Can registering authorities refuse to register property transfer deeds without proof of mutation under the Bihar Registration Rules?

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Subordinate rule-making under Section 69 of the Registration Act is confined to procedural matters—custody of records, indexes, fees, forms, language, holidays and general office proceedings.
• Mandatory mutation proof (jamabandi/holding allotment) as a condition precedent for registration falls outside the scope of Section 69 and is ultra vires.
• Registration officers cannot refuse validly presented sale/gift deeds on collateral title grounds; title disputes lie with civil courts.
• Rules imposing arbitrary pre-conditions that delay or impede free alienation of property infringe the constitutional freedom to dispose of property.
• This decision serves as binding authority to challenge any subordinate legislation extending registrar powers beyond procedural checks.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Scope of Section 69
   • Section 69 empowers the Inspector-General to make rules for safe custody of books (Clause a), electronic records (aa), language (b), territorial divisions (c), fines (d), registrar discretion (e), forms (f), authentication (g), presentation procedures (gg), index particulars (h), holidays (i) and general proceedings (j).
   • No clause authorizes mandating mutation evidence as a pre-condition for registration.
2. Analysis of Description Provisions
   • Sections 21–22 require a description “sufficient to identify” immovable property, permitting reference to surveys or maps but not mutation records.
   • Section 55 mandates post-registration index particulars; it does not convert into a pre-registration requirement.
3. High Court’s Error
   • The Patna High Court misread Section 69(1)(h) (index particulars) and general power under 69(1)(j) to uphold impugned sub-rules.
   • It failed to recognize that index particulars apply after registration, not before.
4. Ultra Vires and Arbitrary Nature
   • The impugned sub-rules introduced collateral title inquiries at the registration stage, exceeding procedural checks.
   • Given incomplete land mutation and survey processes in Bihar, the requirement is unworkable and arbitrary, impeding the right to freely transfer property.
5. Conclusion
   • Sub-rules 19(xvii) & (xviii) are ultra vires Section 69 and contrary to the Act’s object. They are struck down with parties bearing their own costs.
   • Direction to Law Commission to explore integration of conclusive titling with registration, including technological solutions like blockchain.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Samiullah):

• Sub-rules (xvii) & (xviii) ultra vires Section 69(1); no power to mandate mutation proof.
• Mutation process incomplete; most jamabandi entries are outdated, making compliance impossible.
• Mutation entries do not confer title; title adjudication belongs exclusively to civil courts.

Respondent (State of Bihar):

• Amendments aim to ensure integrity in property transactions by synchronizing registry with revenue records under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.
• Mutation process digitized; online applications have fixed timelines (21 days).
• Public policy supports curbing fraudulent multiple registrations; sub-rules consistent with Section 69.

Factual Background

In October 2019, Bihar amended Rule 19 of its Registration Rules to insert sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii), requiring sale or gift deeds to bear jamabandi or urban holding allotment proof before registration. Multiple writ petitions in Patna High Court challenged these amendments as beyond the Inspector-General’s rule-making power and arbitrary amid incomplete mutation processes. The High Court dismissed the challenges, and the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 69: Confines rule-making to procedural matters; no authority for title-related conditions.
• Sections 21 & 22: Require property descriptions for identification and permit reference to surveys/maps.
• Section 52: Registrar’s duty to enquire into execution; admission procedures under Sections 34–35.
• Section 55(3): Post-registration index particulars; not a pre-registration requirement.

Impugned sub-rules transcended these procedural mandates, imposing collateral title requirements without statutory basis.

Procedural Innovations

• Direction to the Law Commission to examine integration of conclusive titling with registration, leveraging modern technologies (e.g., blockchain) and possible legislative reform.

Alert Indicators

• 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Sub-rules expanding registrar’s power into title inquiries struck down as ultra vires.
• ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirmed limits on subordinate legislation under enabling statutes.