Summary
Sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008, added in 2019 to let registering officers refuse sale or gift deeds that do not mention and prove jamabandi or holding allotment (mutation) in the seller's favour, were struck down as beyond the rule-making power in Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, and as arbitrary, since mutation and survey in Bihar are far from complete. The Court also requested the Law Commission to study integrating registration with conclusive titling, including through blockchain.
Issues
- Whether sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 could be made under Section 69 or any other provision of the Registration Act, 1908.
- Whether requiring proof of jamabandi or holding allotment in the seller's name as a precondition to registration is arbitrary given the incomplete state of mutation and survey in Bihar.
Provisions considered
- Section 69(1)(a), (aa), (h), (j), Registration Act, 1908The Inspector General's rule-making heads cover custody of records, electronic records, index particulars and general regulation of registry proceedings; none authorises requiring proof of mutation in the vendor's favour as a condition of registration. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25)
- Sections 21 and 22, Registration Act, 1908These require only a description sufficient to identify the property, with reference to maps or surveys where practicable; they say nothing about the executant's right of disposition and cannot support the impugned sub-rules. (¶¶ 19, 23)
- Section 55(3) (with Sections 51 to 54), Registration Act, 1908Index particulars are filled after registration, not before, so the power to prescribe Index II particulars cannot ground a pre-registration condition of mutation. (¶¶ 22, 22.1, 23)
- Sections 34 and 35, Registration Act, 1908Describe the registering officer's enquiry into execution and identity and the grounds for refusal; the existing refusal grounds in Rule 19(i)-(xv) track these and do not concern title. (¶¶ 20, 10, 11)
- Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii), Bihar Registration Rules, 2008Held qualitatively different from the other refusal grounds because they require proof of a revenue-record entry under another statute; quashed as ultra vires and arbitrary. (¶¶ 4, 9, 12, 13, 25, 29, 38)
- General scheme, Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011; Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011The State relied on the mutation scheme; the Court found that mutation and survey and settlement were nowhere near completion, so tying registration to them unreasonably restrained transfer of property. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29)
Held
- The existing grounds for refusing registration in Rule 19(i)-(xv) relate to identity of the property, the executant's condition or conduct, and statutory formalities, not to title; the impugned sub-rules, by demanding mention and proof of mutation in the seller's favour, are qualitatively different. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Nothing in Section 69 of the Registration Act, including clauses (a), (aa), (h) and (j), or in Sections 21, 22 and 55(3), empowers the Inspector General to require proof of mutation as a precondition for registering a sale or gift; the impugned sub-rules are ultra vires. (¶¶ 16, 23, 24, 25)
- Since mutation and survey and settlement in Bihar are far from complete, making jamabandi or holding allotment a precondition for registration directly restricts the freedom to buy and sell property; such an unreasonable restriction is arbitrary and illegal. (¶ 29)
- Registration under the 1908 Act records documents, not title; it gives only rebuttable presumptive evidence of ownership, placing heavy due-diligence burdens on buyers and contributing to land litigation. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33)
- Digitisation alone does not cure defective records; the Union, with the States, should examine integrating registration with conclusive titling using technology such as blockchain, and the Law Commission was requested to study the issue in consultation with stakeholders and report. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's judgment was set aside and Notification dated 10.10.2019 inserting Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii) of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 was quashed. Law Commission requested to examine conclusive titling reform. Parties to bear their own costs.