Case at a Glance
A landowner in Hazaribagh found his 42-decimal plot on the ‘prohibited list’ kept under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, which blocks registration of sale deeds. That provision and the State’s 2015 notification had already been struck down by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, following the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, yet the list remained on the NGDRS registration portal. The High Court directed the State to delete the prohibited list from the portal forthwith, told Sub-Registrars to register transfer deeds that meet the statutory requirements, and rejected the State’s suggestion that each landowner should apply to the Deputy Commissioner.
The petitioner’s land, Khata No. 154, Plot No. 2606, measuring 42 decimals in village Bonga, District Hazaribagh, was placed on the prohibited list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, a provision inserted by the Bihar Amendment Act 6 of 1991 and adopted by Jharkhand. He made a representation for its removal, which his counsel said the authorities had left pending.
By a common judgment dated 1 May 2025, a Division Bench of the High Court in Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. struck down Section 22-A and Notification No. 1132 dated 26 August 2015, and set aside orders passed under them. The State has filed special leave petitions in the Supreme Court, but no interim order has been passed. Before the High Court, the Advocate General said the State was preparing a new law and that landowners should approach the Deputy Commissioner individually.
The Key Question Before the Court
Once Section 22-A and the notification under it have been struck down, can the State continue to keep a prohibited list on the registration portal and require each landowner to seek removal individually?
A Struck-Down Provision Cannot Survive on a Portal
The Court recalled that in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 09 SC CK 0056 the Supreme Court held the similar Rajasthan Section 22-A ultra vires, because ‘public policy’ is too vague a standard and essential legislative functions cannot be handed to the executive. The Division Bench in Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association applied that reasoning to the identical Jharkhand provision. The consequence, the Court held, is that the State cannot act on Notification No. 1132 of 2015 at all. Yet the list still appeared on the NGDRS portal, and Sub-Registrars were refusing valid sale deeds, producing needless litigation.
Relying on K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar & Ors., (2025) 04 SC CK 0341, the Court held that registration is a ministerial function: neither the Registration Act nor the Bihar Registration Rules, 1937 empowers a registering officer to refuse registration because title is disputed, and the presumption arising from a registered deed is in any case rebuttable. Sending landowners one by one to the Deputy Commissioner made no sense when the provision itself no longer existed. The Court also noted that lands had been put on the list without any hearing, though doing so carries serious civil consequences, which violated the principles of natural justice.
What the Court Actually Held
- Since Section 22-A and Notification No. 1132 dated 26 August 2015 have been struck down, the State cannot act on them, and pendency of the State’s SLPs without any interim order does not change this.
- The State must forthwith delete the prohibited list of lands maintained on the NGDRS portal.
- Sub-Registrars must register transfer deeds that conform to the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules; they cannot refuse registration over a title dispute.
- The Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department must issue a circular to all Deputy Commissioners for strict compliance; landowners need not apply individually for removal.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many landowners in Jharkhand have been unable to sell or transfer property because their plots appeared on a list that had already been declared invalid. The direction applies to the portal as a whole, not just the petitioner’s plot.
- It reaffirms that Sub-Registrars perform a ministerial function and cannot decide title disputes when presented with a deed.
- It shows that a judgment striking down a law must be followed in administrative systems, including online portals, not only in the case of the parties.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Landowners and Buyers
- If your land appears on Jharkhand’s prohibited list, rely on this order and the 2025 Division Bench judgment when presenting a deed for registration.
- Registration does not prove title; buyers should still carry out their own title checks.
- If a Sub-Registrar refuses a compliant deed on the basis of the list, the refusal can be challenged.
For Counsel
- Cite State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association and K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar together on the limits of a registering officer’s power.
- Pendency of an SLP without a stay does not suspend a High Court judgment.
- Argue lack of hearing before listing as an independent natural-justice ground.
Key Takeaways
- Section 22-A and the 2015 notification have been struck down, so the prohibited list has no legal basis.
- The State must delete the list from the NGDRS portal forthwith.
- Sub-Registrars must register deeds that meet statutory requirements and cannot adjudicate title.
- The State’s request that each landowner apply to the Deputy Commissioner was rejected.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the prohibited land list under Section 22-A?
It is a list of lands whose transfer deeds registering officers were told not to register, maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act as amended by Bihar in 1991 and adopted by Jharkhand. A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court struck down the provision and the 2015 notification on 1 May 2025.
Can a Sub-Registrar refuse registration because ownership is disputed?
No. Relying on K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar, the Court held that the registering officer has no power to adjudicate title and must register deeds that conform to the Act and Rules.
Does the pending Supreme Court appeal affect this?
The Court noted that the State’s SLPs were pending but no interim order had been passed, so the State cannot act on the struck-down provision and notification.
Conclusion
The order closes a gap between a court’s ruling and the government’s systems. A provision that no longer exists in law was still blocking registrations through an online list, and the High Court directed that the list be removed and that Sub-Registrars follow the law as it stands.
Practical takeaway: A landowner in Jharkhand whose property is shown on the prohibited list can present a compliant deed for registration and rely on this order if the Sub-Registrar refuses.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com