The High Court of Jharkhand has directed the state government to immediately delete the "prohibited list" of lands currently maintained on the National Generic Document Registration System (NGDRS) portal. In a ruling delivered on November 5, 2026, Justice Rajesh Shankar found that the continued presence of this list was causing significant hardship to property owners by enabling local Sub-Registrars to arbitrarily refuse the registration of valid sale deeds. The Court emphasized that because the provision underpinning this list, Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, had already been struck down by a Division Bench of the High Court, there was no legal basis for its ongoing enforcement by the executive.

The matter arose from a writ petition filed by Amit Ranjan, who sought to challenge the inclusion of his 42-decimal plot in Hazaribagh on the prohibited list. Despite his efforts to seek administrative relief through the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, the petition noted that authorities had remained idle, forcing the aggrieved owner to seek judicial intervention. The state, during proceedings, contended that the government was in the process of formulating a new legal framework and urged the Court to allow individual representations to be heard. However, the Court rejected this approach, noting that individual requests for the removal of property from a list that had already been invalidated by judicial precedent were unnecessary and contrary to the principles of efficient administration.

Judicial Precedent and the Scope of Registration Justice Shankar’s ruling extensively analyzed the constitutional validity of executive interference in property transactions. The Court relied heavily on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Others v. Basant Nahata , where it was held that Section 22-A of the Registration Act, as introduced by various state amendments, was ultra vires. The Supreme Court had observed that the term "public policy"—often invoked to justify such lists—is too vague and uncertain to serve as a legislative guideline. Consequently, it was held that the power to restrict property rights must not be left to the unfettered discretion of the executive.

The High Court observed that the administrative reliance on this list lacked a clear nexus with any legitimate state interest under the 1908 Act. As noted in the judgment, "The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title or not." The Court clarified that the role of a Sub-Registrar is strictly limited to verifying procedural compliance, such as the presence of parties and the payment of required stamp duties. The registration of a document does not act as a final seal of ownership; rather, it is a mechanism to provide public notice of a transaction. By attempting to filter documents based on a " prohibited list ," officials were effectively usurping judicial functions they did not possess.

Administrative Consequences of Digital Barriers The integration of the prohibited list into the digital NGDRS portal created a systemic hurdle that went beyond individual cases. By digitizing a list that had been declared unconstitutional, the state government effectively automated the refusal of registrations, leading to a surge in litigation across the state. The Court pointed out that this situation resulted in unnecessary hardship, as property owners were routinely debarred from exercising their right to transfer land without any prior opportunity to contest the inclusion of their property on the list.

The Court held that such actions violated the principles of natural justice , as the unilateral classification of land as "prohibited" carried severe civil consequences . "The State Government has unilaterally put the land of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons in the prohibited list on the pretext of public policy without providing any opportunity of hearing to them," the Court observed, highlighting the procedural injustice inherent in the state’s approach.

Implementation and Compliance Directives In its final order, the High Court issued three clear, time-bound mandates to the state government. First, the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms must ensure the complete deletion of the prohibited land list from the NGDRS portal. This directive aims to remove the digital barrier preventing the registration of valid sale deeds. Second, all Sub-Registrars throughout the state have been instructed to proceed with the registration of transfer deeds, provided they conform to the existing requirements of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Bihar Registration Rules, 1937.

Finally, the Secretary of the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms is required to issue a formal circular to all Deputy Commissioners across the state. This circular must ensure strict adherence to the Court’s findings, preventing any future local-level attempts to revive the prohibited list or deny registration based on extraneous grounds not contemplated by the Act. While the state government indicated it is contemplating new legislation to address land concerns, the Court made it clear that existing, struck-down laws cannot be utilized as stopgap measures while the government deliberates its future policy path.

This judgment serves as a significant check on administrative overreach in land management. By prioritizing the established role of the registration office over the arbitrary exercise of executive power, the Court has provided a roadmap for property owners facing similar blocks. The emphasis remains on the fact that a registered sale deed serves as a medium for transaction rather than a guarantee of title; it is not the role of the state’s registration officials to act as quasi-judicial gatekeepers of land title disputes. For the present, the mandate ensures that the digital infrastructure is updated to reflect the current legal standing of Section 22-A, effectively opening the path for pending property transactions to proceed without the shadow of the prohibited list. The state is now under a direct obligation to update its systems and inform all local authorities to cease reliance on the invalidated register, effectively bringing relief to those whose properties were held in a state of legal limbo.