The wrongs in land rights

And yet things could have been very different. On April 3, 1987, Manmohan Singh, then deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, wrote to Pune-based professor D C Wadhwa, an economist with the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, asking him if he would head a one-man committee on the status of record-of-rights in land.

Wadhwa submitted a preliminary study in 1989 but, 16 years later, there is neither a record of land nor of rights. It doesn’t appear to be on anybody’s priority list — even though last July Sonia Gandhi, as Chairperson of the National Advisory Council, wrote to the Prime Minister on this issue: ‘‘A very large percentage of the people in India live in the rural areas and derive livelihoods, wholly or partially, from land. The compilation and updation of land records, is, therefore, a particularly significant measure to instil a sense of security in the farming community and to encourage investments for higher land productivity, especially in the establishment of Clear Titles to Land.’’

‘‘This matter has been discussed in the NAC and it has been felt that a system to establish Clear Titles to Land… would be of all-round benefit to farmers.’’

Exactly what Prof Wadhwa had suggested years ago. Convinced that the absence of clear title is the principal cause of agrarian and social unrest in many parts of the country, Wadhwa said the government must consider introducing the system of ‘‘guaranteeing title to land’’, so that we know who owns what. In his report, ‘Guaranteeing Title to Land, a Preliminary Study’, which he submitted to the Planning Commission on August 31, 1989, he explained why the change was needed.

In the course of a year-and-a-half he found that records relating to land were in a very bad shape. ‘‘Not only are the land records not up to date, in many cases they are not available at all,’’ he said. One reason being that records-of-rights in land in India are fiscal in nature and presumptive in character, i.e., ‘‘the person shown in the record as responsible for paying land revenue for a particular piece of land is presumed to be the proprietor of that piece of land unless it is proved otherwise…. But the entries in such records are not conclusive.’’ According to him, it is imperative that we change over from the present system of presumptive titles into conclusive titles to land.

In his treatise, he suggested ways on how such a system can be introduced in the country. ‘‘The scheme of conversion… may be introduced on a pilot basis… in areas where revisional surveys have been completed recently.’’ According to present rules, before the final publication of the records-of-rights in land, concerned parties are given copies of the draft prepared during the survey and settlement operations. If there are no objections — and after inspection — the records-of-rights in land are published. Wadhwa says we could convert the presumptive titles to land into conclusive titles at this stage. ‘‘The draft may be kept open for public inspection for a while. If undisputed, the conclusiveness of the title to land can be recorded straightaway. This will be the first registration which will establish with finality the titles to land. The contested cases will go to the civil court for adjudication.’’

Back in 2002, the Maharashtra government (Vilasrao Deshmukh was CM) had announced a pilot project to introduce the system of guaranteeing title to land in three districts. While state level officials claim the ‘‘survey work is over,’’ Wadhwa is unaware of the status. He had suggested that in the pilot project, the Survey of India, with its impeccable credentials, should be entrusted the task of survey.

While Wadhwa is not against computerisation, he is shocked that old records are being digitised. ‘‘Computerisation after the land records had been brought up-to-date would have produced dramatically different results. Instead a superficial gloss has been imparted to a moth-eaten and tattered record which has been subjected to vast changes, both legal and administrative, and which bears little resemblance to reality, an exercise in monumental self-deception.’’

There’s another reason why we should be worried. In 2001, consultancy firm McKinsey Global considered land — or the lack of reforms surrounding it — a barrier to growth. In a three-volume report titled ‘India: The Growth Imperative — Understanding the Barriers to Rapid Growth and Employment Creation’, it said India is losing 1.3 per cent growth every year because of land and property market distortions.

‘‘… Unclear property rights for rural and urban land remain a major issue throughout India. Most land parcels in India — 90 per cent by one estimate — are subject to legal disputes over their ownership… This lack of clarity over who owns what makes it immensely difficult to buy land for retail and housing development.’’ The consultancy firm further recommended that ‘‘in order to solve the issue of unclear ownership rights to land titles, the government must expedite all the existing land disputes cases languishing in courts all over the country.’’

But what McKinsey announced in 2001 was said by Wadhwa in 1989 itself with an even better suggestion: sort out the land ownership issue once and for all and you will never need to go to court.

sudipta.datta@expressindia.com

LAND RIGHTS, OVERSEAS

Elsewhere in the world, two possible remedies have been thought of to guarantee title to land

• The first is a change from a system of registration of deeds to a system of registration of title to land, commonly known as the Torrens System (in place in countries like Australia, Canada, England, Kenya)

• The second is the practice of arranging for title insurance (US). Given the complex nature of our land structure, Wadhwa says we should study the Australian and Kenyan models, along with such additional features as may be found in other models, with a view to ultimate adoption in India.