Supreme Court's Division Bench sets aside judgment by Patna High Court's Justice Vinod Chandran led Division Bench, quashes 2019 Amendment Notification

In Samiullah vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Registration Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Baghci delivered a 34-page long judgement dated November 7, 2025, wherein it set aside the 21-page long judgement dated February 9, 2024 in Amod Bihari Sinha vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Registration Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2024) by Patna High Court's Division of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Rajiv Roy and quashed the Notification of 2019. The Court's judgement was authored by Justice Vinod Chandran. 

The High Court had heard the case of Amod Bihari Sinha along with the cases of Samiullah, Umesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Deepak Kumar Singh and Avinash. The petitioners in the High Court filed the writ petitions to challenge the addition of sub-rule (xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008. It was argued that the same was ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908, and beyond the scope of clauses (a) and (aa) of sub-section (1) of Section 69. Justice Vinod Chandran had concluded: "25. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the amendment incorporated. We reject the writ petitions."

Reversing High Court's judgement, the Supreme Court has concluded:"....we have no hesitation in concluding that the impugned sub-rules are ultra vires the rule-making power under Section 69 or any other provisions of the Act", the Registration Act, 1908. It observed: "...Section 69(1)(a) and (aa), as referred to and relied on by the Government to frame the impugned sub-rules. These provisions only relate to the power of Inspector General of Registration to frame rules for “safe custody of books, papers and documents” and also for “providing the manner in which and safeguards subject to which books may be kept in …. electronic form.” Equally, Section 69(1)(j) also does not legitimize making of the impugned sub-rules, as it only enables making of rules for “generally regulating the proceedings of registrars and sub-registrars”. 

The judgement reads:"23. A detailed examination of the relevant provisions of the Act, coupled with Sections 21 and 22 and also Section 69(1)(h) read with Sections 55(3), do not indicate anything as assumed by the High Court. At the same time a detailed examination of Sections 21, 22 and 55(3) only evidences the requirement of sufficient description to property. All these requirements are intended only to identify the property and for this purpose the provisions enable reference to maps, plans or surveys, if practicable. The reality is that, none of these provisions require reference to or production of proof of mutation in the name of the owner. That is to say, the provision does not relate to the right of disposition of the executant in respect of a property which is otherwise physically identifiable. The power to make the impugned sub-rules 19 (xvii) and (xviii) cannot be traced to these provisions."

Supreme Court observed:"17. Interestingly, while the notification introducing impugned sub-rules 19 (xvii) and (xviii) sources the power of making it to Section 69(1)(a) and (aa), the High Court came to the conclusion that the power to introduce sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 is not relatable to 69(1)(a) and (aa). High Court, however, traced the power to make the impugned sub-rules to Section 69(1)(h) and Section 55 (3), read with Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, or in the alternative to the Inspector General’s general rule-making power under Section 69(1)(j). We will now refer to these provisions and at the same time consider other provisions of the Act to examine the legality and authority of sub-rules 19(xvii) and (xviii)."