On property registration and title | Explained

The Supreme Court of India, in its recent decision in Samiullah vs State of Bihar, described the process of buying and selling property as “traumatic” for many Indians. The observation resonates widely, reflecting the complex and often challenging realities of land transactions in the country.

The Supreme Court examined the validity of sub-rules introduced under the Bihar Registration Rules in 2019, which empowered the registering authorities to refuse the registration of documents transferring property, such as sale or gift deeds, if the seller could not provide proof of mutation, including documents like a Jamabandi or holding allotment.

The court struck down these sub-rules as ultra vires and arbitrary for three reasons.

First, the rules went beyond the powers granted to the Inspector General of Registration under the Registration Act. Second, by making the sellers produce proof of mutation as a precondition for registering a document, the rules effectively demanded evidence of title. This was held to be contrary to the object of the Registration Act. It curtailed the ability to freely transfer property, thereby significantly impacting the constitutionally protected right to property. Third, with the Bihar Mutation Act and the Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act far from completion, obtaining proof of mutation was virtually impossible.

The court reaffirmed that the registration of a transfer deed is distinct from establishing title or ownership. The enquiry into questions of title and ownership falls within the scope of civil courts and not registration offices. The court concluded that the preconditions for registration pertain to the identification of the property and the seller. References to maps or surveys are made only for this purpose, if it is practicable.

The State of Bihar argued that mandatory proof of mutation would ensure the integrity of sale transactions by aligning registration with the actual title. While the court acknowledged the merit in synchronisation, it cited the lack of nationwide land surveys since 1950 and insufficient digitisation of land records as significant obstacles.

The court observed that, until a conclusive titling is integrated with the registration process, it remains the responsibility of constitutional courts to strike a balance between individuals’ freedom to buy and sell property and the government’s obligation to maintain the integrity of property transactions.

In June, in K.Gopi vs Sub-Registrar, the Supreme Court had clarified the position of law on registration and title by holding that the Sub-Registrar is not concerned with the title of the property as he lacks the adjudicatory power to decide ownership-related questions. Thereby, it struck down a rule framed by the State of Tamil Nadu that empowered Sub-Registrars to refuse registration of sale deeds on the ground that the seller had not established title or ownership. The rule mandated the seller to produce the original deed through which ownership was acquired.

A similar line of reasoning is evident in the court’s successive judgment in Samiullah.

Both decisions underscore that the Registration Act is concerned solely with the registration of documents. Registration creates only a rebuttable presumption of ownership, not conclusive proof. The forthcoming Registration Bill, 2025 — which seeks to replace the Registration Act of 1908 — is consistent with this position. The premise of these regulations is that the power to refuse registration cannot be construed as empowering registering officers to adjudicate upon questions of title or ownership of property, which are within the jurisdiction of a competent court.

While this position merely reinforces a long-established principle, it is still a timely reminder of the complexity of land administration and the need to reform it.

Land governance in India is a mixture of colonial legislation, complex administrative set-ups, and an overburdened judiciary. This often results in prolonged battles for land, be it bureaucratic or judicial.

Three separate domains — Registration, Survey and Settlement, and Revenue — operate independently, making synchronisation of records a persistent challenge. Each department is governed by a separate legislative and administrative mandate. Further, the current system creates only a presumption of title, which can be challenged in court using evidence such as previous deeds, revenue receipts, mutation records, proof of possession, or even competing sale deeds. This places a heavy burden on buyers to conduct exhaustive due diligence before purchasing property.

Along with understanding legislative and administrative designs on land records, it is important to recognise the complexities that stem from the historical inconsistencies in land governance across the Indian subcontinent. Over centuries, the region has been governed by various rulers, each implementing distinct revenue systems. The legacy of diverse administrative practices, colonial rule, separate rules applied in princely states, the creation of different types of titles, and significant post-independence reforms, such as land ceiling acts, has resulted in a highly intricate and regionally varied socio-legal framework for land.

The solution lies in large-scale administrative reform. The focus needs to be on creating an integrated and synchronised record-keeping system that minimises the risk of fraud. Efforts are under way at both the Union and State levels to digitise and modernise land records.

For instance, Karnataka’s Bhoomi and KAVERI systems link records of rights with registration, automatically updating ownership records upon the registration of transfer deeds. Similar integration efforts are being attempted for spatial data and revenue records, though primarily for agricultural land.

Technology is playing a key role in these reform initiatives. From digitising records to making workflow processes tech-enabled, there is also growing discussion on the role of artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies. In fact, in its recent decision, the Supreme Court suggested exploring blockchain technology to create secure, transparent, and tamper-proof land records. Andhra Pradesh’s pilot project using blockchain for land records has reportedly halved land disputes and improved transaction efficiency by 30%.

Blockchain, as its moniker suggests, is a chain of blocks of data linked into an uneditable, digital chain. This information is stored in an open-source, decentralised environment, in which each block’s information is confirmable by every participating computer. Unlike traditional hierarchical systems, it’s designed to have decentralised management, which is intended to build trust and stability.

Blocks are the ledgers that are being updated and added to, filled with permanently recorded data. Transactions are added to this database and synced across all nodes. These blocks operate on a distributed ledger, meaning that all information and transactions are shared between parties regardless of geography or status.

These ledgers can be permissioned or unpermissioned, depending on who is allowed to view them. The nature of this decentralised block database system keeps hackers from tampering with or changing information on the blockchain, as altering a single piece of code would be immediately recognisable. Attempting to double-spend, fraudulently duplicating the digital currency or asset, is difficult to do because of the distributed ledger transaction system.

In this way, the distributed ledger is an immutable record that is consistent and chronologically organised. If we apply this system to land records, we could create a block for a single piece of land containing all its historical records, title, heirs of title holders, geographic location, survey details, its map, water resources, crops, along with all registered documents associated with the particular land. Any further transactions of the same land will create another connected block of information, creating a constantly updated, transparent and immutable network of land records. However, we must also ensure that information stored in these blocks is accurate, else it would create an additional burden on owners to correct such data. More importantly, existing land administration and related structures need to be accounted for before the introduction of newer technologies.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision highlights the urgent need for administrative and technological reforms. Understanding the deep-rooted complexities of India’s land governance is the first step towards meaningful solutions that secure the right to property for all.

Girija Bhosale works as Research Coordinator at BhuSampada in National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru; Malini Mallikarjun is the Head of BhuSampada at NIAS