Holding

The sub‑rules (xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19 are ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908 and are arbitrary, therefore they are set aside.

Summary

The appellants challenged the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 amendments that introduced sub‑rules (xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19, which made the production of jamabandi or holding‑allotment proof a condition precedent for registering sale or gift documents. The High Court of Patna dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the requirement was permissible. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the amendments fell within the rule‑making power conferred on the Inspector‑General of Registration by Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, and whether the requirement was arbitrary and violative of the constitutional right to acquire, hold and dispose of property. The Court found that Section 69 only authorises rules relating to custody of books, electronic storage, language, territorial divisions, fines, and general procedural matters, not the imposition of mutation proof as a pre‑condition. Consequently, the sub‑rules were declared ultra vires, arbitrary, and illegal. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, quashed the notification introducing the sub‑rules, and allowed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether sub‑rules (xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19 can be made under the rule‑making power granted by Section 69(1)(a) and (aa) of the Registration Act, 1908.
Whether making the production of jamabandi or holding‑allotment proof a condition precedent for registration of sale/gift documents is within the legislative competence of the State.
Whether the impugned sub‑rules are arbitrary and infringe the constitutional right to acquire, hold and dispose of immovable property.

Legislation cited

Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011
Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011
Data Protection Act, 2023
Evidence Act, 1872
Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Information Technology Act, 2000
Registration Act, 1908s. 21, s. 22, s. 55(3), s. 69(1)(a), s. 69(1)(aa), s. 69(1)(j)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regard the sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) to r.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 not produced along with if ultra vires the Act. Headnotes† Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 – r.19 (xvii) and (xviii) – Refusal of duly presented document – Sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) introduced by way of amendments to r.19 empowering registering authorities to refuse registration of documents,

Subjects

Registering authoritiesRegistration of documentsProof of mutation of the propertyRegistering documentProof of jamabandiSale or transfer of immovable propertyLand surveysUltra viresRule‑making powerDichotomy between registration and titleProperty lawsDichotomy between registration and ownershipDigital India Land Records Modernization Programme (DILRMP)National Generic Document Registration System (NGDRS)Process of digitizationBlockchain technologyDistributed LedgerRegistration of deedsTechnological advancementLaw Commission

Judgment

[2025] 11 S.C.R. 448 : 2025 INSC 1292

Samiullah
v.
The State of Bihar & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 13429 of 2025)
07 November 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regard the sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) to r.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 not produced along
with the registering document if ultra vires the Act.

Headnotes†
Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 – r.19 (xvii) and (xviii) –
Refusal of duly presented document – Sub-rules (xvii) and
(xviii) introduced by way of amendments to r.19 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 along with the registering document –
Effect of the amended sub-rules that registering authorities
can refuse registration of an otherwise validly presented
document on the ground that it did not mention and carry the
proof of jamabandi allotment or holding allotment in favour of
the seller, it is now a condition precedent to get jamabandi or
holding allotment certificate under the Bihar Land Mutation
Act, 2011 or allied laws for sale or transfer of immovable
property – Writ petition by the appellants challenging the
vires of sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of r.19 on the ground that
the addition of sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) ultra vires the Act
and beyond the scope of s.69(1)(a)(aa) – Dismissed by the
High Court – Correctness:
Held: : Impugned sub-rules are ultra vires the rule making power
u/s.69 of the Act – 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 against the purpose and object of
the Act – Requirement under the impugned sub-rules is arbitrary as
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 449

Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

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 – Intention of the State to synchronize
the registrable document with real time land holding is appreciated,
there is a big missing link given that the process of mutation and the
process of survey and settlement are nowhere near completion –
Under these circumstances and considering the nascent stage at
which the empirical data is translated as mutation into the relevant
records and the fact that for this purpose survey and settlement
are to be conducted, 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 – 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 –
Thus, 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 19 (xvii) and
(xviii) is arbitrary and illegal and as such, liable to be set aside –
Judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside and the
Notification introducing r.19 (xvii) and (xviii) quashed – Registration
Act, 1908 – s.69(1)(a)(aa). [Paras 2, 25, 29, 38]
Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 – r.19 (xvii) and (xviii) –
Distinction between the sub-rules (i) to (xvi) and the subrules
(xvii) and (xviii) of r.19 of the 2008 Rules – Explained.
[Paras 9-13]
Registration Act, 1908 – s.69 – Scope of rule-making power
u/s.69 – Sourcing the rule-making power under other provisions
of the Registration Act – Stated. [Paras 14-25]
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Registration Act, 1908 – Stamp
Act, 1899 – Dichotomy between registration and title – Existing
legal structure – Problems relating to the legal structure –
Explained. [Paras 30-33]

Property laws – Dichotomy between registration and ownership –
Inefficiencies and vulnerabilities in recording the real-estate
transactions – Measures adopted by the Government:
450 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Held: To modernize these transactions, the government adopted
certain measures-Digital India Land Records Modernization
Programme (DILRMP); National Generic Document Registration
System (NGDRS) – However, if the original record is inaccurate,
incomplete or subject to dispute, the digital version will simply
perpetuate the flaw – Process of digitization does not by itself resolve
the underlining title disputes or correct inaccuracies – Adoption of
Blockchain technology would ensure immutability, transparency and
traceability, thereby minimizing fraud and unauthorized alterations –
Blockchain technology offers 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 – Blockchain design could integrate cadastral maps,
survey data, and revenue records into single verifiable framework,
which, while maintaining a transparent audit trail, is accessible to
multiple departments and the public – 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
the issue in light of the technological advancement for integrating
the property registration regime with conclusive titling – Process
may involve restructuring and reviewing the existing laws-Transfer
of Property Act, 1882, Registration Act, 1908, Stamp Act, 1899,
Evidence Act, 1872, Information Technology Act, 2000, Data
Protection Act, 2023 and may require introduction of new laws for
incorporating Blockchain technology – This will necessarily require
establishing regulatory framework which institutionalizes processes
with integrity and efficiency – Thus, Law Commission to examine
the issue, consult the Union, the States and all other stakeholders
as well as experts in the field of information and technology, and
prepare report on the issue. [Paras 34-37]

Case Law Cited
K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar and Others, 2025 INSC 462 : [2025] 5
SCR 47 – referred to.

List of Acts
Bihar Registration Rules, 2008; Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011;
Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011; Transfer of Property
Act, 1882; Registration Act, 1908; Stamp Act, 1899; Evidence Act,
1872; Information Technology Act, 2000; Data Protection Act, 2023.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 451

Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

List of Keywords
Registering authorities; Registration of documents; Proof of mutation
of the property; Registering document; Proof of jamabandi; Sale
or transfer of immovable property; Land surveys; Ultra vires; Rule-
making power; Dichotomy between registration and title; Property
laws; Dichotomy between registration and ownership; Digital India
Land Records Modernization Programme (DILRMP); National
Generic Document Registration System (NGDRS); Process of
digitization; Blockchain technology; Distributed Ledger; Registration
of deeds; Technological advancement; Law Commission.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13429
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna at Nagpur in CWJ No. 21386 of 2019
With
Civil Appeal No. 13430 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv., A Velan, Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Prince
Singh, Nilay Rai, Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Dr. Ram Sankar, Mrs. Harini
Ramsankar, Ram Sankar & Co.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Manish Kumar, Divyansh Mishra.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Contents*

1. Introduction .......................................................................... 2
2. Facts .................................................................................... 4
3. Submissions ........................................................................ 8

* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
452 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

4. Distinction between the existing sub-rules (i) to (xvi) and
the impugned sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 ............ 9
5. Scope of rule-making power under Section 69 .................. 14
6. Sourcing the rule-making power under other provisions of
the Registration Act ............................................................. 17
7. Concerns arising out of Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 ...... 24
8. Dichotomy between registration and title ............................ 28
8.1 Existing legal structure ................................................ 28
8.2 The problems relating to the legal structure ............... 28
8.3 Technological possibilities ............................................. 30
8.4 Reformation of Land Registration processes and to
eschew “fraudulent/multiple registrations” ................... 32
8.5 Suggestions and Direction to constitute a committee ... 33
9. Conclusion ........................................................................... 34

1. Introduction.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The constitutionally protected right to own immovable property
inherently includes the freedom to freely acquire, possess and dispose
it at will. The efficiency and transparency with which immovable
property is bought and sold is demonstrative of a nation’s institutional
maturity and a testament of the confidence and trust its citizens
repose in the integrity of its legal and transactional framework.
2.1 Rather curiously, our property laws have long sustained a
dichotomy between registration and ownership. The Registration
Act, 19081 mandates the registration of documents, not titles,
and this distinction forms the cornerstone of our country’s
presumptive titling system. Since this presumption is rebuttable
in a court of law, a substantial burden rests on the prospective
buyer, who must undertake a painstaking search of title.

1 Hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 453

Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

There is no doubt that this uncertainty has been distressing
for those seeking to purchase property. Property disputes, in
fact, constitute nearly sixty six percent of all civil litigation. It is
therefore fair to ask whether the time has come to move towards
a system in which the sale and purchase of immovable property
becomes simpler, and registration serves as a conclusive proof
of ownership guaranteed by the State. We have explored this
possibility and found promise in emerging technologies such as
Blockchain, which we have directed the government to examine.
Until the convergence of conclusive titling with registration is
achieved, constitutional courts must balance the freedom to buy
and sell property with the Governmental duty to ensure integrity
in transactions. Guided by this principle, we have examined
the present case and found that the measure adopted by the
State has unduly restricted the freedom to sell property. These
perspectives gain relevance in the following context.
2.2 Sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) were introduced by way of amendments
to Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 20082, 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 along with the registering document.
These sub-rules were challenged unsuccessfully before the High
Court of Patna. In these Civil Appeals, we have accepted the
submissions and allowed the appeals on the ground that the
impugned sub-rules are ultra vires the rule making power under
Section 69 of the Act. 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.

2 Hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”.
454 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

2. Facts.
3. These appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Patna
dismissing writ petition3 filed by the appellants herein, challenging
the vires of sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19, introduced through
the 2019 amendment to the Rules on 10.10.2019.
4. The Rules, as well as the amendment in 2019, were made in exercise
of the rule making power of the Inspector General of Registration
under Section 69 of the Act. The newly added sub-rules empowering
the registering authority to refuse registration of a duly presented
document in circumstances as indicated therein are as follows;
“Rule 19 Refusal of duly presented document – A duly
represented document may be refused for registration
under following circumstances –
…
(xvii) If a document is related to sale/gift of property, in
which Jamabandi allotment to seller/donor is not mention
in the deed and no proof is produced about the Jamabandi
allotment to the seller/donor.
Provided that, it will have no effect on the document related
to the transfer of flat/apartment.
(xviii) If a document is related to sale/gift of property, in
which holding allotment to seller/donor of the flat/apartment
in urban region is not mentioned in the deed and no proof
is produced about the holding allotment to the seller/donor.
Provided that, it will have no effect on the document related
to the first transfer of flat/apartment.”
5. The effect of the amended sub-rules is simply that the registering
authorities can refuse registration of an otherwise validly presented
document on the ground that it did not mention and carry the proof
of jamabandi allotment or holding allotment in favour of the seller.
In other words, it is now a condition precedent to get jamabandi or

3 CWJ No. 21386/2019 dated 09.02.2024.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 455

Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

holding allotment certificate under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011
or allied laws for sale or transfer of immovable property.
6. Aggrieved by the additional requirement, introduced by way of the
amended sub-rules, several writ petitions came to be filed before the
High Court of Patna on two grounds; (i) that the addition of sub-rules
(xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19 is ultra vires the Act and beyond the scope
of Section 69(1)(a)(aa), (ii) that it is an admitted fact that the process of
land surveys is yet incomplete in Bihar, making it impossible for owners
to obtain jamabandi or holding allotment in order to be able to freely
deal with their properties, (iii) that it is a settled position of the law that
mutation does not create title and therefore, making it mandatory for
purpose of registration is arbitrary, and (iv) enquiry into title falls within
the jurisdiction of civil courts and the registering authorities have no
jurisdiction to refuse registration on the ground of defective title.
7. The Division Bench of the High Court, by the judgment impugned
before us, dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds;
(i) That jamabandi or holding allotment does not necessarily confer
title on the person whose name is entered in the register,
however it is indeed a compelling, although rebuttable, evidence
in favour of title.4
(ii) That arguments of the writ petitioners are mutually destructive,
wherein on the one hand it is contended that revenue entries
confer no title and yet on the other hand, their grievance is
that the amendment empowers the registering authorities to
adjudicate on question of title.5

4 “9. We have to immediately observe and affirm the trite principle, as argued by the learned counsel
for petitioners and not disputed by the State, that the ‘Holding’ or ‘Jamabandi’ recorded in a register
maintained by the State or its authorities, does not necessarily confer title on the person whose name is
entered in the register; on which if a dispute arises will have to be adjudicated by a court of law. However,
it is also a trite principle that the entry in the register maintained by the State would be compelling
evidence in favour of title, which could be displaced by more persuasive evidence, unsettling even a
claim based on that entry.
5 10. Having said that, we have to notice that the arguments raised by the petitioners are conflicting and
mutually destructive. It is argued that title cannot be decided on the mere entries made in the revenue
register; which, as we noticed, is the established principle. But it was also argued that if the entry in the
register is insisted upon, then it will be requiring the Sub- Registrar to adjudicate on the title of the land.
The arguments, so addressed, are mutually destructive and going by the established principle, based
on which the first argument is addressed, even if a registration is carried out of a document where the
‘Jamabandi’ or ‘Holding’ is specified, there is no bar from the Civil Court considering a dispute on title, in
a properly instituted suit.”
456 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(iii) That if there is an absence of jamabandi or holding allotment
by reason of an ongoing survey process in the State, then it
is for the individual owners to approach the appropriate forum
for the same.6
(iv) That the provisions of the Act taken together mandate a clear
description of the property for purpose of registration and
the impugned amendments fall right within the ambit of this
requirement.7
(v) That clause (a) and (aa) of Section 69(1) indeed do not empower
the Inspector General to make the impugned sub-rules, however,
merely mentioning the wrong provision won’t vitiate the general
rule-making power vested in him.8
(vi) That public policy considerations behind the impugned
amendment do not impair the prescription in the amended

6 “12. Section 21 of the Registration Act speaks of description of property and maps or plans. Sub-
section (1) specifically provides that a non-testamentary document relating to immovable property shall
be accepted for registration only if it contains a description of such property, sufficient to identify the same.
Section 22 is complementary to Section 21 and explains what, a description of a house and land can
be, with reference to Government maps or surveys. Sub-section (1) empowers the State Government to
prescribe by way of rules that a land or house should be described with reference to a Government map or
survey, if it is practicable so to do. This puts to rest any objection with respect to the hardship of the owners
of land, since if there is absence of a ‘Jamabandi’ or ‘Holding’ by reason of no survey being conducted
by the State, then it is for such individual owners to approach appropriate forum for relief, pointing out the
absence of the entry, by reason of the survey not having been carried out. None can be heard to raise a
claim of hardship only for reason of there being a necessity to approach a court of law.”
7 “14. Section 52 is not to be read as an obligation of the Registering Officer, on presentation of a
document, to enter the same on the mere requirement under Section 52 being satisfied. No provision in
the statute can be read in isolation and the provisions read together, would take in the other requirements
also, which mandates a clear description of the property; within which ambit would lie the present
amendments too.
15. We also have to emphasize that Section 52(1)(c) requires such entry to be made of a document
presented, only if that document is ‘admitted’ to registration; obliging the Registering Officer to look
at the other provisions of the statute so as to find the document to be capable of being admitted to
registration. Section 55, in relation to the indexes made by the Registering Officer and their contents,
also does not militate against the requirement of ‘Jamabandi/Holding’ being mandatory in a document
presented for registration.”
8 “16. Now, we have to deal with Section 69, which empowers the Inspector-General to supervise
registration offices and make rules. The registration rules have been made under Section 69. The present
amendment specifically refers to Clause (a) and Clause (aa) of Section 69(1). We are clear in our minds
that the said sub-clauses would not empower the Inspector General to make the subject amendments,
but we have to pertinently observe that the mere mentioning of a wrong provision would not vitiate the
subordinate legislation; if power can be found under the provision enabling such prescription.
17. Section 69 enables Inspector General to make a prescription by rules, consistent with the Act and
Clause (j) permits general regulation of proceedings under Registrars and Sub-Registrars. Clause (h)
also requires the particulars to be contained in Indexes Nos. I, II, III and IV respectively, which deal with
“description of property….A reading of Section 69, as a whole, along with Sections 21, 22 & 55, does not
persuade us to find an absence of power to make the subject amendment. The impugned prescription is
one, which is enjoined under Section 69.”
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 457

Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Rules, given the identification of the source of power to validly
do so under section 69.9

3. Submissions.
8. On behalf of the appellants, we heard Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra,
Senior Advocate and Mr. A. Velan, AOR. They made detailed
submissions on the impugned amendments and have also brought
to our notice certain precedents that have a direct bearing on the
issue arising for consideration, including the recent decision of this
Court in K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar and Others10. On behalf of the
State, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Manish
Kumar, AOR, has brought to our notice the purpose and object of
the amendment, intending to subserve integrity in sale transactions.
They have submitted that the impugned sub-rules are in consonance
with Section 69 of the Act and are not arbitrary.

4. Distinction between the existing sub-rules (i) to (xvi) and
the impugned sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19.
9. Rule 19 in its entirety is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference
and this includes the newly introduced sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii).
“Rule 19. Refusal of duly presented document – A duly
presented document may be refused for registration under
following circumstances –
(i) If the description of identification of the property as
defined in Rule-5 has not been given as required under
the Act and Rules.
(ii) If the executant denies execution. (Section 35)

9 “21. The learned Advocate General only pointed out the rising criminal tendencies, by reason of land
disputes and the requirement by amendment having aimed at curbing such multiplicity of claims being
raised on an identical piece of land. The requirements brought in only describe the property by way of
the entries in the Register of Raiyats, which is permissible under the Registration Act. The intention of the
Legislature or the State Government or the rule making authority, however laudable, cannot be upheld
unless the source of power to make such prescription is well defined. As a corollary, if the source is
clear and there is power on the rule making authority then merely based on intentions, unless it shocks
the conscious or is arbitrary and perverse, valid prescriptions cannot be unsettled. The source we have
found clearly under Section 69 of the Registration Act and the argument advanced of an attempt to curb
the menace of rising criminal activities, does not make the amendment invalid. Merely because public
policy having weighed with the rule making authority, would not impair the prescription, since the power
can be easily found under Section 69.”
10 2025 INSC 462.
458 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(iii) If the executant fails to appear and admit execution.
(Section 34)
(iv) If the person by whom the document purported to
have been executed were dead and his representative
or assign deny execution. (Section 35)
(v) If the person purporting to have executed the document
appear to be a minor an idiot or a lunatic. (Section 35)
(vi) If the Registering Officer is not satisfied by the identity
of the person appearing before him claiming that he has
executed the document. (Section 35)
Provided that a document shall not be refused under this
clause unless the party fails to prove this identity within
the time allowed under Section 34.
(vii) If the Registering Officer is not satisfied of the truth
of the allegation that person who executed the document
is dead. (Section 35)
Provided that a document shall not be refused for
registration under this clause unless the party fails to
prove the death of the executant within the time allowed
in Section 34.
(viii) If the admitting agent’s power-of-attorney has not
been made in accordance with the Act or if any alleged
representative or assign has failed to prove his status.
(Section 35)
(ix) If the partes fail or refuse to mention the additions of
executants and claimants.
(x) If the prescribed fee or fine has not been paid under
Section 25, 34 and 80 of the Act.
(xi) If a document is said to be executed by a deaf and
dumb person who does not understand the transaction
nor express himself by signs or in writing.
(xii) Where a person admits his signature to a document
but states that he signed the paper when it was blank and
no document was written thereon.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 459

Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

(xiii) If a deed of surrender of lease which claimed
exemption from stamp duty because the original lease was
so exempt is presented and the party refuses to produce
the original lease or a certified copy of it in order to satisfy
the Registering Officer that the document is either properly
stamped or not liable for stamp duty.
(xiv) Where any or some of the representatives of a
deceased executant deny execution while others admit it
registration of the document shall be wholly refused subject
to the provisions of Section 73 of the Act.
(xv) On refusal or neglect to appear on an appointed date
after services of summons under Section 36 of the Act.
(xvi) [-]
[Provided further that it will not affect the registration of
units/flats of those multi-storied buildings/apartments of
which at least one unit/flat has been registered before the
Bihar Registration (Amendment) Rules, 2018 notified on
30.8.2018 came into force.]
[(xvii) If a document is related to sale/gift of property,
in which Jamabandi allotment to seller/donor is not
mentioned in the deed and no proof is produced about
the Jamabandi allotment to the seller/donor.
Provided that, it will have no effect on the document
related to the transfer of flat/apartment.
(xviii) If a document is related to sale/gift of property,
in which holding allotment to seller/donor of the flat/
apartment in urban region is not mentioned in the deed
and no proof is produced about the holding allotment
to the seller/donor.
Provided that, it will have no effect on the document
related to the first transfer of flat/apartment].”
10. Circumstances in which a duly presented document can be refused
by registering authority under sub-rules (i) to (xv) of Rule 19 can
broadly be divided into following categories.
1. Circumstances where identification of property is uncertain –
sub-rule 19(i).
460 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

2. Circumstances relating to uncertainty about the executant
such as; the executant denying execution – sub-rule 19(ii), the
executant failing to appear and to admit execution – sub-rule
19(iii), executant dies – sub-rule 19(iv), executant appears to
be a minor, idiot or a lunatic – sub-rule 19(v), parties fail or
refuse to mention the addition of executants and claimants -
sub-rule 19(ix), executant being a deaf and dumb person who
does not understand the transaction – sub-rule 19(xi), persons
admitting signatures but on a blank paper – sub-rule 19(xii),
where some representatives of a deceased executant deny
execution while others admit registration - sub-rule 19(xiv) and
executants refusing or neglecting to appear – sub-rule 19(xv).
3. Circumstances where the Registering Officer is not satisfied
about the identity of person claiming to be executant – sub-rule
19(vi), or about the truth of alleged death of executant – sub-
rule 19(vii). However, the proviso to these sub-rules interestingly
mandates registration of the documents, unless the concerned
party fails to satisfy the authority within the time allowed under
Section 34.
4. Circumstances in which the legal requirements of law are not
satisfied, such as the admitting agent’s power of attorney is not
legal – sub-rule 19(viii), the prescribed fee or fine under Sections
25, 34 and 80 are not paid – sub-rule 19(x) or that the claim
of exemption from stamp duty is not proved - sub-rule 19(xiii).
11. It is evident from the above, that the four categories encompassing
the existing sub-rules (i) to (xv) of Rule 19 are relatable either to
the identity of the property, of the condition or the conduct of the
executant, the registering officer not being satisfied with the identity of
the property or the death of the executant and the legal requirements
of law with respect to POA, fee, fine or exceptions not being satisfied.
It is evident that these circumstances have no relation to proof of
title of the property. They are conditions precedent to enable the
registering authority to be certain about the identity of the property
of the executant.
12. On the other hand, the impugned sub-rules 19 (xvii) and (xviii) are
qualitatively distinct from any of the circumstances provided under
sub-rules (i) to (xv). Sub-rule 19(xvii) empowers the registering
authority to refuse registration of the document if the Jamabandi
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 461

Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

allotment of the seller is not mentioned in the deed and also if the
proof of such allotment is not produced. For the first time, the sub-rule
prescribes ‘mentioning’ with ‘proof’ of the transaction of the registrable
property under another statute, namely the Bihar Land Mutation Act,
2011. Similarly, Rule 19(xviii) empowers the registering authority to
refuse registration of a legally presented document relatable to a
flat or an apartment in an urban region if the holding allotment is
not ‘mentioned’ and the ‘proof’ is not produced.
13. The requirement under newly added sub-rules is starkly different
from the existing sub-rules.

5. Scope of rule-making power under Section 69.
14. It was argued before the High Court, and likewise before us, that
the impugned sub-rules are ultra vires the rule-making power of the
Inspector-General of Registration. For this purpose, our attention is
drawn to Section 69 of the Act, empowering the Inspector-General to
make rules. We will reproduce Section 69 in its entirety to examine
if sub-rules 19(xvii) and (xviii) could legally and validly be made in
exercise of power under Section 69, which is as follows:
“Section 69 - Power of Inspector-General to superintend
registration offices and make rules.—
(1) The Inspector-General shall exercise a general
superintendence over all the registration offices in the
territories under the State Government, and shall have
power from time to time to make rules consistent with
this Act—
(a) providing for the safe custody of books, papers
and documents;
(aa) providing the manner in which and the safeguards
subject to which the books may be kept in computer
floppies or diskettes or in any other electronic form
under sub-section (1) of section 16A;
(b) declaring what language shall be deemed to be
commonly used in each district;
(c) declaring what territorial divisions shall be
recognized under section 21;
462 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(d) regulating the amount of fines imposed under
sections 25 and 34, respectively;
(e) regulating the exercise of the discretion reposed
in the registering officer by section 63;
(f) regulating the form in which registering officers
are to make memoranda of documents;
(g) regulating the authentication by Registrars and
Sub-Registrars of the books kept in their respective
offices under section 51;
(gg) regulating the manner in which the instruments
referred to in sub-section (2) of section 88 may be
presented for registration;
(h) declaring the particulars to be contained in Indexes
Nos. I, II, III and IV, respectively;
(i) declaring the holidays that shall be observed in
the registration offices; and
(j) generally, regulating the proceedings of the
Registrars and Sub-Registrars.
(2) The rules so made shall be submitted to the State
Government for approval, and, after they have been
approved, they shall be published in the Official Gazette,
and on publication shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.”
15. The Parliament has delegated the ‘power to superintend registration
offices’ and also the power to make rules to the Inspector General
of Registration. The Inspector General is granted the power to
make rules, consistent with the provisions of the Act, to (i) provide
safe custody of books and papers – Section 69(1)(a), (ii) safeguard
books and other electronic material as per Section 16(A)- Section
69(1)(aa), (iii) declare the language that is to be used in the district -
Section 69(1)(b), declare the territorial division under Section 21 -
Section 69(1)(c), specify amounts of fines under Sections 25 and
34 - Section 69(1)(d), regulate the discretion of the registration
officer under Section 63 - Section 69(1)(e), regulate the forms for
memoranda of documents - Section 69(1)(f), regulate authentication
by registering officers of books kept under Section 51 - Section 69(1)
(g), regulate the procedure for registration under Section 88(2) -
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 463

Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Section 69(1)(gg), declare particulars to be contained in indexes I
to IV under Sections 54 and 55 - Section 69(1)(h), declare holidays -
Section 69(1)(i) and regulate proceedings of the registrars and sub-
registrars in general - Section 69(1)(j).
16. The rule making power extends to the Inspector General provisioning
the safe custody and procedure for maintaining books and documents,
the conduct of the proceedings including language and holidays,
territorial divisions, imposition of fines and regulating discretion.
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.
17. Interestingly, while the notification introducing impugned sub-rules
19 (xvii) and (xviii) sources the power of making it to Section 69(1)
(a) and (aa), the High Court came to the conclusion that the power
to introduce sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 is not relatable to
69(1)(a) and (aa). High Court, however, traced the power to make
the impugned sub-rules to Section 69(1)(h) and Section 55 (3),
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).
We will now refer to these provisions and at the same time consider
other provisions of the Act to examine the legality and authority of
sub-rules 19(xvii) and (xviii).

6. Sourcing the rule-making power under other provisions of
the Registration Act.
18. The Registration Act, 1908 was enacted to consolidate laws relating to
registration of documents. In Part II of the Act, comprising Sections 3
to 16A, the Parliament’s endeavor to institutionalize ‘Registration
Establishment’ is evident11. The Inspector General of Registration
appointed under Section 3 of the Act, has the power of general
superintendence over all registering offices in the territories of the
State Government. He is also empowered to make subordinate
legislation, as provided under Section 69. We are of the opinion
that, following good governance through modern legislation, it is
necessary to fully institutionalize the registration offices by establishing

11 Section 5
464 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

a permanent regulatory body. This will enable real time assessment
and development of the establishment through institutional efficiency
and expertise. A permanent body will enable institutional memory for
upgradation and improvement. It will also enable course correction
and modernization.
19. Part III of the Act provides for documents that are mandatorily
registrable12 and those that are optionally registrable13 and this is
followed by provisions laying down conditions precedent for successful
registration of a document. They are as follows; – firstly, the document
has to be in a language that is understood by the registrar or must
be accompanied by a true translation in a language commonly used
in the district14; secondly, the document must not have interlineations,
blanks, erasures or alterations15; thirdly, under Section 21, a non-
testamentary document with respect to an immovable property must
contain a description of subject property sufficient to identify the
same16. Further, for description of houses and land, under Section 22,
reference may be made to Government maps or surveys17. However,
sub-section (2) to Section 22 also clarifies that, save as otherwise
provided by any rule by the State Government, failure to comply

12 Section 17
13 Section 18
14 Section 19
15 Section 20
16 Section 21 - Description of property and maps or plans.—(1) No non-testamentary document
relating to immovable property shall be accepted for registration unless it contains a description of such
property sufficient to identify the same.
(2) Houses in towns shall be described as situate on the north or other side of the street or road (which
should be specified) to which they front, and by their existing and former occupancies, and by their
numbers if the houses in such street or road are numbered.
(3) Other houses and lands shall be described by their name, if any, and as being the territorial division in
which they are situate, and by their superficial contents, the roads and other properties on to which they
abut, and their existing occupancies, and also, whenever it is practicable, by reference to a Government
map or survey.
(4) No non-testamentary document containing a map or plan of any property comprised therein shall be
accepted for registration unless it is accompanied by a true copy of the map or plan, or, in case such
property is situate in several districts, by such number of true copies of the map or plan as are equal to
the number of such districts.
17 Section 22 - Description of houses and land by reference to Government maps or surveys.— (1)
Where it is, in the opinion of the State Government, practicable to describe houses, not being houses in
towns, and lands by reference to a Government map or survey, the State Government may, by rule made
under this Act, require that such houses and lands as aforesaid shall, for the purposes of section 21, be
so described.
(2) Save as otherwise provided by any rule made under sub-section (1), failure to comply with the
provisions of section 21, sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), shall not disentitle a document to be
registered if the description of the property to which it relates is sufficient to identify that property.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 465

Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

with the provisions of Section 21 shall not disentitle a document to
be registered if the description of the property to which it relates is
sufficient to identify that property.
20. In ensuing Parts, IV (Sections 23 to 27), V (Sections 28 to 31) and
VI (Sections 32 to 35), the Act provides for proper time, place and
presentation of documents for registration. Under Section 3418, the
registering authority shall enquire whether the document is duly
executed and shall satisfy himself of the identity of the persons. Under
Section 3519, the registering authority shall register the document if
he is satisfied or, shall refuse to register if conditions are not satisfied
and if so, follow procedure under Part-XII.
21. Part VII provides for procedure for enforcing appearance of executants
and witnesses for purpose of registration. This is followed by Parts
VIII and IX, which pertain to specific procedural requirements for

18 Section 34 - Enquiry before registration by registering officer.—(1) Subject to the provisions
contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered
under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents
authorised as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation
under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26:
Provided that …
(2) Appearances under sub-section (1) may be simultaneous or at different times.
(3) The registering officer shall thereupon—
(a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have
been executed;
(b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have
executed the document; and
(c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, satisfy himself of the
right of such person so to appear.
19 Section 35 - Procedure on admission and denial of execution respectively.— (1) (a) If all the
persons executing the document appear personally before the registering officer and are personally
known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are the person they represent themselves to be,
and if they all admit the execution of the document, or
(b) if in the case of any person appearing by a representative, assign or agent, such representative,
assign or agent admits the execution, or
(c) if the person executing the document is dead, and his representative or assign appears before
the registering officer and admits the execution, the registering officer shall register the document as
directed in sections 58 to 61 inclusive.
(2) The registering officer may, in order to satisfy himself that the persons appearing before him are the
persons they represent themselves to be, or for any other purpose contemplated by this Act, examine
any one present in his office.
(3) (a) If any person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution, or
(b) if any such person appears to the registering officer to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic, or
(c) if any person by whom the document purports to be executed is dead, and his representative
or assign denies its execution, the registering officer shall refuse to register the document as to the
person so denying, appearing or dead:
Provided that
466 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

presenting of wills and authorities to adopt and deposit of wills,
respectively. Part X of the Act expounds the effects of registration
and non-registration of documents.
22. Part XI lays down the duties and powers of the registering officers
and for this purpose, this Part is divided into five sub-parts. Sub-part
A deals with maintenance of Register-books and Indexes. Sub-part
B deals with the procedure on admitting to registration. Sub-parts
C and D deal with special duties of Sub-Registrar and Registrars
respectively. Finally, sub-part E deals with the controlling powers of
the Registrars and the Inspector-General of Registration.
22.1 In sub-part A, Section 51 mandates maintenance of Register-
books 1 to 5, to be kept in all registration offices. Sections
52 deal with the duties of the registering officers when the
document is presented. Section 53 and 5420 requires entries and
current indexes of the books to be maintained. Section 55 in
particular details the indexes and the contents to be maintained
by the registering officers.21 There shall be four indexes; Index
I contains the names of all persons executing and persons
claiming under the document, Index II shall contain particulars
in Section 21 and as prescribed by the Inspector-General from
time to time, similar prescriptions are provided for Indexes III
and IV. It is imperative to note that the question of particulars to
be filled in respective Indexes comes in at a stage succeeding
the registration process and not at a stage prior it.
23. A detailed examination of the relevant provisions of the Act, coupled
with Sections 21 and 22 and also Section 69(1)(h) read with

20 Section 54 Current indexes and entries therein.—In every office in which any of the books hereinbefore
mentioned are kept, there shall be prepared current indexes of the contents of such books; and every
entry in such indexes shall be made, so far as practicable, immediately after the registering officer has
copied, or filed a memorandum of, the document to which it relates.
21 Section 55 - Indexes to be made by registering officers, and their contents.—(1) Four such indexes shall
be made in all registration offices, and shall be named, respectively, Index No. I, Index No. II, Index No.
Ill and Index No. IV.
(2) Index No. I shall contain the names and additions of all persons executing and of all persons claiming
under every document entered or memorandum filed in Book No. 1.
(3) Index No. II shall contain such particulars mentioned in section 21 relating to every such document
and memorandum as the Inspector-General from time to time directs in that behalf.
(4) Index No. III …
(5) Index No. IV …
(6) Each Index shall contain such other particulars, and shall be prepared in such form, as the Inspector-
General from time to time directs.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 467

Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Sections 55(3), do not indicate anything as assumed by the High
Court. At the same time a detailed examination of Sections 21, 22
and 55(3) only evidences the requirement of sufficient description
to property. All these requirements are intended only to identify
the property and for this purpose the provisions enable reference
to maps, plans or surveys, if practicable. The reality is that, none
of these provisions require reference to or production of proof of
mutation in the name of the owner. That is to say, the provision does
not relate to the right of disposition of the executant in respect of
a property which is otherwise physically identifiable. The power to
make the impugned sub-rules 19 (xvii) and (xviii) cannot be traced
to these provisions.
24. We will now examine Section 69(1)(a) and (aa), as referred to and
relied on by the Government to frame the impugned sub-rules. These
provisions only relate to the power of Inspector General of Registration
to frame rules for “safe custody of books, papers and documents”
and also for “providing the manner in which and safeguards subject
to which books may be kept in …. electronic form.” Equally, Section
69(1)(j) 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”.
25. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in concluding that the
impugned sub-rules are ultra vires the rule-making power under
Section 69 or any other provisions of the Act.

7. Concerns arising out of Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.
26. In addition to the above, Mr. Ranjit Kumar has submitted that the
impugned sub-rules must be understood in the context of the
endeavor of the state to synchronize registration of documents with
the reality of actual land holding. This submission is well articulated
in the written submission of the State;
“8. The Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 was enacted to
make the mutation concomitant with the needs of the
present time. The Act provides for mutation of all the
Revenue records/Jamabandi by the owners acquiring or
have acquired any interest in the property before or after
the 2011 Act. Section 4 prescribes that after registration of
any document the Authority shall inform the Circle Officer
468 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of the Area. This is for the purpose of Mutation of the land
records. In the absence of Jamabandi/holding details the
very purpose of 2011 Act would be defeated.
12. The name of owner in Jamabandi (rural land) or holding
number (urban land) is essential for land revenue and
municipal taxes/property taxes etc. Whenever, there is a
change of ownership of the land or flat, the new owner
gets the mutation done in the revenue or municipal records
in accordance with the Land Mutation Act, 2011. A person
can apply for online mutation of his/her name and this is
done in a fixed time frame.
13. Bihar Mutation Act, 2011 provides for mutation of
records in the name of the person holding rights in a
property either through transfer or inheritance. Entire land
records in the State have been digitalized and a person can
apply online for mutation of his/her name in the Jamabandi/
land records. The process is ongoing. The petitioners are
those persons who wanted to sell the property despite
their names not being recorded in the revenue records.
They may have their personal reasons for not getting the
Mutation done, but this cannot be a ground to challenge
the validity of a Rule made by the State.
15. The present amendment in Registration Rules aims
to address the public interest and compliance of Mutation
Act, 2011. Once the mutation is done, there shall be no
problem in compliance with the Rules.
18. ……A person can always apply for mutation of
Jamabandi and 2011 Act provides a fixed time frame
(within 21 days) for grant of mutation.
20. Jamabandi (Section 2(26)) and Jamabandi register
(26-A) has been defined under the Bihar Mutation Act,
2011 and Registration Rules refers to such a definition.”
27. Instead of joining issue on the intentions and good governance of
the State to take corrective measure through the 2011 legislation, Mr.
Manan Kumar Mishra has drawn our attention to the ground reality
of mutations, surveys and settlement in Bihar. He would submit that
80% jamabandis are in the names of the ancestors of the real and
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 469

Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

current land holders/owners. In fact, 95 to 98% of the persons in
whose names jamabandi runs, are dead, and even their legal heirs
upto two-three generations are no more. Moreover, there are several
legal heirs of one jamabandidar.
28. In addition to the above, Mr. Velan has submitted that the Cadastral
Survey of lands in the State of Bihar is traceable to the year 1911
and no statewide survey was undertaken post 1950. Though localized
surveys in some districts were undertaken, the Revenue Records/
Jamabandi on the strength of the said surveys were not mutated. Mr.
Velan has submitted that the State of Bihar taking cognizance of this
reality legislated the Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011
(Act 24 of 2011), with the object to effect survey of the entire state.
It is to be noted that the said Act acknowledged that the tenancy
register has not been maintained and mutations effected are not
reflected. The relevant portions are extracted below;
“(vi) WHEREAS, Continuous Khatian (Register-1B), Khesra
Register and Register-II (Tenants’ Ledger) supposed to be
maintained in the Anchal Offices in an up-to-date manner,
have not been maintained as such, and consequently,
transfers, successions, mutations, etc., taking place from
time to time, have not been reflected therein;
(vii) WHEREAS, computerization of land records as
sponsored by the Government of India some years ago
has not followed a uniform approach;
(viii) WHEREAS, in the event of non-synchronisation of
data put into the computer with to-date ground realities,
there has been a gap between successive claims of title
and a reflection of the same through land records;
(ix) WHEREAS, modern technology is available to minimize
time spent on survey part, while the settlement aspect
may be judiciously squeezed without sacrificing quality,
transparency and grievance redressal;
(xi) WHEREAS, digital maps prepared through modern
technology need be verified and compared with the maps
prepared through conventional methods as well as a ground
truthing of the same is necessary, the technically qualified
Licensed Surveyors may be assigned with this task.
470 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(xiii) WHEREAS, an in-built computerized and digital
system of the maintenance of the Record of Rights including
maps in a sine-qua-non for all development processes
and the aforesaid technically qualified persons may be
assigned with this task on a regular basis.”
29. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the opinion
that while we appreciate the intention of the state to synchronize
the registrable document with real time land holding, there is a big
missing link given that the process of mutation and the process
of survey and settlement are nowhere near completion. Under
these circumstances and considering the nascent stage at which
the empirical data is translated as mutation into the relevant
records and the fact that for this purpose survey and settlement
are to be conducted, 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. 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. We
therefore hold 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 19 (xvii) and (xviii) is arbitrary and illegal and as such,
liable to be set aside.

8. Dichotomy between registration and title.

8.1 Existing legal structure.
30. Right to own immovable property naturally encompasses the freedom
to purchase and sell property. The ease by which such property is
bought and sold is reflective of the confidence and trust in institutional
transactions.
31. The legal architecture for property transactions in India continues
the colonial construct of real property and operates on the basis of
three primary legislations-all of them century-old, the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration
Act, 1908.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 471

Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

8.2 The problems relating to the legal structure.
32. Rather strangely these legislations have long sustained dichotomy
between ownership and registration. While Transfer of Property
Act provides substantive legal framework for purchase and sale
of immovable property and the Stamp Act imposes a fiscal charge
on the transferable property as a precondition for registration, the
Registration Act institutionalizes the process of registering documents
to create a public record of immovable property transactions. The
Registration Act mandates registration of documents, not the title
and this distinction is the fundamental character of our country’s
presumptive titling system through registration. 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 presumption
is rebuttable and can always be challenged in a court of law. This
system has therefore 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,
sometimes going beyond 30 years or more, to ensure marketable
title. The uncertainty also compels obtaining a no encumbrance
certificate from the sub registrar’s office to confirm that the property
is free from legal liabilities or mortgage. Property purchase has not
been easy, it is not difficult to find people grudgingly telling us that it
is in fact traumatic. The present system of presumptive title through
registration is also the primary contributor to high volume of land
related litigation in India. Property disputes account for an estimated
66% of all civil cases. More than a century has passed by, and we
must dare to think and look for alternatives.
33. The legal framework for purchase and sale of immovable properties
suffer from several systemic deficiencies that undermine reliability,
transparency and efficiency. There are problems relating to i) fake
and fraudulent property documents, ii) rights and liabilities, iii) land
encroachments, iv) delay in verification processes, and v) role of
intermediaries etc. In addition to these, there are also administrative
problems at the office of the sub-registrar of registration, involving the
statutory and regulatory requirements of the presence of the buyer
and seller along with two witnesses for document verification, legal
authentication collection, and official recording, all of which require
472 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

coordination, synchronization, and our experience has shown us that
this process is cumbersome and time consuming. Moreover, land
being a state subject under the Constitution, these procedures vary
from state to state and are highly fragmented.

8.3 Technological possibilities.
34. Recognizing the profound inefficiencies and vulnerabilities in recording
the real-estate transactions, Government in its effort to modernize
these transactions has adopted certain measures such as the Digital
India Land Records Modernization Programme (DILRMP) and the
National Generic Document Registration System (NGDRS). These
measures involve computerization of land records, cadastral maps,
integration of textual and spatial data and digitization of registration.
Digitization is the process of creating an electronic copy of the existing
paper record and if the original record is inaccurate, incomplete or
subject to dispute, the digital version will simply perpetuate the flaw.
The process of digitization does not by itself resolve the underlining
title disputes or correct inaccuracies. Reformation based on conclusive
titling is a colossal administrative and legal challenge. Under the
Madras Presidency, a massive survey and settlement was undertaken
to rectify and authenticate grant and subsistence of Inams, leading
to making of the Inam Fair Registration, commonly called the IFR.
Because of the comprehensive and accurate recording, the IFR
came to be relied on as a conclusive proof of title and the IFR was
called the great act of the State. We cannot hazard a guess as to
the possibility of such an exercise for conclusive proof of title through
registered documents. However, due to technological advancement,
it is now possible to reflect on the possible convergence of title
perfection in a registered document. “No sensible decision can be
made any longer without taking into account not only the world as
it is, but the world as it will be.”22

8.4 Reformation of Land Registration processes and to eschew
“fraudulent/multiple registrations”.
35. Fortunately, due to technological advancement this process is duly
and more accurately achievable. We have incorporated emerging

22 Isaac Asimov; Asimov on Science Fiction.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 473

Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

technologies as instruments of institutional reform. 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.

8.5 Suggestions and Direction to constitute a committee.
36. We take note of the technological advancement only to suggest that
there is now a possibility of overcoming the binary that our laws
have created in maintaining a register for transfers for long, but have
neither granted credibility or conclusiveness of title. At the same
time, the process of registration is cumbersome and time-consuming.
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 in light of the technological advancement
for integrating the property registration regime with conclusive titling.
The process may involve restructuring and reviewing our existing laws,
i.e. the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Registration Act, 1908, Stamp
Act, 1899, Evidence Act, 1872, Information Technology Act, 2000,
Data Protection Act, 2023 and may require introduction of new laws
for incorporating Blockchain technology with necessary safeguards.
This will necessarily require establishing regulatory framework which
institutionalizes processes with integrity and efficiency.
37. We, therefore, request the Law Commission to examine this issue
in detail, consult the Union, the States and all other stakeholders
474 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

as well as experts in the field of information and technology, and
prepare a report on the issue that we have highlighted.

9. Conclusion.
38. Returning to the dispute under consideration, 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).
39. Parties shall bear their own costs.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain