Summary: The recent Supreme Court judgment in Samiullah v. State of Bihar carries immense significance for anyone involved in property transactions. By striking down Bihar’s rule mandating proof of mutation before registration of sale deeds, the Court has reaffirmed a core principle of property law — registration of a document is about recording transactions, not proving ownership. This decision not only removes a major practical hurdle in property sales, especially in states with outdated land records, but also clarifies the legal limits of administrative rule-making under the Registration Act, 1908. The judgment marks a crucial step toward a more transparent, accessible, and legally sound land registration framework, while calling for technological reforms to eventually achieve conclusive land title in India.
Introduction
The Supreme Court’s (“Court”) recent judgment in Samiullah v. State of Bihar & Ors.[1] is a landmark one in more ways than one. It has struck down amendments to the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 (“Registration Rules”), that required sellers to furnish proof of mutation or Jamabandi before registering a sale deed.
The ruling not only protects the constitutional right to freely dispose of property but also revisits one of the most persistent confusions in Indian property law — the dichotomy between registration and ownership. The Court’s verdict restores legal clarity by holding that mutation is not a prerequisite for registration, and the State cannot impose such a condition through subordinate legislation.
Background
The controversy arose when the State of Bihar amended Rule 19 of the Registration Rules, through a notification dated October 10, 2019. The amendment inserted sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii), allowing registering authorities to refuse registration of sale or gift deeds if sellers lack proof of mutation or Jamabandi in their names.
In simple terms, the registering officer could decline registration if the seller’s name was not updated in the revenue or municipal records, even if the sale deed otherwise met all legal requirements.
The rule effectively made mutation a condition precedent for registration. Several aggrieved landowners challenged it before the Patna High Court (“High Court”), arguing that the rule was ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908 (“Registration Act”), and arbitrary, given Bihar’s incomplete land survey and mutation systems.
The High Court, however, upheld the amendment, prompting the appellants to approach the Court.
Decision of the Court
The Court began by reaffirming a long-settled principle that mutation does not confer or extinguish ownership rights. Mutation is an administrative act to update land records for revenue purposes, not a declaration of title. Therefore, requiring proof of mutation before registering a sale deed effectively converted the revenue record into a title document, which the law does not recognise.
The Court observed that the Registration Act governs the registration of documents, not the proof of title. Section 69[2] of the Registration Act empowers the Inspector General of Registration to make procedural rules concerning custody of records, forms, indexes, and the general conduct of registration offices, not substantive rules affecting ownership or the right to transfer property. The Court further found that Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii) of the Registration Rules, by conditioning registration on mutation proof, went far beyond this statutory scope. They were, therefore, ultra vires Section 69.
The Court also noted the practical impossibility of complying with such a rule in Bihar as land records in the state are notoriously outdated. Many Jamabandis still stand in the names of ancestors, and the mutation process under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, and the Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011, remains incomplete.
In this context, the Court called the process of linking registration to mutation arbitrary and unconstitutional as it would effectively freeze property transactions for millions of owners, thereby unreasonably restricting citizens’ right to transfer property.
The relevant excerpt is set out below:
“…we are of the opinion that while we appreciate the intention of the state to synchronize the registrable document with real time land holding, there is a big missing link given that the process of mutation and the process of survey and settlement are nowhere near completion. Under these circumstances and considering the nascent stage at which the empirical data is translated as mutation into the relevant records and the fact that for this purpose survey and settlement are to be conducted, interlinking and restraining registration till the jamabandi or holding allotment is effected would be illegal, as it has a direct impact on the right and freedom to purchase and sell property. A requirement of rules, regulations or even law that impedes or restrains easy and effective transfer of property will be illegal as it has the direct effect of ‘depriving of property’ to that extent, and such delays, caused due to unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions, impinge the right to hold and dispose of property.”
In simple words, the Court said that although the State’s aim to connect property registration with updated land records is well intentioned, it cannot be enforced when the process of mutation, survey and settlement are still incomplete. Making proof of mutation a prerequisite for registration would unreasonably restrict citizen’s ability to buy and sell property, effectively depriving them of their right to hold and dispose of property. The Court thus held that any rule or law that impedes the free and effective transfer of property is arbitrary and illegal.
Registration vs. Ownership: A Fundamental Distinction
One of the most profound aspects of the judgment is the discussion on the dichotomy between registration and ownership in Indian law. The Court observed that the Registration Act provides for the registration of documents, not titles. Registration merely creates a public record of the transaction and carries presumptive evidentiary value, it does not conclusively prove ownership.
Thus, while registration is mandatory for the validity of sale deeds under Section 17 of the Registration Act, it is not determinative of ownership, which continues to be governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and decided by civil courts when disputed. By contrast, mutation serves revenue purposes and cannot determine or restrict ownership rights.
Implications of the Judgment
- Reaffirmation of Property Freedom: The ruling reinforces the constitutional right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. While it is no longer a fundamental right, it remains protected under Article 300A of the Constitution. The Court emphasised that administrative rules cannot impose conditions that curtail this freedom.
- Relief to Property Owners in Bihar: For thousands of property owners in Bihar, this decision removes a major bottleneck. Given that much of the state’s land data remains un-updated or disputed, the requirement of mutation proof had effectively stalled property transfers. With the rule struck down, sale registrations can now proceed basis valid deeds, without the need to first update Jamabandi or holding records.
- Guidance for Other States: The judgment has broader relevance beyond Bihar. Many states have been exploring similar linkages between registration and land records as part of their digital governance initiatives. The Court’s ruling makes it clear that no state can impose mutation or revenue record verification as a precondition for registration, unless expressly authorised by legislation. Such reforms must align with the constitutional framework and cannot be introduced through executive or subordinate rule-making.
Push for Modernisation and Conclusive Titling
Interestingly, while striking down the Bihar rule, the Court acknowledged the need for reform in India’s property registration system, which still relies on presumptive rather than conclusive title registration.
It called upon the Law Commission of India and the Union Government to explore technological solutions, including Blockchain-based land registration systems, to make ownership records tamper-proof, transparent, and reliable.
This vision aligns with ongoing initiatives like the Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme and National Generic Document Registration System, but emphasises the need for deeper legislative reform and institutional coordination.
Conclusion
The Court’s judgment in Samiullah v. State of Bihar is a reaffirmation of the delicate balance between administrative control and individual property rights. By striking down the mutation requirement, the Court has ensured that registration remains a procedural gateway, not a gatekeeper of ownership.
At the same time, the Court has opened the door for deeper reform, urging the government to build a system where registration itself could one day serve as conclusive proof of title, leveraging technology and modern governance models. Until then, the principle remains clear, mutation follows ownership, ownership does not follow mutation.
For further information, please contact:
Abhilash Pillai, Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
abhilash.pillai@cyrilshroff.com
[1] 2025 INSC 1292
[2] “Power of Inspector-General to superintend registration offices and make rules.—(1) The Inspector-General shall exercise a general superintendence over all the registration offices in the territories under the [State Government], and shall have power from time to time to make rules consistent with this Act…”
