‘We Must Dare to Think of Alternatives’: SC Urges Blockchain Technology Reform in Land Registration

The Supreme Court on November 7, 2025, suggested that India could adopt blockchain technology to make land registration secure, transparent, and tamper-proof. Court said blockchain could help prevent fraudulent sales and multiple registrations of the same property by permanently recording land titles, ownership history, and transfers in a digital ledger.

Blockchain is a digital ledger technology that records information in linked, time-stamped blocks across a network of computers, making every entry permanent, transparent, and tamper-proof.

The bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also struck down Bihar’s rule that made mutation papers, known as Jamabandi or holding allotment, mandatory before registering property sale deeds. Court said the rule was arbitrary, illegal, and beyond the powers of the registration department.

The case before the Supreme Court:

Court was dealing with a civil appeal arising out of a Patna High Court judgment. The appeal challenged a 2019 amendment to the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008. The amendment had introduced two new sub-rules i.e. Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii), which empowered registration offices to refuse property registration if sellers failed to produce mutation papers showing their name in government land records.

This meant that even if a person legally owned land, they could not register a sale deed unless their name appeared in the mutation register, a serious problem in Bihar, where most mutation records are outdated or incomplete.

The petitioners’ argument:

Property owners, represented by Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra and AOR A. Velan, argued that the rule was unconstitutional and beyond the powers of the Inspector General of Registration under the Registration Act, 1908. They pointed out that mutation records often still bear the names of ancestors who died decades ago, and the process to update them is slow or stalled.

They also argued that mutation does not create ownership rights; rather, it is merely an administrative entry used for tax and revenue purposes. Making it mandatory before registering a sale deed, they said, effectively stopped people from selling property altogether.

The Bihar government's arguments: 

The Bihar government, represented by Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, assisted by AOR Manish Kumar, said the rule was intended to prevent multiple sales and land disputes by matching registration data with actual land ownership records. The state claimed that its Bihar Mutation Act, 2011, allowed online applications for mutation within 21 days and that the rule was meant to promote clean land transactions.

However, the court found that the mutation system in Bihar was “nowhere near completion,” and enforcing such a rule when the process itself was broken would unfairly burden citizens.

Court's observations:

The bench disagreed with the Patna High Court and the Bihar government. It held that Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, does not authorize the Inspector General of Registration to make rules requiring proof of title or mutation. Court noted that none of the relevant provisions including Sections 21, 22, or 55 of the Registration Act, refer to mutation as a condition for registration. It clarified that the Registration Act deals only with registration of documents, not ownership titles.

Court clarified that registration and ownership are not the same thing. Registration only records a transaction, while ownership is determined by who holds valid title. The registration department cannot demand proof of mutation before allowing a sale to be registered.

Court held that the Bihar sub-rules were ultra vires, as the Inspector General of Registration had exceeded his powers under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908. Court found the rule arbitrary, since Bihar’s land surveys and mutation processes remain incomplete, effectively preventing citizens from transferring property. It further ruled that the measure violated the right to property, as it imposed unreasonable restrictions on the freedom to sell or transfer land without due legal basis.

Further, court went beyond the dispute to call for reform in India’s property registration system. It observed that the country still operates under colonial-era laws and suffers from a “dichotomy between registration and ownership".

"The present system of presumptive title through registration is also the primary contributor to the high volume of land-related litigation in India. Property disputes account for an estimated 66% of all civil cases. More than a century has passed by, and we must dare to think and look for alternatives,” court said.

Having noted that the process of registration of immovable property is cumbersome and time-consuming, court said, registration of deeds being a concurrent list subject, the Government of India must take the lead in constituting a body, with the participation of the States, to examine this issue in light of technological advancement for integrating the property registration regime with conclusive titling.

Court said that the process may involve restructuring and reviewing India's existing laws, i.e. the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Registration Act, 1908, Stamp Act, 1899, Evidence Act, 1872, Information Technology Act, 2000, Data Protection Act, 2023 and may require introduction of new laws for incorporating Blockchain technology with necessary safeguards.

The bench requested the Law Commission of India to examine this issue in detail, consult the Union government, the States and all other stakeholders as well as experts in the field of information and technology, and prepare a report on the issue.

In the matter at hand, court allowed the appeals, set aside the Patna High Court judgment, and quashed Notification No. IV.M-1-12/2019-3644 dated 10.10.2019, which had introduced the disputed sub-rules. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.

Case Title: Samiullah Vs The State of Bihar & Ors

Judgment Date: November 7, 2025

Bench: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi