Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Friday (November 7) struck down sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008, which had authorised registering authorities to deny registration of sale or gift deeds without proof of mutation in favour of the seller. The Bench held that the 2019 amendment introducing these provisions was beyond the scope of the Registration Act, 1908, and unlawfully curtailed the constitutional right to acquire and transfer property. While quashing the amendments, the Court highlighted the deep-rooted inconsistencies between registration and ownership under India’s colonial-era land laws and urged the Union Government to initiate comprehensive reforms, including the adoption of blockchain technology, to modernize property registration and ensure conclusive land titling.

The appeals arose from the Patna High Court judgment dismissing writ petitions that challenged the validity of sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) inserted into Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008, through a notification dated 10 October 2019. These sub-rules empowered registering authorities to refuse registration of a sale or gift deed if proof of mutation, such as Jamabandi or holding allotment in the name of the seller or donor, was not produced. The appellants had contested these amendments as being beyond the rule-making power of the Inspector General of Registration under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Also Read: Supreme Court Prohibits ‘Split Multiplier’ In Motor Accident Claims; Declares It Foreign To MV Act And Directs Compensation Based On Income At Time Of Death

The petitioners contended that mutation does not confer title and therefore cannot be made a precondition for registration. They further argued that the process of land surveys in Bihar was incomplete, making it impossible for owners to secure mutation certificates required for registration. It was submitted that requiring mutation proof violated the right to freely transfer property and amounted to an arbitrary restriction unrelated to the identification of the property itself. The High Court had dismissed these contentions, holding that the amendments were within the rule-making power under Section 69 and consistent with public policy objectives to prevent land disputes.

The State of Bihar defended the amendment, asserting that it was intended to align the registration process with actual landholding records and to promote transparency. It cited provisions of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, arguing that mutation was necessary to ensure accuracy in property records and to curb fraudulent transactions. Written submissions from the State emphasized that the requirement for Jamabandi or holding allotment supported the objective of integrating land registration with updated mutation data.

The principal statutory provisions examined were Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, which defines the rule-making power of the Inspector General of Registration, Sections 21 and 22 relating to property description and identification, and Section 55 concerning the maintenance of indexes by registering officers. The Court also referred to the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, and the Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011, to assess the State’s claim that the new rules were necessary for synchronizing land registration with real-time ownership data.

The Bench observed that “the constitutionally protected right to own immovable property inherently includes the freedom to freely acquire, possess and dispose it at will.” It recorded that efficiency and transparency in land transactions reflected the strength of institutional systems and that “our property laws have long sustained a dichotomy between registration and ownership.”

The Court examined the amendments and stated that “Sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) were introduced by way of amendments to Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008… empowering registering authorities to refuse registration of documents, if proof of mutation of the property under sale in favour of the vendor is not produced.”

It was recorded that “We have also come to the conclusion that, as the said sub-rules tilt the balance and empower the registering authorities to produce collateral evidence of title to the property as a pre-condition for registration, such a measure, through subordinate legislation, is also against the purpose and object of the Act. Further, the requirement under the impugned sub-rules is arbitrary as the process of mutation and its certification is uncertain and virtually unavailable in near future, as the Bihar Mutation Act, 2011 and the Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011 are said to be nowhere near implementation.”

In interpreting Section 69 of the Act, the Bench stated that “there is nothing in Section 69 that would enable the Inspector General to make rules enabling or requiring declaring or enclosing proof of mutation in favour of the vendor, as a condition precedent for registration of documents for sale of property.” It found that “the power to make the impugned sub-rules 19(xvii) and (xviii) cannot be traced” to any provision of the Registration Act.

The Court remarked that “the legal framework for purchase and sale of immovable properties suffers from several systemic deficiencies that undermine reliability, transparency and efficiency.” It further observed: “There are problems relating to fake and fraudulent property documents, rights and liabilities, land encroachments, delay in verification processes and the role of intermediaries.” The Bench added that “administrative problems at the office of the Sub-Registrar involving the presence of the buyer, seller and witnesses for verification, authentication and recording make the process cumbersome and time-consuming.” It also recorded that “land being a State subject under the Constitution, these procedures vary from State to State and remain highly fragmented.”

The Court declared that “a requirement of rules, regulations or even law that impedes or restrains easy and effective transfer of property will be illegal as it has the direct effect of ‘depriving of property’ to that extent, and such delays, caused due to unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions, impinge the right to hold and dispose of property.”

It also recorded that “the Registration Act mandates registration of documents, not the title… registration only serves as a public record of the transaction having presumptive evidentiary value, but it is never a conclusive proof of ownership.”

Finally, while urging reform, the Bench observed that “Blockchain technology has garnered particular attention for its potential to transform land registration into a more secure, transparent and tamper-proof system. It is suggested that adoption of Blockchain technology would ensure immutability, transparency and traceability, thereby minimizing fraud and unauthorized alterations. Blockchain technology 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. Each entry, once validated into the Distributed Ledger, becomes part of a cryptographically linked chain of information that cannot be retroactively altered without detection. This property of immutability could enhance the integrity of title records and strengthen public trust in the ownership framework. This cryptographic immutability could perhaps address the structural fragility of Indian record keeping system. 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.”

The Court concluded:“The Government of India must take the lead, with participation of the States, in constituting a body to examine the integration of property registration with conclusive titling. This will require establishing a regulatory framework that institutionalizes integrity and efficiency.”

Also Read: J&K & Ladakh High Court : Domicile Reservation In Medical Admissions Cannot Be Absolute; Vacant Seats To Be Open For Non-Locals

The Court stated: “We, therefore, request the Law Commission to examine this issue in detail, consult the Union, the States and all other stakeholders as well as experts in the field of information and technology, and prepare a report on the issue that we have highlighted.”

“We hereby allow Civil Appeals arising out of Diary Nos. 12674 of 2024 and 18064 of 2014 and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and quash Notification No.-IV.M-1-12/2019-3644 dated 10.10.2019 introducing Rule 19 (xvii) and (xviii). Parties shall bear their own costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate; Mr. A. Velan, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate-on-Record.

Case Title: Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1292
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 12674/2024 and Diary No. 18064/2024
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Joymalya Bagchi