This landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India addressed a crucial question: whether registration authorities can refuse registration of sale deeds unless the seller produces proof of mutation or “jamabandi” allotment in his name under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011. The Court held that such a requirement was ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908, and arbitrary, as it imposed an unreasonable restriction on the constitutional right to own and transfer property.
Title of the Case: Samiullah v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1292
Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Judges: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Judgment: November 7, 2025
The case also turned into a profound reflection on the future of land registration in India, with the Court recommending technological integration and possible adoption of blockchain to modernise property registration and ensure transparency and integrity in ownership.
Background and Context
India’s property registration system historically distinguishes between registration of documents and ownership of title. The Registration Act, 1908, mandates registration of transfer documents but does not guarantee ownership, leading to a system of presumptive titling that can be challenged in court. The result is widespread uncertainty, contributing to approximately 66% of all civil litigation being land-related.
State of Bihar, aiming to strengthen property transaction integrity, amended Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 on 10 October 2019, introducing sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii). These sub-rules empowered registering officers to refuse registration of sale or gift deeds if the seller failed to produce proof of jamabandi (for rural lands) or holding allotment (for urban properties).
The amendment effectively made mutation-proof a prerequisite for property registration, linking the Registration Act, 1908 with the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011. The amendment was challenged in multiple writ petitions before the Patna High Court, which dismissed them in February 2024, prompting the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Facts of the Case
The appellants, including Samiullah, challenged the constitutional validity of sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008. These sub-rules stated:
“If a document relates to sale/gift of property, in which Jamabandi allotment to the seller/donor is not mentioned in the deed and no proof is produced about such allotment, registration may be refused.”
This meant that no property transaction could be registered unless proof of mutation (or holding allotment) was provided.
The appellants argued that this condition violated their right to freely dispose of property and went beyond the rule-making power conferred by Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908. They also pointed out that mutation records across Bihar were incomplete, with the 2011 Mutation and Survey Acts yet to be effectively implemented.
Issues for Determination
The Supreme Court identified the following central issues:
- Whether sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 were ultra vires Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908?
- Whether making proof of mutation a precondition for registration, arbitrary or violative of property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution?
- Whether such a rule conflicted with the object and purpose of the Registration Act and existing jurisprudence distinguishing registration from title?
- What systemic reforms were needed to prevent fraudulent or multiple registrations and modernize the registration system?
Submissions of the Parties
Appellants (Samiullah & Ors.)
Represented by Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, the appellants argued that:
- The Inspector General of Registration had no authority under Section 69 to impose a condition requiring proof of mutation.
- Mutation does not confer ownership; it is merely an entry in revenue records for tax purposes.
- The amendment created an impossible condition, as most properties in Bihar had outdated or non-existent jamabandi records due to the incomplete implementation of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011.
- The rule delegated judicial powers to the registering authority to decide title, which is the exclusive domain of civil courts.
Respondent (State of Bihar)
Represented by Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, the State defended the rule, stating that:
- The amendment aimed to curb fraudulent sales and multiple transactions involving the same property.
- The mutation process in Bihar was being digitised, and citizens could obtain certificates online within 21 days.
- The impugned sub-rules were consistent with public policy and traceable to the general rule-making power under Section 69(1)(j).
Findings of the Patna High Court
Patna High Court had upheld the validity of the rules on the following grounds:
- While jamabandi does not confer a title, it serves as compelling evidence of ownership.
- The petitioners’ arguments were “mutually destructive”: if revenue entries did not confer title, requiring them for registration did not prejudice anyone.
- The absence of updated surveys did not invalidate the rule; landowners could seek relief individually.
- The High Court found the source of rule-making power under Section 69(1)(h) and (j), read with Sections 21, 22, and 55 of the Act.
- It accepted the State’s justification of public policy—reducing land disputes and promoting revenue discipline.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
(A) Distinction Between Old and New Sub-Rules
The Court carefully examined Rule 19 (i–xvi) and found that all existing sub-rules allowed refusal of registration only on procedural or identity-related grounds, such as:
- Defects in property description;
- Non-appearance of executants;
- Defective power of attorney;
- Non-payment of fees, etc.
In contrast, sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) required proof of title (mutation or jamabandi) — something beyond the scope of registration. The Court held that title verification lies exclusively with civil courts, not registration authorities.
“These circumstances have no relation to proof of title. They only ensure certainty about the identity of the property and executant.”
Thus, the new sub-rules were a qualitative departure from the purpose of Rule 19.
(B) Scope of Rule-Making Power under Section 69
The Court analysed Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, which empowers the Inspector General to make rules concerning:
- Safe custody of books and documents,
- Language and territorial divisions,
- Discretionary powers, forms of records, and office management.
However, no provision authorises the Inspector General to demand mutation proof as a precondition to registration. The Court found no nexus between Section 69 and the impugned sub-rules.
“There is nothing in Section 69 that enables the Inspector General to make rules requiring proof of mutation as a condition precedent for registration.”
The High Court’s reliance on Sections 21, 22, and 55 was also rejected since those sections only require sufficient description to identify property, not proof of ownership.
Therefore, the Court declared the rules ultra vires the Registration Act.
(C) Bihar Mutation Act and Ground Realities
The Court acknowledged the State’s good intentions behind synchronising registration with actual ownership, but emphasised that:
The Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011 were not fully implemented.
Most jamabandi records were outdated—80% were in ancestors’ names, and 95–98% of those recorded were deceased.
The survey and settlement process was “nowhere near completion.”
Hence, making mutation-proof mandatory would deprive citizens of their right to transfer property, rendering the rule arbitrary and unreasonable.
“A rule that impedes or restrains easy transfer of property is illegal as it directly deprives citizens of property rights.”
(D) Dichotomy Between Registration and Ownership
The Court then delved into the larger legal problem—India’s presumptive titling system, where registration of a sale deed only serves as prima facie evidence, not conclusive proof of title. The Registration Act, 1908, thus maintains a dichotomy between registration and ownership.
- Buyers must still undertake extensive title searches spanning decades.
- Encumbrance certificates offer limited assurance.
- The system fuels litigation, fraud, and bureaucratic delay.
The Court noted that over two-thirds of civil litigation in India arises from property disputes, revealing systemic inefficiency.
(E) Towards Modernisation: Technological Reform
In a visionary section, the Bench observed that technological innovations, especially blockchain, could transform India’s property system:
- Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme (DILRMP) and National Generic Document Registration System (NGDRS) are steps forward, but limited to digitisation, not title conclusiveness.
- Blockchain-based registries can ensure immutability, transparency, and traceability, reducing fraud and unauthorised alterations.
- Integrated digital platforms could link cadastral maps, survey data, mutation, and registration in real time.
“Blockchain offers an alternative paradigm, ensuring immutability and public trust through a distributed ledger system.”
The Court, therefore, called for systemic reform to converge registration and conclusive titling.
Directions and Recommendations
Recognising the gravity of the issue, the Supreme Court made the following suggestions and directions:
1) Constitute a Central Committee – The Government of India should take the lead, in coordination with States, to explore integrating conclusive titling with the registration system through technology.
2) Law Commission Involvement – The Court requested the Law Commission of India to study:
- The feasibility of integrating blockchain or similar technologies;
- Required legal amendments to laws such as:
(i) Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
(ii) Registration Act, 1908,
(iii) Indian Stamp Act, 1899,
(iv) Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
(v) Information Technology Act, 2000, and
(vi) Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
3) Establish a Permanent Regulatory Body for land registration modernisation and oversight.
4) Ensure Data Integrity in digital records, emphasising accuracy over mere digitisation.
Final Decision
After a thorough examination, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Patna High Court judgment, and quashed Notification No. IV.M-1-12/2019-3644 dated 10 October 2019, thereby invalidating Rule 19 (xvii) and (xviii) of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008.
Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
Conclusion
In Samiullah v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court struck down a rule that conflated registration of documents with proof of ownership, reaffirming that mutation is not a precondition for transfer. The judgment restores citizens’ freedom to transfer property without bureaucratic obstruction and lays the foundation for modernising India’s land registration regime.
By recognising technology’s transformative potential—particularly blockchain—the Court demonstrated rare foresight, envisioning a system where property registration becomes conclusive, transparent, and tamper-proof, thereby reducing litigation and enhancing public trust in governance.
This decision thus not only safeguards individual property rights but also marks a milestone in India’s march toward transparent, technology-driven land governance.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams