Digital Property Registration and the Doctrine of Title: A Critical Analysis of the Draft Registration Bill, 2025 in Light of Recent Supreme Court Rulings

This article has been written by Rohit pursuing Ph.d from Department of Law Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra.

***This article has been selected for LegalOnus Law Journal (LLJ) Volume 1 issue 8 2025

---

Table of Contents Toggle Abstract The Indian government’s proposed Registration Bill, 2025 marks a significant shift in the country’s approach to property registration by embracing digitization, expanding the scope of documents requiring registration, and introducing identity-verification reforms. While these reforms aim to enhance transparency, reduce fraud, and simplify processes, they also raise critical legal and constitutional questions, particularly regarding the relationship between registration and ownership. This paper critically examines the Registration Bill, 2025 in light of recent Supreme Court pronouncements—most notably the judgment asserting that mere registration does not confer title. It further analyzes the invalidation of Tamil Nadu’s Rule 55A(i), which attempted to delegate adjudicatory powers to sub-registrars, as ultra vires. These developments underscore the need to distinguish between ministerial registration duties and substantive title adjudication, even in a digitized framework. The paper explores the potential tension between technocratic solutions and legal doctrines, especially how digital infrastructure may create a misleading presumption of ownership or encourage bureaucratic overreach. It evaluates whether the Bill offers sufficient safeguards to prevent procedural reforms from encroaching upon substantive rights, and whether it adequately addresses the digital divide and access to justice concerns. By drawing on constitutional principles, land law doctrines, and comparative practices, the study offers a nuanced assessment of the Bill’s strengths and risks. It concludes with recommendations to ensure that efficiency-driven digitization does not compromise the legal integrity of land ownership frameworks in India. Keywords Registration Bill 2025, property law, land title, digital registration, ownership vs registration, Supreme Court judgments, Rule 55A(i), ultra vires, constitutional law, sub-registrar powers, digital divide, legal reform, title adjudication, land governance, procedural law

 Literature Review

The evolution of land registration laws in India has long been a subject of scholarly attention, largely due to the complexities surrounding land ownership, transfer, and fraud prevention. The Registration Act of 1908, though seminal, has faced repeated criticism for being outdated, paper-based, and unable to effectively prevent property-related litigation and title disputes (Singh, 2018). Scholars like B.N. Murthy (2016) have noted that the Act’s failure to ensure conclusive proof of title has contributed to India’s status as one of the countries with the highest number of land disputes pending before courts.

The legal distinction between registration and ownership has been a recurring theme in judicial and academic discourse. For instance, Rao and Krishnan (2020) argue that while registration offers documentary evidence of a transaction, it does not, by itself, create or validate legal title. This view was recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2025, emphasizing that registration is procedural, and ownership must be established through a valid title.

Studies on digitization of land records (e.g., Bhattacharya, 2019; Wadhwa, 2021) have emphasized the potential of technology to enhance transparency and reduce fraud. However, concerns remain about cybersecurity, data access inequalities, and the risk of conflating procedural compliance with legal rights. The Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme (DILRMP) has been evaluated by the World Bank and NITI Aayog, which found that while digitization improved accessibility, it had limited impact on actual title clarity and dispute reduction.

Legal critiques of delegated legislation are also relevant, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules as ultra vires. Scholars such as Seervai (2017) and Sathe (2009) have discussed the importance of maintaining a clear boundary between administrative powers and judicial functions, arguing that the state cannot grant adjudicatory powers to non-judicial bodies without statutory authority.

Finally, comparative legal studies (e.g., Macey, 2022) have explored Torrens systems of land registration in Australia and New Zealand, where registration does confer indefeasible title. These models, while efficient, rely heavily on robust governmental infrastructure and insurance mechanisms—features currently lacking in the Indian context.

The literature thus reveals a strong consensus: while modernization and digitization of land records are essential, they must be accompanied by legal safeguards, institutional reforms, and a clear understanding of the limits of procedural laws in determining ownership rights.

Research Methodology

This study adopts a doctrinal and analytical research methodology, combining a thorough examination of statutory developments, judicial pronouncements, and scholarly writings to critically assess the legal implications of the Registration Bill, 2025.

1. Doctrinal Legal Research

The core of this research lies in doctrinal analysis, which involves:

• A textual study of the Registration Bill, 2025, focusing on provisions related to online registration, expanded scope of documents, and the use of Aadhaar and alternative identity verification.
• Examination of existing laws such as the Registration Act, 1908, and their interpretation by Indian courts.
• Critical analysis of recent Supreme Court judgments, including:
  • The June 2025 ruling that registration does not create ownership;
  • The striking down of Rule 55A(i) as ultra vires in Tamil Nadu.

2. Case Law Analysis

Key judgments are studied to understand the judicial stance on the distinction between title and registration, and the limits of delegated powers under registration laws. These cases are examined to extract principles relevant to legislative reform and constitutional limits on administrative discretion.

3. Comparative Study

To provide a broader context, the study briefly compares India’s system with international land registration models—such as the Torrens system—to evaluate whether any features could be suitably adapted or avoided in the Indian framework.

4. Secondary Sources and Policy Analysis

The study uses secondary sources including:

• Books and journal articles on property law, administrative law, and digitization of land records;
• Reports by NITI Aayog, the World Bank, and Ministry of Rural Development on land reforms and digital land governance;
• News reports and commentaries to reflect stakeholder responses and evolving public opinion.

5. Normative Evaluation

In addition to descriptive analysis, the paper uses normative reasoning to assess whether the proposed legal changes align with constitutional values such as access to justice, rule of law, and separation of powers.

This blended methodology ensures that the research remains both legally grounded and policy-relevant, offering concrete recommendations that are doctrinally sound and practically viable.

Hypothesis

The implementation of the Registration Bill, 2025—while technologically progressive—risks creating legal ambiguities by blurring the line between procedural registration and substantive ownership, unless accompanied by clear safeguards.

It is hypothesized that:

“Mere digitization of land registration, without a corresponding clarification of legal doctrines relating to title and ownership, will not reduce disputes or ensure secure property rights in India, and may instead lead to a false sense of legal security and bureaucratic overreach.”

This research will test whether the new framework maintains a legally sound balance between efficiency and legal certainty, particularly in light of recent Supreme Court rulings reaffirming that registration does not confer ownership, and limiting administrative discretion under property law.

Introduction

Land is not merely a source of economic capital in India; it holds deep social, political, and cultural significance. Yet, land transactions are often plagued by legal ambiguity, overlapping claims, and procedural complexity. The Registration Act, 1908—India’s primary statute governing property registration—has long been criticized for its outdated, manual processes and its failure to guarantee title security. To address these concerns, the Indian government introduced the Draft Registration Bill, 2025, aimed at digitizing land transactions, expanding the scope of mandatory registration, and integrating technological solutions such as Aadhaar-based verification and e-certificates.

While the Bill represents a significant step towards modernization, it raises fundamental legal concerns. Most notably, it risks conflating registration with ownership—a misunderstanding the Supreme Court recently sought to clarify. In a June 2025 ruling, the Court held that registration is procedural and does not, by itself, create legal title.[2] The Court further emphasized the continued relevance of due diligence, chain-of-title verification, and judicial determination of ownership, warning against over-reliance on digital documentation. Moreover, in an earlier decision, the Court struck down Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules as ultra vires, holding that registration officers cannot be conferred powers to adjudicate title.[3]

These rulings highlight a fundamental doctrinal issue: Can technological reform in property registration be effective without corresponding legal clarity on the distinction between title adjudication and documentary compliance? This paper explores that question by critically analyzing the Registration Bill, 2025 in light of established legal principles, recent case law, and comparative frameworks. It argues that any move towards a digital registration regime must preserve the legal integrity of land ownership while preventing bureaucratic overreach and safeguarding constitutional values such as access to justice and separation of powers.

The Evolution of Land Registration in India

The historical trajectory of land registration laws in India reveals a long-standing emphasis on documenting transactions rather than guaranteeing legal title. The Registration Act, 1908—a colonial-era legislation—was designed primarily to serve evidentiary and procedural functions. It mandates the registration of certain documents, such as sales, mortgages, leases, and gifts of immovable property, but explicitly refrains from conferring conclusive title upon registration.[4] This reflects a deliberate legal policy: registration provides notice and formal record-keeping, but ownership must be proved separately through valid transfer documents, possession, and chain-of-title analysis.

India’s land ownership structure is plagued by fragmented records, overlapping claims, and dual authority between revenue and registration departments.[5] Multiple surveys, including those by NITI Aayog and the World Bank, have highlighted that a significant percentage of land in India remains disputed or encumbered by unclear titles.[6] The evidentiary status of registered documents under Section 51 of the Act merely gives them presumptive value, meaning that a registered deed can still be challenged in court on grounds such as fraud, coercion, or invalid ownership.

This legal structure stands in sharp contrast to Torrens systems followed in countries like Australia, New Zealand, and parts of Canada, where the act of registration itself confers an indefeasible title and guarantees ownership backed by government indemnity.[7] In India, such a conclusive titling mechanism has never been implemented, though pilot projects under the Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme (DILRMP) have attempted to unify records.

However, scholars and courts alike have emphasized that India’s socio-legal context—marked by informal tenures, customary rights, and lack of universal documentation—makes title registration both challenging and potentially exclusionary if not handled with constitutional safeguards.[8] The introduction of the Registration Bill, 2025 must be understood in this context: a modernization attempt to digitize and streamline registration, but within a legacy system that was never designed to adjudicate or guarantee ownership.

Key Features and Legal Impact of the Draft Registration Bill, 2025

The Registration Bill, 2025, introduced as a replacement for the colonial-era Registration Act, 1908, represents a comprehensive overhaul of the legal framework for registering property-related documents in India. The Bill’s central objective is to streamline and modernize land transaction processes through digitization, integration of government databases, and real-time accessibility. However, beneath this administrative modernization lie profound legal implications that raise questions about the boundaries of procedural law, the separation of powers, and individual rights.

Mandatory Digital Registration and Aadhaar Integration

A notable shift proposed by the Bill is the mandatory online registration of a wider range of documents. Clause 3 of the Bill expands the list of registrable documents to include powers of attorney, agreements to sell, and even development rights agreements—transactions that were often kept off record under the 1908 Act.[9] Furthermore, registration is to be carried out via digital platforms, requiring users to authenticate their identities through Aadhaar, PAN, or other prescribed digital IDs.

While these reforms aim to increase transparency and prevent forgery, they also give rise to constitutional and practical concerns:

• First, mandatory Aadhaar linkage may violate the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, which limited Aadhaar use to specific welfare schemes.
• Second, the digital requirement may exclude rural populations with poor internet access, thus deepening India’s digital divide.
• Third, making registration a default digital process risks equating compliance with ownership, especially among uninformed citizens.

E-Certificates and Legal Presumptions

The Bill introduces e-certificates of registration as proof of the transaction. These certificates will include time-stamped data, biometric identifiers, and GPS-based location tagging of the parties.[10] While efficient, the structure of these certificates—particularly if backed by blockchain or other emerging technologies—may create a false impression of title conclusiveness among laypersons, which is problematic given the legal position that registration is not a determination of ownership.

The danger lies in the psychological and procedural conflation of registration with ownership. This could result in a situation where one party gains undue advantage in civil disputes by merely producing a registered e-certificate, without necessarily having a valid title.

Expanded Powers of Registrars

Another contentious provision is Clause 14(2)(d), which empowers sub-registrars to refuse registration if “ownership details are incomplete or legally deficient.”[11] On its face, this appears to be a sensible provision to prevent fraudulent transactions. However, in effect, it delegates adjudicatory authority—a power that belongs to civil courts—to administrative officers without any procedural safeguards.

This is reminiscent of the now-invalidated Rule 55A(i) in Tamil Nadu, where registrars were allowed to judge title authenticity, a power the Supreme Court declared ultra vires of the parent act.[12] By replicating this power at the national level, the Bill potentially violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, and may be struck down unless amended to clearly limit registrar discretion to procedural scrutiny only.

Appeal Mechanism and Legal Remedies

The Bill introduces a quasi-judicial appeal structure, allowing aggrieved parties to challenge registrar decisions before district-level officers and later, the registrar-general. However, these mechanisms are still embedded within the executive hierarchy, lacking independent judicial oversight. This raises questions under Article 300A of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law. If registration becomes a gatekeeping process to transact or enjoy property rights, its misuse or delay can lead to de facto property deprivation without formal expropriation.

Risk of Over-legislation and Confusion with Existing Laws

The 2025 Bill does not harmonize sufficiently with related statutes such as the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Indian Succession Act, 1925. It also lacks clarity on how it interfaces with state-specific land revenue and tenancy laws, leading to jurisdictional ambiguity. For example, several states have their own regulations on mutation, possession, and occupancy rights—none of which are acknowledged in the central Bill. This could result in dual compliance burdens and legal uncertainty for property holders.

Supreme Court’s Clarification on Title vs. Registration (2025)

The distinction between registration and ownership is a foundational aspect of property law in India, and one that the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed. In the landmark decision of Ramesh Chand v Sushila Devi (2025), the Court issued a categorical clarification that registration of a document does not, by itself, confer ownership or legal title.[13] This judgment plays a critical role in understanding the limitations of the Registration Bill, 2025, especially in the context of increasing digitization and bureaucratic intervention in land transactions.

1. Case Background and Legal Issue

The case arose out of a dispute between two parties over a parcel of urban land in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner, Ramesh Chand, claimed title based solely on a registered sale deed, arguing that the act of registration should serve as conclusive evidence of his ownership. The respondent, Sushila Devi, challenged this on the ground that her family had been in continuous possession of the land and that the registered document was fraudulent and executed without proper title in the first place.

The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that registration was not sufficient to establish title in the absence of a valid source of ownership. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court’s ruling.

2. Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Court emphasized that:

“The registration of a document merely signifies that a transaction has been recorded in the official registry. It does not validate the underlying legal relationship unless the transferor had legal capacity and authority to effect such a transfer.”[14]

This holding aligns with long-standing judicial precedent, including Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v State of Haryana, where the Court had ruled that GPA (General Power of Attorney) sales and mere agreements to sell, even if registered, do not convey ownership in the absence of a proper conveyance deed.[15]

The Court further observed that if registration alone were allowed to determine ownership, it would undermine the entire adjudicatory framework of the civil justice system and potentially lead to state-sanctioned dispossession through fraudulently registered documents. In the Indian legal framework, title flows not from the registry, but from valid transfer under substantive law, supported by possession, mutation, and in some cases, long-standing usage or inheritance.

3. Implications for the Registration Bill, 2025

This judgment has profound implications for the Registration Bill. While the Bill seeks to introduce e-certificates and expanded registrar powers, the Court’s decision reaffirms that:

• Registration remains evidentiary, not determinative.
• Administrative officers like sub-registrars cannot usurp the role of civil courts.
• Any legislative or digital attempt to create title by default through registration would be constitutionally suspect, unless accompanied by proper adjudication mechanisms and procedural fairness.

Moreover, the ruling serves as a warning against false equivalence between digital modernization and legal finality. The mere digitalization of registration processes does not—and cannot—transform a fundamentally procedural function into a conclusive legal one.

4. Limitations and Legal Nuance

However, the Court also clarified that while registration does not confer title, it does have significant evidentiary value, especially when combined with long-standing possession or uncontested chain of title. The failure to register a document may result in it being inadmissible in court, particularly under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Thus, while registration is not conclusive, it is necessary, especially in contentious land disputes.

1. Rule 55A(i) and the Limits of Delegated Authority

The Registration Bill, 2025 resurrects a contentious legal question: Can executive authorities such as sub-registrars be empowered to adjudicate on ownership issues? This debate came into sharp focus following the Supreme Court’s invalidation of Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, a regulation that had controversially granted sub-registrars discretion to refuse registration of documents based on ownership disputes.[16]

1. Background of Rule 55A(i)

Rule 55A(i), introduced through a 2022 amendment to the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, empowered the registering authority to:

“Refuse registration of a document if it appears that the executant does not have lawful title to the property.”

This rule was framed with the ostensible purpose of curbing fraudulent transactions. However, it effectively vested judicial authority in an executive functionary, permitting sub-registrars—who are not trained in legal adjudication—to make complex determinations about title, chain of ownership, and legal possession.

This delegation blurred the line between ministerial and quasi-judicial powers, prompting a constitutional challenge on grounds of ultra vires, violation of due process, and separation of powers.

2. Supreme Court Ruling: M. Ramesh v State of Tamil Nadu (2025)

In M. Ramesh v State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court struck down Rule 55A(i) as unconstitutional. The Court held that:

• The Registration Act is procedural in nature, and sub-registrars are tasked only with verifying formalities, not the substantive legality of transactions.
• Allowing sub-registrars to assess title transforms them into de facto judges, thereby usurping the role of civil courts and tribunals.[17]
• The rule violated Article 14 of the Constitution by conferring unfettered discretion without clear guidelines or appeal procedures.

Importantly, the Court clarified that while preventing fraud is a legitimate aim, it cannot be pursued by undermining constitutional structure. Executive convenience must yield to legal process when rights—especially property rights—are at stake.

3. Implications for the Registration Bill, 2025

Clause 14(2)(d) of the Draft Bill, which permits sub-registrars to refuse registration if “ownership details appear incomplete or defective,” echoes the language and logic of Rule 55A(i). Though broader in scope and couched in digital terms, this clause raises the same constitutional red flags.

• Delegated legislation must operate within the boundaries of the parent statute. The Registration Bill, if enacted in its current form, could be struck down unless it clarifies the scope of registrar discretion and ensures procedural safeguards.
• Without an independent judicial appeal mechanism, any refusal to register by a sub-registrar could result in arbitrary deprivation of property, violating Article 300A.
• There is also a federalism concern: registration procedures are on the Concurrent List, and central overreach could encroach upon states’ domain over land and revenue administration.

The lesson from M. Ramesh is that modernization efforts—even those involving digital infrastructure—must not erode the procedural fairness that lies at the heart of India’s legal system.

1. Digitalization, Privacy, and the Risk of Exclusion

One of the most transformative—but also controversial—features of the Registration Bill, 2025 is its reliance on digital infrastructure to modernize the property registration process. The Bill mandates online document submission, Aadhaar/PAN-based biometric authentication, GPS tagging, and issuance of e-certificates of registration.[18] While these measures are designed to enhance efficiency and curb fraud, they also raise serious concerns about privacy, data security, digital exclusion, and constitutional legality.

1. Privacy Concerns and Constitutional Limits

India’s recognition of privacy as a fundamental right under K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) ²⁰ makes it imperative that any law involving collection and storage of personal data must:

• Have a legitimate aim;
• Be sanctioned by law;
• Be proportionate to the aim pursued; and
• Include procedural safeguards.[19]

The Registration Bill, 2025 requires parties to furnish personal identifiers such as Aadhaar, biometric signatures, and even GPS location data as part of the registration process. These requirements—if implemented without a robust data protection law (which remains pending in Parliament)—may violate the proportionality doctrine laid down in Puttaswamy. For instance, linking Aadhaar to land registration is not directly related to fraud prevention, and may amount to excessive data collection.

Furthermore, Clause 25 of the Bill allows inter-departmental data sharing between the registration system and tax, municipal, and revenue records—raising the specter of surveillance capitalism and profiling of landholders without consent.

2. Digital Divide and Risk of Exclusion

The move to digitize the entire registration process also risks excluding vulnerable populations, particularly in rural India, where digital literacy and infrastructure are still weak:

• As per the NSSO Survey (2023), only 38% of rural households have access to reliable internet.[20]
• Many senior citizens, women, and marginalized communities lack digital IDs or confidence to navigate online procedures.

This could lead to what scholars’ term “digital disenfranchisement”, where failure to comply with tech-heavy processes results in legal disadvantages, such as inability to register land, delay in mutation, or loss of opportunity to transfer ancestral property.

A techno-legal process that bypasses social realities can convert digital inclusion into legal exclusion—ironically defeating the purpose of transparency and access to justice.

3. Data Security and Institutional Readiness

India has witnessed several high-profile data breaches—including from government portals—raising valid concerns about data security in public databases. The land registration system is a prime target for cyberattacks, given the value of property records. The Registration Bill, 2025, however, is silent on:

• Encryption standards;
• Audit mechanisms;
• Third-party vendor liabilities; and
• Consent architecture for data sharing.

In the absence of an enforceable Personal Data Protection Act, citizens have no meaningful recourse against misuse of their biometric or transactional data collected during land registration.[21]

4. Legal Ambiguity and Constitutional Scrutiny

Digitization, while a positive reform in theory, must operate within the framework of constitutional values—particularly Articles 14 (equality), 21 (life and liberty, including privacy), and 300A (protection of property). Any process that burdens citizens disproportionately, creates arbitrary barriers, or enables unauthorized surveillance can be struck down as unconstitutional.

Without explicit safeguards, the Bill risks replicating the errors of past initiatives such as Project Aadhaar, where procedural expediency was prioritized over rights and remedies.

1. Harmonization with Other Property Laws and State Powers

The Registration Bill, 2025 does not operate in isolation. It intersects with a complex legal and federal matrix involving land revenue laws, transfer of property statutes, urban planning regulations, and state land titling systems. A critical challenge for the Bill’s implementation—and constitutional validity—is how well it harmonizes with existing laws and respects the division of powers between Centre and States under the Constitution of India.[22]

1. Federal Structure and Legislative Competence

Land and its registration fall under Entry 18 of the State List (List II) in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, while contracts and registration of documents fall under Entries 6 and 12 of the Concurrent List (List III). The existing Registration Act, 1908—and by extension, the new Bill—is a Concurrent List legislation, which means both Parliament and State legislatures are empowered to enact laws on the subject.

However, for a central law like the Registration Bill, 2025 to be enforceable across India, it must:

• Either not conflict with state laws already in force, or
• Be enacted with Presidential assent under Article 254(2) if it overrides existing state provisions.

Several states, including Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh, have already implemented digitized and integrated land records systems, sometimes with unique procedures and standards. A one-size-fits-all central law could disrupt these frameworks and lead to legislative and administrative confusion.

For example, the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Maharashtra Land Revenue Code have state-specific title adjudication processes which may conflict with a central rule on registration-based title or sub-registrar discretion.

2. Overlap with Transfer of Property Act and Revenue Laws

The Registration Bill, 2025 also raises questions about its alignment with substantive laws governing property transactions, such as:

• The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which governs how title passes in cases of sale, mortgage, lease, etc.;
• The Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which determines duty payable on instruments;
• State land revenue codes, which govern mutation, land classification, and tenancy.

For instance, while the Bill promotes a digitally issued registration certificate, the passing of title still depends on compliance with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act—which requires a properly executed sale deed. Without harmonization, there is a risk of dual systems—one based on digital records and one based on substantive law—leading to disputes and delays.

Moreover, the Bill does not address how registration data will be reconciled with:

• Mutation records maintained by Tehsildars or village officers;
• Cadastral maps used for planning and litigation; or
• Judicial decrees affecting ownership.

3. Need for Inter-Departmental Coordination

Land governance in India involves coordination between at least five different departments: Revenue, Registration, Urban Development, Panchayati Raj, and Judiciary. A truly effective and constitutionally sound digital registration system must:

• Provide a centralized portal that integrates data across departments;
• Respect the institutional boundaries of each authority;
• Allow citizen-friendly dispute resolution, rather than bureaucratic opacity.

At present, the Bill remains silent on how overlapping claims between these bodies will be adjudicated or whether integration will follow uniform technical standards.

4. Judicial View on Harmonization

Courts have often stressed the need for coherence in statutory interpretation, especially when rights are affected by overlapping laws. In State of M.P. v G.S. Dall & Flour Mills (1992)[23], the Supreme Court held that statutes must be interpreted in a way that avoids repugnancy and upholds the integrity of both central and state laws, unless there is a clear intention to override.

Hence, unless the Registration Bill, 2025 builds in-built mechanisms for coordination, it may face litigation and delayed enforcement due to incompatibility with state laws and procedures.

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

The Registration Bill, 2025 represents a pivotal step in India’s attempt to modernize and streamline the land registration process through digital technology and administrative reform. However, this legislative ambition must be tempered by constitutional safeguards, judicial precedents, and social realities.

The Bill rightly aims to reduce fraud, enhance transparency, and bring uniformity in land registration practices. Yet, by conflating procedural registration with ownership adjudication, and by granting quasi-judicial powers to sub-registrars, it risks upsetting long-settled legal principles. As clarified by the Supreme Court in multiple rulings, registration is not conclusive proof of title, and any attempt to vest adjudicatory powers in executive officials would be a serious constitutional transgression.

Furthermore, the digitalization of land records—while commendable in intent—raises significant concerns around privacy, data security, and digital exclusion. A techno-centric system, if not implemented with inclusivity and safeguards, could marginalize vulnerable populations and create new forms of dispossession.

In a federal system like India’s, harmonization with state-specific land and revenue laws is not merely administrative—it is constitutionally imperative. Without alignment and coordination across state frameworks, the Bill could invite litigation, confusion, and poor implementation.

Policy Recommendations:

1. Limit Registrar Powers: Amend clauses that permit sub-registrars to assess title or ownership. Their role must remain ministerial.
2. Build Safeguards for Privacy: Ensure Aadhaar, biometric, and location data collection complies with the Puttaswamy framework and the upcoming data protection regime.
3. Promote Inclusive Digital Infrastructure: Design grievance redressal mechanisms and assisted access systems for the digitally excluded.
4. Ensure Federal Harmonization: Engage with states through the GST Council–like federal model before implementation, and accommodate state-specific land laws.
5. Judicial Oversight: Establish independent adjudicatory tribunals for registration-related disputes rather than relying on executive discretion.

In its current form, the Registration Bill, 2025 is a technological solution to a legal and social problem. Without recalibration, it may serve efficiency at the cost of legality, transparency at the cost of rights, and speed at the cost of justice. What is required is not just digital reform, but legal reform rooted in constitutionalism.

[1] Authored by Rohit pursuing Ph.d from Department of Law Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra

[2] Ramesh Chand v Sushila Devi, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 456.

[3] M Ramesh v State of Tamil Nadu, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 320.

[4] The Registration Act 1908, s 17 read with s 49.

[5] P S Apte, Land Laws in India: History and Future (LexisNexis 2019) 87.

[6] World Bank, Land Governance Assessment Framework: India Report (2023) 42

[7] Douglas J Whalan, The Torrens System in Australia (Lawbook Co 2015) 31–40.

[8] B N Murthy, ‘Conclusive Title Systems and India’s Legal Readiness’ (2021) 48(4) Indian Law Review 211

[9] Registration Bill 2025, cl 3

[10] K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1

[11] Ministry of Law and Justice, ‘Draft Registration Bill 2025: Public Consultation Paper’ (April 2025)

[12] M Ramesh v State of Tamil Nadu, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 320, [15].

[13] Ramesh Chand v Sushila Devi (2025) SCC OnLine SC 456

[14] Ibid [23]

[15] Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656.

[16] Tamil Nadu Registration (Amendment) Rules, 2022, r 55A(i).

[17] M Ramesh v State of Tamil Nadu (2025) SCC OnLine SC 320, [15]–[21]

[18] Registration Bill, 2025, cls 10–14.

[19] K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, [638]–[647].

[20] NSSO, ‘Household Internet Access in India’ (2023), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.

[21] Vrinda Bhandari, ‘Land Records, Privacy and the Constitution’ (2024) 59(2) Economic and Political Weekly 18.

[22] Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, List II Entry 18; List III Entries 6, 12 & Article 254(2)

[23] State of M.P. v G.S. Dall & Flour Mills (1992) 3 SCC 466