Supreme Court Strikes Down Bihar’s Mandatory Jamabandi Requirement—Rule 19(xvii)/(xviii) Ultra Vires & Arbitrary

Case Name: Samiullah v. State of Bihar & Ors. (with connected appeal)
Citation: Civil Appeal arising out of Diary Nos. 12674/2024 & 18064/2024; 2025 INSC 1292
Date of Judgment/Order: 07 November 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Held: The Supreme Court held that the 2019 amendments introducing Rule 19(xvii) and 19(xviii) of the Bihar Registration Rules—requiring proof of jamabandi/holding allotment as a condition for registering sale or gift deeds—are ultra vires Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, and further arbitrary, as they effectively convert registration into a title-verification exercise. The Court held that Section 69 confers only procedural and supervisory rule-making power and does not authorize mandating mutation certificates, which relate to title and fall outside the statutory purpose of the Registration Act. The Court further observed that imposing mutation requirements was unreasonable and unworkable given the incomplete state-wide survey, outdated jamabandi records, and non-operational mutation framework in Bihar.

Summary: The case arose from a challenge to Bihar’s 2019 amendment inserting Rule 19(xvii)/(xviii), under which Sub-Registrars could refuse registration of deeds unless the vendor produced jamabandi or holding allotment certificates. Petitioners argued that mutation does not create title, that mandating such documents exceeded Section 69 powers, and that the mutation regime in Bihar was fundamentally incomplete, making compliance impossible. The State defended the rule as a fraud-preventive measure consistent with Section 69. The Supreme Court, after examining the statutory scheme of the Registration Act, held that the Act concerns registration of documents—not title, and existing refusals under Rule 19 relate only to identity of property, executant’s status, or statutory compliance, never to title-related proofs. The Court found that the new sub-rules introduced a qualitatively different requirement by linking registration to mutation under the Bihar Mutation Act, 2011. The Court also reviewed the deteriorated ground reality: outdated jamabandis, century-old surveys, failure of digital integration, and the State’s own admission that mutation records are incomplete. The Court held that the amendment imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right to transfer property and effectively deprived owners of the ability to sell because mutation certificates were practically unattainable. In a significant discussion, the Court also reflected on India’s presumptive-title system, the need for modernization, and the potential for Blockchain-based conclusive titling, directing the Law Commission to study reforms.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed Notification No. IV.M-1-12/2019-3644 dated 10.10.2019, and struck down Rule 19(xvii) and Rule 19(xviii) of the Bihar Registration Rules as ultra vires Section 69 and unconstitutional for imposing arbitrary, untenable, and impracticable conditions on registration. The Court held that linking registration to mutation proof violates the statutory scheme and unduly restricts the right to freely transfer property. All writ petitions and connected proceedings were disposed of accordingly, with parties bearing their own costs.