with ‘proof’ of the transaction of the registrable property under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.
The Court observed that while the notification introducing impugned sub-rules sourced the power of making it to Section 69(1)(a) and (aa) of the Act, the High Court traced the power to make the impugned sub-rules to Sections 69(1)(h) and 55 (3) of the Act, read with Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, or in the alternative to the Inspector General’s general rule-making power under Section 69(1)(j) of the Act. The Court stated that the detailed examination of these provisions, did not indicate anything as assumed by the High Court, as the power to make the impugned sub-rules could not be traced to these provisions.
The Court examined Section 69(1)(a) and (aa) of the Act and stated that these provisions relate to the power of Inspector General of Registration to frame rules for “safe custody of books, papers and documents” and for “providing the manner in which and safeguards subject to which books may be kept in …. electronic form.” Similarly, Section 69(1)(j) of the Act, also does not legitimize making of the impugned sub-rules, as it only enables making of rules for “generally regulating the proceedings of registrars and sub-registrars”. Thus, the Court concluded that the impugned sub-rules were ultra vires the rule-making power under Section 69 or any other provisions of the Act.
The Court appreciated the State’s intention to synchronize the registrable document with real time land holding, but stated that, considering the nascent stage at which the empirical data is translated as mutation into the relevant records, interlinking and restraining registration till the jamabandi or holding allotment is effected would be illegal, as it has a direct impact on the right and freedom to purchase and sell property.
Thus, the Court held that the prescription of mentioning and production of jamabandi allotment or holding allotment as a pre-condition for registration of a legally presented document under impugned sub-rules is arbitrary and illegal and as such, liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and quashed the Notification introducing the impugned sub-rules.
B. Dichotomy between registration and title
i. Existing legal structure and problems related to it
The Court stated that right to own immovable property encompasses the freedom to purchase and sell property and the ease by which such property was bought and sold was reflective of the trust in institutional transactions. The legal architecture for property transactions in India operates on the basis of three primary legislations, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908.
The Court stated that the Registration Act mandates registration of documents, not the title. Thus, registration of a document recording purchase of immovable property does not confer guaranteed title of ownership, instead it only serves as a public record of the transaction having presumptive evidentiary value, but it is never a conclusive proof of ownership. The Court stated that the legal framework for purchase and sale of immovable properties suffer from several systemic deficiencies that undermine reliability, transparency and efficiency. Apart from several administrative problems at the office of the sub-registrar of registration, there are problems relating to fake and fraudulent property documents, land encroachments, role of intermediaries etc.
The Court stated that this system has placed a significant burden of due diligence on a prospective buyer who must undertake a painstaking title search, examining the chain of ownership through a series of past deeds, to ensure marketable title. Property purchase has not been easy and the present system of presumptive title through registration is also the primary contributor to high volume of land related litigation in India.
ii. Technological possibilities and reformation of land registration processes
The Court noted that recognizing the profound inefficiencies in recording the real-estate transactions, Government adopted certain measures such as the Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme and the National Generic Document Registration System. These measures involve computerization of land records, cadastral maps, integration of textual and spatial data and digitization of registration.
The Court stated that the fortunately, due to technological advancement, this process is duly and more accurately achievable. Blockchain technology has garnered particular attention to transform land registration into a more secure, transparent and tamper-proof system. It is said to offer an alternative paradigm by encoding land titles, ownership histories, encumbrances, and by recording transfers on a Distributed Ledger in an immutable and time stamped form. Further, the Blockchain design could integrate cadastral maps, survey data, and revenue records into a single verifiable framework, which, while maintaining a transparent audit trail, is accessible to multiple departments and the public.
iii. Suggestions and Directions to constitute a committee
The Court stated that the registration of deeds being a concurrent list subject, Government of India must take lead in constituting a body, with the participation of the States, to examine this issue considering the technological advancement. The process might involve restructuring/reviewing our existing laws and might require introduction of new laws for incorporating blockchain technology with necessary safeguards.
Thus, the Court requested the Law Commission to examine this issue in detail, consult the Union, the States, all other stakeholders as well as experts in the field of information and technology, and prepare a report on the issue that is highlighted in the present case.
[Samiullah v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2370, decided on 7-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.; Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra, Adv. ; Anjul Dwivedi, Adv.; Sai Girdhar, Adv.; Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv.; Harini Ramsankar, Adv.; M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR; A Velan, AOR; Navpreet Kaur, Adv.; Nilay Rai, Adv.; Prince Singh, Adv.; Kanika Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondents: Manish Kumar, AOR; Divyansh Mishra, Adv.; Kumar Saurav, Adv.
