K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—The petitioners in the above writ petitions challenge the addition of sub-rule (xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008. It is argued that the same is ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908, and beyond the scope of clauses (a) and (aa) of sub-section (1) of Section 69.

2. We have heard Shri Ranjeet Kumar, Shri Pratik Kumar Sinha and Shri Abhinav Shandilya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General, Shri P.K.Shahi, for the State.

3. Shri Ranjeet Kumar took us to the amendment produced as Annexure-1 in the writ petition and pointed out that the same has been brought about under Section 69(1)(a) & (aa) of the Registration Act. The objectionable amendments require a ‘Jamabandi/Holding’ allotment under the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mutation Act’) and the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Municipal Act’); applicable respectively to rural areas and municipal areas, before seeking registration under the Act. It is pointed out that neither clause (a) nor clause (aa) enables such an amendment, bringing in the requirement, which is also not in tune with the Registration Act.

4. The subject amendment does not deal with the safe custody of books, papers and documents, nor does it safeguard the data in electronic form under Section 16A (1) as is the purpose of sub-clauses (a) & (aa) of Section 69(1). Further, it is pointed out that the very prescription, in the teeth of the admitted fact that the survey of lands in Bihar is not completed, brings in unnecessary road blocks in the transactions of property. This totally dis-entitles the land owners, who could not create a ‘Jamabandi/Holding’, to deal with their properties freely and at their choice. It is argued that the amendment is inconsistent with Sections 21, 22, 35, 52, and 58 of the Registration Act. The State, in bringing out the Rules has totally ignored the hardships of the land owners and the ground realities. It is trite, that a mutation does not establish title, and in such circumstances, bringing in a Rule prohibiting registration is clearly in violation of the established tenets of law. The learned counsel would rely on the decisions of a learned Single Judge and Division Bench of this Court in Bihar Deed Writers Association vs. State of Bihar; AIR 1989 Pat 144 and Dr. Madhu Sinha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.; 2015 (1) PLJR 957.

5. Shri Pratik Kumar Sinha adopts the above arguments and further adds that the power conferred on the registering authority to ensure mutation is an encroachment into the powers of the Civil Court, which alone can decide on the title. A decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand vs. State of M.P. & Ors; (2016) 10 SCC 767 is pointed out, wherein Rule 22A restricting registration on public interest was struck down. Reliance is also paced on State of Rajasthan vs. Basant Nahata; (2005) 12 SCC 77.

6. The learned Advocate General, on the other hand, refers to the definition clause in the ‘Mutation Act’ and the ‘Municipal Act’ to impress upon us the meaning of the terms ‘Jamabandi’ and ‘Holding’. The ‘Jamabandi’ and ‘Holding’, respectively in rural and municipal areas, refer to rights created in the ledger maintained by the revenue department; entrusted with the collection of land tax and rents. It is this record of rights which has been insisted upon for a registration, mainly to curb the menace of fraudulent transfers, which is a perpetual and recurrent source of multiplying crimes committed in the State.

7. The attempt of the State Government was only to ensure a semblance of rights on the vendor who executes a deed of conveyance which is in the public interest and also within the contours of the Registration Act. Section 21 of the Registration Act mandate that the description of property and maps of lands have to be mandatorily contained in a nontestamentary document relating to immovable property, f