Supreme Court Holds Bihar Rule Cannot Make Jamabandi Proof Pre‑condition For Registration

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi heard appeals arising out of writ petitions filed in the Patna High Court challenging the vires of sub‑rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 (as amended in 2019). The appeals questioned the legality of empowering registering authorities to refuse registration of sale or gift deeds where “Jamabandi” or holding allotment in favour of the vendor was not mentioned in the deed or proof was not produced.

The Court allowed the appeals and quashed Notification No.‑IV.M‑1‑12/2019‑3644 dated 10.10.2019 introducing sub‑rules (xvii) and (xviii), holding that those sub‑rules were ultra vires the rule‑making power under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 and that they impermissibly required production of collateral evidence of title as a pre‑condition for registration. The Court reiterated that “the constitutionally protected right to own immovable property inherently includes the freedom to freely acquire, possess and dispose it at will.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further found the requirement arbitrary in view of the incomplete state of mutation, survey and settlement processes in Bihar.

Background The dispute arose after the Bihar government amended Rule 19 by adding clauses (xvii) and (xviii) in October 2019, making it a ground for refusal of registration if a deed did not mention or produce proof of jamabandi allotment or holding allotment in favour of the seller; the amendments excluded certain apartment transfers. Several petitioners challenged the amendments before the Patna High Court, which dismissed the petitions. The High Court held that revenue entries such as jamabandi did not necessarily confer title but constituted “compelling, although rebuttable, evidence” of title, and it found that the Inspector‑General’s rule‑making power under Section 69 could be read to permit the prescription. The State defended the amendments as measures to ensure integrity of land transactions and to synchronise registration with mutation under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011; it submitted that mutation could be effected online within prescribed time frames.

On appeal, the Supreme Court analysed the scope of Section 69 and related provisions (Sections 21, 22, 34, 35, 51–55) and concluded that the rule‑making power under Section 69 related to supervision, custody of records, indexes and procedural regulation, but did not authorise a rule that made proof of mutation a pre‑condition to registration. The Court emphasised the statutory distinction that the Registration Act required registration of documents and not of title, and it observed that compelling production of jamabandi or holding allotment would improperly import a title inquiry into the registration process. The Court also noted the practical context: statewide cadastral survey, mutation and settlement work under Bihar statutes remained incomplete, and insisting on mutation records would unduly impede the freedom to sell and transfer property. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court order and quashed the 2019 notification. It directed no costs and invited consideration of broader reform, requesting the Law Commission to examine integration of registration and conclusive titling in light of technological options.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1292 Case Title: Samiullah v. The State of Bihar & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate; Mr. A. Velan, AOR For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR