Reimagining Property Rights in India: Analyzing the Legal and Constitutional Challenges to the Registration Bill, 2025

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

Literature Review

The subject of land registration and property rights in India has long been a point of contention, with scholars emphasizing the inadequacies of the Registration Act, 1908 in securing legal ownership. S.N. Jain (2005) noted that the Indian registration framework largely performs a procedural role without guaranteeing title validity, unlike the Torrens system adopted in countries like Australia, where registration equates to legal ownership.

Poonam Saxena (2011) examined the implications of registration in India and concluded that land ownership disputes arise primarily from the lack of conclusive titling mechanisms. Her work emphasized that while registration is an evidentiary tool, it falls short in resolving or preventing title disputes.

In recent years, government reports such as the NITI Aayog’s Land Records Modernization in India (2017) and the Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme (DILRMP) have pushed for reform. These initiatives highlight the need to shift from presumptive to conclusive title systems. However, critics like Shruti Rajagopalan have pointed out that technological fixes without legal reform may create new layers of ambiguity and inequality, especially in rural areas where access to digital tools is limited.

The legal community has responded strongly to the Registration Bill, 2025. Bar Council representatives have expressed concern over the delegation of registration powers to Common Service Centres (CSCs), which may undermine legal oversight and procedural safeguards. This issue finds resonance in Upendra Baxi’s theory of access to justice, which stresses the importance of legal intermediaries in protecting vulnerable populations from state overreach.

In terms of constitutional analysis, scholars such as M.P. Jain and D.D. Basu have consistently emphasized that Article 300A of the Constitution—the right to property—though no longer a fundamental right, remains a constitutional right and requires due process before deprivation. This has become particularly relevant after the Supreme Court’s June 2025 ruling, which held that registration alone does not confer ownership, reinforcing the necessity of due legal process.

Comparative legal studies also provide insight. For instance, Barbara McDonald’s research on property law reform in the UK reveals that conclusive titling systems require institutional reliability, strong judicial infrastructure, and rigorous legal literacy—all of which remain underdeveloped in India’s context.

Thus, the literature reflects a consensus that while land registration reform is urgently needed, it must be accompanied by legal clarity, constitutional safeguards, and professional integrity. The Registration Bill, 2025 presents a reform opportunity, but its success depends on its ability to address the systemic gaps highlighted in existing scholarship.

Research Methodology

This study adopts a doctrinal and analytical legal research methodology to critically examine the Registration Bill, 2025 in light of recent judicial pronouncements, constitutional principles, and comparative legal frameworks. The research is grounded in qualitative legal analysis, focusing on primary and secondary legal sources.

Sources of Data

• Primary Sources:
  • The Registration Bill, 2025 (draft text)
  • The Registration Act, 1908
  • Relevant judgments of the Supreme Court of India, especially the June 2025 ruling on ownership vs. registration
  • Constitutional provisions, particularly Article 300A and related case law
• Secondary Sources:
  • Scholarly articles, commentaries, and books on land registration and property law
  • Reports by NITI Aayog, Law Commission of India, and the Department of Land Resources
  • Media coverage and bar association reports concerning protests against CSC-based registration
  • Comparative studies on title registration systems in jurisdictions like Australia, the UK, and Singapore

Method of Analysis

• Statutory Analysis: The Bill’s clauses are examined for consistency with the Constitution, especially in the context of due process and property rights.
• Case Law Review: Key judgments are analyzed to assess how courts interpret property rights, registration processes, and the scope of delegated legislation.
• Comparative Legal Study: Selected international systems (e.g., Torrens system) are used as benchmarks to assess whether the proposed Bill aligns with global best practices.
• Doctrinal Synthesis: Legal doctrines such as rule of law, delegated legislation, and access to justice are applied to evaluate the broader legal implications of the Bill.

Scope and Limitations

The study focuses primarily on legal and constitutional issues surrounding land registration reform in India. It does not empirically assess land disputes or field-level implementation of digital systems. However, references to policy documents and expert critiques help contextualize potential practical consequences.

Hypothesis

This research is based on the following central hypothesis:

“The Registration Bill, 2025, while aimed at modernizing and digitizing property transactions in India, fails to fully safeguard constitutional property rights and may dilute legal oversight by permitting non-legal entities to perform critical registration functions, thereby raising serious legal and procedural concerns.”

Sub-Hypotheses:

1. Registration ≠ Ownership: Mere digital registration under the proposed Bill does not resolve the long-standing issue of unclear and contested land titles in India, as reinforced by the recent Supreme Court judgment.
2. Delegated Powers Lack Legal Safeguards: The delegation of registration authority to Common Service Centres (CSCs) or similar non-legal entities may compromise due process and weaken the professional role of lawyers in land governance.
3. The Bill Risks Constitutional Conflict: Key provisions of the Registration Bill, 2025 may violate Article 300A and the principles of natural justice by failing to ensure adequate legal protections during property registration and transfer.
4. Comparative Jurisdictions Offer Better Safeguards: Unlike India’s proposed model, countries with conclusive titling systems (e.g., Australia) integrate strict verification mechanisms, making ownership clear and defensible—an approach that India’s Bill currently lacks.

Introduction

Land and property rights lie at the heart of legal identity, economic security, and social justice in India. Yet, the framework governing property registration has remained largely unchanged since the enactment of the Registration Act, 1908, a colonial statute rooted in procedural formalities rather than substantive legal protection. In response to growing inefficiencies, fraud, and a lack of clarity in land ownership, the Indian government introduced the Registration Bill, 2025 with the promise of modernization, digitization, and transparency in property transactions.[2]

However, the Bill has sparked critical legal and constitutional debates. The most significant development came in June 2025, when the Supreme Court of India ruled that mere registration of property does not confer legal ownership. The Court stressed the distinction between procedural compliance and substantive title rights, exposing a fundamental flaw in the Indian land registration regime.[3]

Simultaneously, the Bill’s operational design has drawn sharp resistance from the legal fraternity. In Uttarakhand, lawyers have protested against the delegation of registration duties to Common Service Centres (CSCs) under the proposed Uniform Civil Code. They argue that such delegation violates the integrity of the registration process, undermines the professional role of lawyers, and weakens access to legal remedies for citizens.[4]

From a constitutional standpoint, the Bill raises concerns under Article 300A, which protects the right to property as a constitutional (albeit no longer fundamental) right. Delegation of sensitive functions to non-legal actors, absence of due process guarantees, and lack of robust title certification all present risks of arbitrary deprivation of property, violating the rule of law and principles of natural justice.

Ownership vs. Registration: Legal Status under Indian Law

The cornerstone of any land law regime is the ability to determine who legally owns a piece of land. In India, this issue has long been plagued by ambiguities due to a presumptive title system, under which registration serves as evidence of a transaction but does not itself confer ownership.[5] The introduction of the Registration Bill, 2025 seeks to digitize and expedite the land registration process. However, it fails to address the central flaw of the existing legal framework—that registration does not equate to title.

In a landmark ruling delivered in June 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Rajendra v Union of India affirmed that mere registration of a sale deed does not establish legal ownership.[6] The Court held that ownership must be traced through a valid chain of title, mutation entries, and factual possession. This judgment reflects long-standing precedent, including Suraj Lamp & Industries v State of Haryana, where the Court had held that General Power of Attorney (GPA) sales or unregistered agreements do not convey ownership rights.[7] The 2025 judgment, however, elevated the principle by declaring that even registration, in itself, is insufficient without verified title—thereby casting doubt on the effectiveness of the proposed digital-only model.

Legal academics have argued that India’s existing land records framework promotes transactional validity over title security. According to Poonam Saxena, the Registration Act, 1908 merely serves as a documentation process and does not ensure conclusive title, as it lacks mechanisms for title verification or indemnity in case of fraud.[8] The proposed Bill carries forward this limitation by not defining any legal consequences for wrongful or fraudulent registration and by failing to establish a title certification mechanism.

By contrast, Australia’s Torrens system ensures that once a property is registered, the state guarantees the title.[9] Registration is both necessary and sufficient to claim ownership, and any loss resulting from registration fraud is indemnified by the state. This makes the land market efficient and protects bona fide purchasers. India’s 2025 Bill, while technologically advanced, still places the burden of verifying title on the buyer, requiring them to engage in extensive due diligence, often without professional legal support in rural and semi-urban areas.[10]

The lack of conclusive title creates an environment ripe for litigation, multiple sales, land grabbing, and title fraud, as parties must often defend ownership through lengthy court proceedings. In the absence of a statutory provision that makes registration conclusive, the Registration Bill, 2025 may modernize form but not the substance of property law in India.

Delegated Powers and the Use of Common Service Centres (CSCs)

One of the most controversial features of the Registration Bill, 2025 is the delegation of critical registration functions to Common Service Centres (CSCs) and other non-legal personnel. Under the Bill, CSCs may be authorized to accept registration applications, upload documents, facilitate biometric verification, and perform preliminary scrutiny—all functions that have traditionally been vested in Sub-Registrars or officers appointed under the Registration Act, 1908.[11] This shift has provoked widespread opposition, especially from bar associations and legal practitioners in states like Uttarakhand, where CSCs are being integrated into Uniform Civil Code (UCC)-based property modules.[12]

The core issue lies in whether such delegation passes constitutional and administrative muster. Indian jurisprudence recognizes the necessity of delegated legislation in a modern administrative state, but also sets limits on delegation. In the landmark case of In re Delhi Laws Act, the Supreme Court ruled that while the legislature may delegate administrative powers, it cannot abdicate essential legislative functions or delegate without safeguards.[13] The proposed use of CSCs—without any requirement of legal training, accountability standards, or judicial oversight—risks violating these limits, especially when CSCs are given powers to handle documents affecting property rights.

The delegation also affects access to legal advice and redress. Registration involves significant legal implications, including the transfer of title, valuation of stamp duty, and potential disputes over ownership. Allowing CSCs to facilitate these processes without ensuring legal supervision may create procedural gaps. For example, CSC operators may fail to detect forged documents or identify conflicting titles, resulting in unlawful registrations that parties may only discover years later, often after further transactions or encumbrances.[14]

From a constitutional standpoint, the use of CSCs raises questions under Article 14 and Article 300A. Article 14 ensures equality before the law, and administrative actions that are arbitrary, unfair, or lack procedural safeguards can be struck down as violative of this provision.[15] Meanwhile, Article 300A provides that no person shall be deprived of their property except by authority of law. If property is wrongfully transferred or registered through a CSC without proper legal scrutiny, the state may be seen as enabling deprivation without lawful procedure.

Legal experts have also flagged the absence of a robust appellate mechanism under the Bill. Once a registration is completed through a CSC, there is no mandatory process for internal review or legal appeal unless a party initiates litigation.[16] In rural areas, where legal literacy is low, this could result in people losing property rights without recourse, particularly if they are unaware that fraudulent or incorrect registrations have occurred.

While the aim of using CSCs is to improve accessibility and reduce bureaucratic delays, this must be balanced with the need for legal competence and due process. As Justice PN Bhagwati famously observed, “Speedy justice must not mean hasty injustice.” Without clear statutory controls, training protocols, and accountability mechanisms, the use of CSCs in the registration process undermines both legal integrity and constitutional legitimacy.

Constitutional Concerns: Article 300A and the Rule of Law

The Registration Bill, 2025, in its ambition to digitize and decentralize property registration, raises critical constitutional concerns—particularly in light of Article 300A of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards the right to property as a constitutional right. Although no longer a fundamental right since the 44th Amendment, the right to property retains its legal sanctity and cannot be arbitrarily curtailed without the authority of law and due process.

The process of registration under the proposed Bill does not conclusively determine ownership but could still affect a person’s enjoyment, control, or alienation of property. This becomes problematic when the Bill permits registrations by Common Service Centres (CSCs) without a robust legal framework ensuring notice to affected parties, verification of title, or independent scrutiny of forged documents. A person may lose practical control of their property merely because someone else registered it fraudulently online—without their knowledge or consent.[17]

This situation is not hypothetical. India has witnessed numerous cases of benami transactions, illegal transfers, and title frauds due to inadequate scrutiny during registration.[18] When registration is mechanized without adequate legal safeguards, the procedure becomes vulnerable to abuse. As observed in State of Orissa v Binapani Dei, any administrative action affecting individual rights must follow a fair procedure—one that includes notice, hearing, and reasoned decision-making. The 2025 Bill, however, neither mandates such protections nor provides statutory remedies in case of wrongful registration.

The constitutional doctrine of Rule of Law, a basic feature of the Constitution, further intensifies the concern. As reiterated in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, the procedure established by law must not be arbitrary, oppressive, or unjust. By enabling the possibility of dispossession without meaningful legal process, the Registration Bill, 2025 risks violating this principle. If one can lose or have their rights diluted over land through an automated and poorly regulated system, it amounts to constructive expropriation.

Moreover, access to judicial redress is undermined under the Bill. Unlike the current system where Sub-Registrars operate under judicial supervision and where disputes are recorded, the new mechanism is more administrative and transactional. There is no obligation for the registrar or CSC to inform stakeholders when a transaction is registered, nor is there a mechanism for third parties to raise objections before registration.[19] This gap in procedural fairness has constitutional implications, as it leaves affected persons with no immediate administrative remedy other than approaching civil courts, which can take years to resolve disputes.

Hence, unless the Bill is accompanied by strong appellate safeguards, fraud detection systems, title verification protocols, and user grievance mechanisms, it could fall afoul of constitutional principles that protect against arbitrary state action and uphold the sanctity of private property.

Comparative Legal Frameworks: Torrens vs. Indian Model

To understand the structural deficiencies in India’s land registration framework and the limitations of the Registration Bill, 2025, a comparative examination of international land titling systems—particularly the Torrens system—is instructive. Many developed countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and England, follow a system of conclusive title, where registration is not merely evidence of a transaction but is guarantee of ownership.[20]

Under the Torrens system, once a person’s name is entered in the land register, they are deemed the absolute owner, and the state indemnifies any party who suffers loss due to wrongful registration. This provides legal certainty, market efficiency, and security to bona fide purchasers, who need not investigate past transactions or worry about forged documents in earlier chains of title. The registrar performs a vetting and certification function, effectively verifying and confirming ownership rights at the point of registration.

By contrast, India operates under a presumptive title system, where even a registered sale deed does not conclusively prove ownership.[21] The onus remains on the buyer to verify title through multiple sources—encumbrance certificates, mutation records, tax receipts, and even oral testimonies in rural areas.[22] The judiciary has consistently held that registration, in itself, is not proof of ownership unless supported by valid title.[23] This system is not only inefficient but also legally fragile, often resulting in title disputes, overlapping claims, and litigation.

The Registration Bill, 2025 does not attempt to overhaul this structure. It proposes a shift from physical to digital registration but retains the same non-conclusive presumptive framework. There is no statutory assurance from the state regarding the correctness of registered titles, nor is there a mechanism for indemnification or compensation in cases of fraudulent or mistaken registration. This is in stark contrast to countries like Australia, where compensation funds exist to protect parties affected by registration errors or fraud.

Moreover, while the Bill encourages the use of technology, biometric verification, and GIS mapping, it does not incorporate legal changes necessary to shift to a title guarantee system. Without legal reforms to establish conclusive ownership, digitization alone cannot solve the underlying problems of land insecurity and fraud.[24]

In 2016, NITI Aayog had proposed a model law on conclusive titling, emphasizing the need for a statutory guarantee of title backed by state indemnity. However, these proposals remain unimplemented. The Registration Bill, 2025 represents a technological evolution but not a legal revolution. Unless backed by substantive title reforms, the risk is that India will have high-tech systems but low-trust outcomes.

Policy and Access to Justice Considerations

While the Registration Bill, 2025 aims to streamline land registration through digital means, it has raised significant policy and access to justice concerns, especially for vulnerable populations—such as rural landholders, tribal communities, senior citizens, and women—who are often at the fringes of India’s formal legal infrastructure.

One of the stated objectives of the Bill is to bring transparency, speed, and accountability to property transactions by making land registration fully online. However, the policy fails to account for the digital divide in India. According to government data, over 40% of rural households lack access to the internet,[25] and digital literacy remains low even among urban poor. Shifting the burden of property registration onto citizens, with minimal state assistance, could unintentionally exclude those who are most in need of secure land rights.

Moreover, while Common Service Centres (CSCs) are promoted as a solution for digital facilitation, they are not equipped to provide legal advice, verify the authenticity of documents, or guide illiterate users through complex procedures.[26] This could lead to power asymmetries, where wealthy or influential parties manipulate the process to their advantage. Land registration, without legal support, ceases to be a tool of empowerment and becomes a potential source of exploitation.

A related concern is the gender gap in land ownership in India. Despite various legal reforms, women continue to hold a disproportionately low share of titled property.[27] The Bill does not contain any specific provisions aimed at encouraging or protecting women’s land rights, such as joint titling mandates, awareness programs, or grievance redressal mechanisms. In fact, the push toward self-service digital registration may further marginalize women who often lack both digital access and formal literacy.

The Bill also lacks an embedded legal aid or ombudsman structure. In the event of wrongful or fraudulent registration, the only remedy is civil litigation, which is slow, costly, and inaccessible to many. There is no dedicated administrative appellate mechanism or local land dispute authority empowered to review grievances swiftly. In a country with over 66% of all civil cases related to land disputes,[28] the failure to build a quick-response mechanism undermines the principle of access to justice enshrined in Article 39A of the Constitution.

From a public policy perspective, digitization should be enabling, not excluding. Unless the state creates inclusive registration mechanisms—through legal literacy drives, trained legal facilitators, user-friendly grievance portals, and targeted outreach to women and tribal communities—the Registration Bill, 2025 risks replicating the same inequities that plague the current system.

Conclusion

The Registration Bill, 2025 presents a transformative step in India’s journey towards a digitized land administration system. By proposing online registration, biometric verification, and decentralization through Common Service Centres (CSCs), the Bill aspires to bring efficiency, transparency, and accessibility to property transactions. However, a closer analysis reveals that it falls short of delivering a holistic and constitutionally sound reform.

Fundamentally, the Bill continues to rely on a presumptive title system, thereby preserving the very ambiguities that have historically led to disputes, fraud, and litigation.¹ Unlike the Torrens model, the Indian system offers no guarantee of ownership upon registration and no indemnity for parties affected by wrongful entries. Digitization, without a corresponding legal framework to establish conclusive titles, risks becoming a superficial reform that masks persistent structural deficiencies.

The Bill also raises serious concerns of delegated legislation, especially in empowering CSCs—non-legal, decentralized actors—to undertake critical quasi-judicial functions traditionally exercised by trained registrars. This not only endangers procedural integrity but may also violate constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 300A, which mandate non-arbitrary deprivation of property and equal protection of the law.

Moreover, the lack of provisions addressing gendered and rural inequities, the absence of a grievance redressal framework, and the digital divide further diminish the Bill’s capacity to foster inclusive land governance. Vulnerable groups—tribal communities, women, senior citizens, and the digitally illiterate—stand at risk of exclusion, even exploitation, unless adequate safeguards are embedded in the system.

Ultimately, the Registration Bill, 2025 needs substantial refinement. It must be integrated with legal guarantees of title, strengthened oversight mechanisms, and pro-people access strategies to become not just a tool of technological reform, but a genuine instrument of legal empowerment and land justice. In a nation where land remains both a source of livelihood and identity, registration reforms must be law-sensitive, rights-based, and socially inclusive to achieve their full constitutional and developmental potential.

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

[2] Registration Act, 1908, No 16 of 1908; see also Ministry of Rural Development, Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme (DILRMP) (2016)

[3] Supreme Court of India, Rajendra v Union of India (2025) Civil Appeal No 4489 of 2025, para 21; see also Economic Times, ‘SC: Land Registration Does Not Prove Ownership’ (10 June 2025)

[4] Times of India, ‘Advocates Oppose UCC Registry Changes’ (10 June 2025)

[5] Poonam Saxena, Property Law (LexisNexis 2011) 213–15.

[6] Rajendra v Union of India (2025) Civil Appeal No 4489 of 2025, SC para 21.

[7] Suraj Lamp & Industries v State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656, paras 13–14.

[8] Poonam Saxena (n 1) 220.

[9] Peter Butt, Land Law in Australia (6th edn, LexisNexis 2010) 328–30.

[10] NITI Aayog, ‘Conclusive Titling of Land Records’ (Policy Paper, 2016)

[11] Registration Bill, 2025 (Draft), cl 15–18 (on delegation to CSCs).

[12] Times of India, ‘Advocates Protest CSC-based Registry under UCC’ (10 June 2025)

[13] In re Delhi Laws Act, 1912 AIR 1951 SC 332, para 49.

[14] Poonam Saxena, Property Law (LexisNexis 2011) 241–243.

[15] EP Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 555.

[16] NITI Aayog, ‘Conclusive Titling of Land Records’ (Policy Paper, 2016)

[17] Poonam Saxena, Property Law (LexisNexis 2011) 256–258

[18] Satya Prakash, ‘Title Fraud: The Hidden Crisis in India’s Land Market’ (Hindustan Times, 2 March 2022)

[19] NITI Aayog, ‘Conclusive Titling of Land Records’ (Policy Paper, 2016)

[20] Peter Butt, Land Law in Australia (6th edn, LexisNexis 2010) 345

[21] Poonam Saxena, Property Law (LexisNexis 2011) 232–236

[22] Alok Prasanna Kumar, ‘Why India’s Land Registration System is Broken’ (The Hindu, 19 January 2020)

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

[24] NITI Aayog, ‘Conclusive Titling of Land Records’ (Policy Paper, 2016)

[25] Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), ‘Internet Access in India: A 2023 Report’

[26] Times of India, ‘CSCs Not Trained to Handle Legal Verification, Say Bar Councils’ (6 June 2025)

[27] Landesa, ‘Women and Land Ownership in India: 2022 Policy Brief

[28] Daksh India, ‘Access to Justice Survey Report’ (2022)