Urban Land Surveys: A Step Forward, But No Substitute for Title Verification

Enhancing Urban Land Surveys with Modern Technology: Challenges and Opportunities.

Enhancing Urban Land Surveys with Modern Technology

Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Union Minister for Rural Development, inaugurated the International Workshop on the "Use of Modern Technology in Survey-Resurvey of Urban Land Records" in New Delhi on 21st October. This event marks a crucial milestone in India's mission to digitise and modernise urban land records, with the aim of optimising land resource management and improving public service delivery. However, despite the promise of such initiatives, India's cautious approach to granting permissions for geographical surveys—shaped by a blend of historical regulations and modern security concerns—continues to present significant challenges.

The National Geospatial Knowledge-Based Land Survey (NAKSHA)

At the centre of this initiative is the National Geospatial Knowledge-based Land Survey of Urban Habitations (NAKSHA), a pilot project designed to create comprehensive urban land records across 100 cities and towns nationwide, with completion expected within a year. The long-term goal is to extend this project to cover all urban areas in India over the next five years. The project leverages advanced technologies such as aerial photography, 3D imagery, and GPS coordinates, which are expected to aid in critical functions like urban planning, property tax assessment, and flood management.

Shri Chouhan emphasised that the participation of international experts would help integrate global best practices into urban land administration, improving both efficiency and transparency. These modern tools promise to revolutionise how India manages its urban land, potentially benefitting governance and urban planning systems.

Historical Context: Survey Laws and Regulations

India’s system of land surveys and records is rooted in colonial-era laws that primarily focused on rural land management. The Punjab Land Revenue Act of 1887 and similar acts in other states provided a framework for land surveys and tax collection, leading to the establishment of the Record of Rights (RoR) and the process of mutations to update land ownership. These systems were robust and provided legal presumption of truth to land records, making them conclusive evidence in disputes.

However, these systems primarily focused on rural areas, where land ownership structures were simpler and more uniformly documented. In contrast, urban areas were governed by laws such as the Registration Act of 1908, the Stamp Act of 1899, and the Transfer of Property Act of 1882, which mandated the registration of sale deeds for immovable properties. However, these laws lacked a comprehensive, centralised system for maintaining continuous ownership records. As a result, land administration in cities has remained fragmented, making it difficult to verify property titles and track ownership histories efficiently.

The Challenge of Verifying Urban Property Titles

One of the significant issues that modern surveys like NAKSHA aim to address is the complexity of verifying property titles in urban areas. Unlike rural regions, where land records are relatively well-maintained under the Record of Rights system, urban areas lack a centralised title registry. While property transfers in cities must be registered through sale or conveyance deeds, there is no overarching system to verify these titles unless the properties have been developed by metropolitan or urban development authorities.

This absence of a centralised title system poses challenges when individuals need to verify ownership, particularly when securing loans or resolving succession disputes. Title searches in urban areas often rely on a chain of documents stretching back 30 years, but these searches are not legally conclusive, unlike in rural areas where land records carry a presumption of truth under laws like Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. This gap in the legal framework makes urban land administration far more complex, especially in informal settlements such as unauthorised colonies or slums, where ownership is often established through quasi-titles like utility bills or property tax receipts, which are issued to occupiers rather than legal owners.

Government’s Cautious Stance: Security Concerns and Regulatory Frameworks

a.) Challenges in Obtaining Survey Permissions

Google has faced significant obstacles in securing permission from the Indian government to conduct geographical surveys using technologies such as drones, planes, and satellites. The government's caution stems from concerns over national security and the control of sensitive data. It has also raised doubts about the accuracy of Google Maps, labelling them "not authenticated" for critical applications like infrastructure development. This reflects the government's reluctance to allow private companies to undertake detailed mapping or surveying activities.

b.) Regulatory and Security Barriers

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) plays a pivotal role in regulating access to geospatial data, requiring clearance for digital mapping at certain scales, which leads to a prolonged approval process. The Indian government also reserves the right to deny survey applications based on national security or policy concerns, further complicating the process. Despite Google’s willingness to conduct these surveys free of charge and share the data with the government, these stringent regulatory and security concerns have continued to prevent the necessary permissions from being granted.

Conditional Permissions and the Role of Technology

The government has, however, shown a willingness to adopt modern technologies in controlled environments. An example of this is the SVAMITVA scheme, which uses drones to map rural areas for property validation and land record updates. This project demonstrates that while the government is cautious, it is not entirely resistant to new technologies. Conditional permissions have been granted for such projects, but they are closely monitored to ensure that sensitive data remains under strict control.

However, the challenge remains in applying similar technologies in urban areas. While the survey technology used in NAKSHA can achieve highly accurate results—down to six inches or less—this will not resolve the deeper issues related to title verification in cities. The absence of a centralised system for urban land titles means that modern technology, while helpful, cannot fully address the legal and administrative gaps that persist.

Ongoing Challenges: Bureaucracy and Delays

Even when permissions are granted, the bureaucratic process can significantly slow down the implementation of modern surveying technologies. For example, the requirement for MoD clearance can lead to outdated maps by the time they are approved, which affects the overall efficiency of geographical surveys. These delays not only hinder private companies like Google but also complicate efforts to modernise land administration in urban areas.

Conclusion: Striking a Balance Between Innovation and Security

As India advances in modernising its land management systems, a delicate balance must be maintained between embracing cutting-edge technologies and addressing national security concerns. One viable solution could involve opening up the geographical survey process to private companies like Google, allowing greater public access to geospatial data—except in defence-sensitive areas. Making this data freely available online could significantly accelerate the modernisation of land records, especially in urban areas where efficient management is crucial.

a.) The Need for a Centralised Title Verification System

While modern technology offers transformative potential, it cannot single-handedly solve the underlying challenges related to urban property titles. To fully capitalise on technological advancements, a centralised and authoritative system for title verification is essential. Without this framework, issues such as title disputes, difficulties in securing loans, and protracted succession cases will persist, continuing to hamper urban land management.

b.) A Statutory Framework for Title Updates

In addition to a robust title verification system, there is an urgent need for a statutory framework to ensure the regular and timely updating of urban property titles. The current dependence on lengthy civil court procedures to resolve title disputes is inefficient and cannot meet the demand for quick, reliable updates. Establishing a streamlined process, complete with a system of appeals, is critical to ensuring that property titles remain up-to-date, thus reducing delays and enhancing legal and financial security in property transactions.

c.) Moving Forward: Overcoming Challenges

In conclusion, while the Indian government’s initiatives to integrate modern surveying technologies are commendable, several obstacles remain. Security concerns, bureaucratic delays, and the absence of a comprehensive title system in urban areas continue to pose significant challenges. As India refines its policies, the goal must be to strike the right balance between innovation and security, creating a more efficient, transparent, and reliable land administration system that serves the diverse needs of both rural and urban India.