In this conversation with The Policy Edge, Mr. Agarwal reflects on his administrative experience in land administration as a critical enabler of economic growth in India. He discusses the limitations of technology-led reform in the absence of legal and procedural changes, the importance of people-centric land governance, and the institutional redesign required to improve dispute resolution, inter-agency coordination, and citizen trust in land records.
Infrastructure projects stall, housing disputes multiply, and courts remain clogged with land cases. Why does land administration remain India’s weakest growth link despite decades of reform?
If you look at our land administration system, it has not really changed in the way the Indian economy has grown. We are still following laws and procedures created during the colonial period. At that time, the main objective of land governance was to collect maximum land revenue and to exercise administrative control. Today, land revenue is no longer important from a fiscal point of view, but land itself has become extremely important for almost every development activity – whether it is highways, industrial projects, housing, or urban expansion.
Thus, while the objectives of the state and expectations of the people have changed, the land administration systems have largely remained the same. Today, the government’s role should be to provide services and protect people’s land rights, but in practice, land administration is still used more as a control mechanism. When land records do not clearly reflect the title, people hesitate to buy land, which affects economic activity. When transactions seem risky, investments slow down. Unfortunately, land administration often does not get priority because other issues appear more urgent, even though a well-functioning land administration system quietly supports growth across all sectors.
Governments often argue that digitisation will resolve land disputes and reduce transaction delays. Why do these problems persist despite large public investments in land-related technology?
It is true that the technology has been introduced in the land sector extensively, but in most cases, it has not accompanied required changes in the law and procedures. Land administration is governed by laws on ownership, registration of transactions, inheritance, and dispute resolution. Most of these laws were written more than a century ago, for a very different administrative and economic situation. Unless these outdated laws are reformed, technology will have a limited effect.
When procedures remain complicated and responsibilities are not clearly defined, technology alone cannot bring certainty. This is why mutations – the process of updating ownership after a sale or inheritance – often remain pending for years. Until mutation is done, the land remains in a kind of legal uncertainty. Even though portals are available, many people still depend on deed writers, advocates, or local facilitators to complete their work, because the steps involved are complex and time-consuming. Technology is necessary, but it works best when legal provisions and procedures are simplified at the same time.
Land is often described as a “State subject.” Is fragmentation between the Centre, states, and local bodies the core problem, or is something else at work?
I do not think the number of levels is the real problem. Land administration involves both central and state laws. This kind of arrangement can work quite well, provided responsibilities are clearly laid down, and there is accountability at each level.
Difficulties arise when roles are not clearly defined. People are often not sure which office is responsible for a particular service, and when delays happen, it is hard to assign responsibility. In such a situation, decentralisation can actually help, but only if panchayats and local offices are given clear procedures, service standards, and proper supervision. So the issue is not about the federal structure as such. It is more about how the system functions on the ground and whether land administration is approached as a service to citizens, rather than mainly as a mechanism of control.
Land disputes dominate both civil courts and revenue offices. Why has adjudication become such a bottleneck, and what would realistically reduce this burden?
A large number of land disputes arise because of the way our laws and procedures operate in practice. When laws lack clarity and procedures are lengthy, disputes tend to move from one authority to another. In many states, a revenue case can start with the tehsildar, then go to the SDM, then the collector, then the commissioner, and sometimes even further. Very often, there is no finality, and cases keep moving from one level to the next.
Most revenue disputes are not very complicated from a legal point of view. They are mainly based on documents and records. Such cases do not really require so many stages of appeal. A lot of time can be saved by reducing these stages, conducting proceedings online, and encouraging alternative dispute resolution, such as arbitration. Now that even the Supreme Court is holding online hearings, there is no technical difficulty in doing this in cases of land disputes before revenue officers. Over time, these steps can help cases get decided faster and reduce the burden on both courts and revenue officers.
You argue that land records should be shared across courts, banks, and regulators. What does this imply for how state capacity around land is organised, beyond transparency?
This is not only about transparency. It is more about how land records function within the government system. At present, they mainly work as static records of ownership. Courts deal with land litigation separately, banks keep their own records of mortgages, land acquisition authorities issue notifications, and environmental agencies impose restrictions. But all this information remains in separate systems and does not automatically reflect in the land records.
If we allow limited and rule-based access to land records across these agencies, the situation can change significantly. For example, when a court admits a land dispute, that information can be entered directly against the concerned plot in the land records. If land is notified for acquisition, the notification can appear on the relevant land record immediately. Similarly, banks can record mortgages, and regulatory authorities can flag land-use restrictions. In this way, the land record becomes a common reference point for all concerned departments, instead of remaining a standalone document.
This kind of integration can reduce disputes, lower transaction risk, and make things much easier for citizens, who otherwise have to run from one office to another with certified copies. Transparency here is not just about access to information – it helps different parts of the government work together in a coordinated manner. Over time, this strengthens the administrative system needed to support large investments and long-term development.
Looking ahead, what should policymakers prioritise over the next decade, and what reform mistakes should they avoid?
I think the focus has to remain on the core of land administration. That means keeping ownership records accurate and regularly updated, simplifying registration and mutation procedures, and providing land-related services in a reliable manner. Urban areas need special attention. While a lot of work has been done on land records in rural areas, urban land – which is far more valuable and where disputes are more common – often does not have a proper system of records of rights. Municipal tax records exist, but they cannot replace clear legal records of ownership.
Along with these technical improvements, the way land departments function is also important. The government is the custodian of land records, but these records actually belong to the people. They should be given easy access to these records like their bank accounts. There is an urgent need to make land records accessible to multiple government agencies under clearly laid down terms and conditions. Limited access to private agencies will also help the creation of new land-related services to the people. When land offices start working with a service mindset – where work is done within fixed time limits, records are updated automatically, and discretion is clearly defined – implementation improves and public confidence also increases.
It is also important not to assume that the government has to do everything on its own. Legal authority and verification of ownership must remain with the state, but routine activities such as surveying, preparation of maps, and facilitation of transactions can be done through certified and properly regulated private professionals. We already follow a similar approach in building regulation, where architects are allowed to self-certify plans under a regulatory framework. Applying the same logic to land administration can help build capacity while ensuring oversight and accountability remain in place.
