Overview
- The court invalidated sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008, which tied document registration to proof of mutation.
- It set aside the Patna High Court verdict and found the requirement unworkable given incomplete land records, including jamabandis often still in ancestors’ names.
- The judgment reaffirmed that registration records a transaction but does not confer ownership, and it called for a shift to conclusive, state-guaranteed titles.
- The Supreme Court directed the Law Commission to consult stakeholders and propose a reform roadmap, and it asked the Union government to lead coordination with states.
- It recommended examining blockchain-based registries and warned that digitisation efforts like DILRMP and NGDRS cannot resolve unclear or inaccurate titles on their own.