Buying or selling property in India is often stressful and risky. The Supreme Court described these transactions as “traumatic,” noting that property disputes make up 66% of civil cases, highlighting challenges in land governance and state authority over registration.
New Delhi: Buying or selling property in India is often deemed stressful, risky, and exhausting. Recently, the Supreme Court echoed this sentiment, describing property transactions as “traumatic” for ordinary citizens.
This ruling addresses the complexities of India’s land governance and clarifies the boundaries of state authority regarding property registration.
The bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.
In it’s ruling, the Supreme Court highlighted that the processes of buying and selling property in India are traumatic experiences, pointing out that property disputes comprise 66% of civil litigation in the country’s courts.
The issue originated from amendments made to the Bihar Registration Rules in 2019. These amendments granted registering authorities the power to refuse the registration of property transfer documents, like sale or gift deeds, unless the seller provided proof of mutation such as Jamabandi records or holding allotment documents.
In practice, this meant that even if both parties agreed to a sale, the Sub-Registrar could deny registration if mutation records were not available documents that are notoriously difficult to obtain in Bihar, where ongoing survey and settlement efforts are incomplete.
The Supreme Court invalidated these sub-rules for three primary reasons:
- Exceeding Authority: The rules went beyond the powers granted to the Inspector General of Registration under the “Registration Act, 1908.” The role of registration authorities is to record documents, not to adjudicate rights.
- Demand for Title Proof: By requiring proof of mutation, the rules created a demand for proof of title at the registration stage. The court noted that this requirement contradicted the purpose of the Registration Act, which aims to facilitate the recording of transactions rather than determining ownership. This imposition infringed upon the constitutionally protected right to property by limiting the ability to transfer land.
- Real-World Challenges: The court acknowledged the practical difficulties in obtaining mutation records due to the incomplete implementation of the Bihar Mutation Act and the Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act. Making these records a prerequisite for registration rendered legitimate transactions unfeasible.
A key theme in the judgment is the affirmation that registration and title are distinct concepts. Registration only creates a rebuttable presumption of ownership and does not serve as conclusive proof.
Disputes regarding title, ownership, competing claims, and evidentiary assessments fall under the jurisdiction of civil courts, not registration offices. The Sub-Registrar’s role is limited to verifying the identities of the parties involved and the property in question, not determining ownership.
This principle is not novel. In a previous case, “K. Gopi vs Sub-Registrar,” the Supreme Court similarly struck down a Tamil Nadu rule requiring original title deeds for registration, clarifying that registration officials lack adjudicative powers.
Bihar contended that making mutation proof mandatory would enhance the integrity of property transactions by aligning registration with actual ownership. While the court recognized the rationale behind this approach, it pointed out systemic obstacles.
India has not conducted a comprehensive nationwide land survey since 1950, resulting in unevenly digitized land records. In such a fragmented landscape, designating registration offices as gatekeepers of title would likely introduce more exclusion than certainty. Until a cohesive land titling system is integrated with registration through systemic reform, courts must safeguard citizens’ rights to transact freely.
This judgment aligns with the philosophy of the proposed Registration Bill, 2025, which aims to replace the 1908 law. The draft legislation establishes a clear distinction: the power to refuse registration should not be interpreted as authority to adjudicate ownership.
This reinforces a judicial resistance to administrative overreach, even as the state seeks improved land governance.
The court’s observation shines a light on deeper structural issues. India’s land administration operates across three largely disconnected domains registration, survey, and revenue each governed by different laws and bureaucracies. Achieving synchronization among these areas remains a challenge.
The system offers only presumptive titles, leaving buyers vulnerable to potential litigation based on historical deeds, mutation entries, possession claims, or competing sale documents. Conducting due diligence thus becomes costly, time-consuming, and uncertain.
These issues are exacerbated by historical complexities, including colonial revenue systems, variations from princely states, land ceiling laws, post-independence reforms, and region-specific practices, all contributing to a fragmented legal landscape.
The court suggested that administrative and technological reforms may provide a solution. Some states are already piloting integration efforts. For instance, Karnataka’s Bhoomi and KAVERI platforms connect land records with registration, automatically updating ownership after transactions.
The court also encouraged the exploration of blockchain technology for land records a system capable of creating tamper-proof, transparent, and chronologically linked ownership histories. Reports indicate that Andhra Pradesh’s blockchain pilot has successfully reduced land disputes and improved transaction efficiency, although the accuracy of initial data remains critical.
Also Read: Do Daughters Have Equal Property Right? : Hindu Succession Act, 1956
The Supreme Court’s decision in “Samiullah” extends beyond Bihar. It serves as a reminder that procedural shortcuts cannot suffice for structural reform. Until India evolves toward an integrated, conclusive, and reliable land titling system, registration must be a facilitative process rather than an obstacle.
By reaffirming the boundaries of administrative power, the court has shielded citizens from bureaucratic dead ends. At the same time, it has emphasized the urgent need to modernize land governance, ensuring that buying a home or land becomes a secure exercise of a constitutional right rather than a daunting ordeal.
Case Title: Samiullah vs State of Bihar.
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
