India: State of Land Report 2018

1
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Contents
Chapter 1. Women Land Rights: Whose land is it anyway: A gendered approach to land rights ................................8
Center for Land Governance, NRMC Bhubaneswar ...................................................................................................8
Chapter 2: Tenancy in India Hidden Farmers, Concealed Identities, Confusing numbers ..........................................19
Center for Land Governance, NRMC Bhubaneswar .................................................................................................19
Chapter 3: Property Right Index: Reflections from a Pioneering Primary Survey on Perceptions of Property Rights .30
Land Alliance ............................................................................................................................................................30
Chapter 4: Landless, Homestead-less, House Ownership ............................................................................................37
Center for Land Governance, NRMC Bhubaneswar .................................................................................................37
Chapter 5: Land Record Digitization .............................................................................................................................45
National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) .......................................................................................45
Deepak Sanan and Prerna Prabhakar ...................................................................................................................45
Chapter 6: Land Litigations ...........................................................................................................................................67
Daksh ........................................................................................................................................................................67
Shruthi Naik ..........................................................................................................................................................67
Chapter 7: Land conflicts and Stalled Investments in India ..........................................................................................73
Bharati Institute of Public Policy, Indian School of Business, Hyderabad ................................................................73
Ashwini Chhatre, Ujjainee Sharma, Shreya Basu..................................................................................................73
Status of Forest Rights recognized vis a vis potential area under forest rights............................................................84
Center for Land Governance, NRMC ........................................................................................................................84

2
 India: State of Land Report 2018

About the State of Land Report

Underlining the Rationale
State of Land Report, India is a joint attempt by several institutions to bring together a status of land governance in
India using various key land indicators. The objective is to create an easily interpretable repository of land
information by pooling together existing data and present them together at one source as a ready reference
material to contribute towards improved policy and actions, induce competitions and accountability and enhanced
transparency. This is a response to address the opacity of information (viz. generation, availability and access)
around land and also to present updated status of land governance indicators together for a better and holistic
appreciation of status of land.

Increasing demand for land indicators globally and locally

Land indicators are becoming important global tools for policy and advocacy. The 2030 Agenda places 8 targets and
12 indicators under five SDGs1. SDGs indicators present opportunity to establish national baselines to monitor
progress and developments in land rights using comparable land indicators, linking national, regional and global
efforts. National Governments have also adopted several regional and global frameworks on responsible land
governance including the global Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance on Tenure of Land, Forests and
Fisheries (VGGT), Responsible Agriculture Investment (RAI), and the Africa Union Framework and Guidelines on
Land Policy in Africa as voluntary guidelines on responsible land governance. Other institutions are also promoting
and measuring different land indicators viz. World Bank looking at land under Ease of Doing Business, RRI estimates
country-wise estimate of areas under formally recognized indigenous and community land rights as well as Forest
Rights reports, Landmark’s maps indigenous and community land, Land Matrix works on global map of land-based
investments and recently Land Alliance has started PRINDEX. These indicators have opened up opportunities to
make land governance transparent, accountable and informed, contributing ultimately to improvements.

Improving Environment around Land data

While the demand for land data are growing in terms of diversity, quality and geography, supply side is also fast
expanding with land stakeholders putting their ideas, innovations and efforts together to improve data
environment. With countries and states adopting open data policy, initiating voluntary dissemination and preparing
to open data standards, stage is getting ready for improved availability and access to important land data in open
data formats. Civil society and private sectors are also gearing up to not only analyze data to generate important
information, but are also chipping with innovative initiatives to generate primary land data from situations and
perceptions following robust statistical and painstaking data collection efforts. Private sector and entrepreneurs
are bringing in technologies and enabling interfaces improved and innovative collection storage, dissemination and
crowd sourcing of geo-spatial and textual data.

Indian Scenario
India has considerably enhanced institutional data collection capacity over the years, improving data production,
accessibility and availability, around different land parameters. At the same time, a variety of non-institutional
actors, are also contributing to compliment, build alternate data sources, spatial databases, innovatively analyze
and present the official data produced by different governmental bodies, in an attempt to make land information

1
http://landportal.info/book/sdgs
2
https://www.landesa.org/blog-moving-needle-forward-land-rights-sustainable-development-goals/

3
 India: State of Land Report 2018

more open, transparent and land governance more accountable, just and sustainable. In general, this enormous
volume of statistics and information provides seamless opportunities to monitor and improve land governance and
reinforces the argument that India constitutes unique playground to enhance the scope for aligning, combining,
using and improving these datasets. This is crucial to ensure constant monitoring and reporting of land-related
indicators, providing a basis to systematically discover and identify good practices – that can then be documented
and disseminated across countries, states and districts – and to manage the change, gradually shifting towards a
more performance-based approach and strengthening land governance in India.

Primary administrative and research data along with analytical interpretation of existing datasets make information
on some important land indicators already available. Their scope ranges from pan-India with sub-national values
going upto district level, while some provide opportunity to track temporal trends and some other across different
population categories. Land being a state subject, comparative appreciation is important to promote cross learning
with potential to induce accountability and competition among states and administrative units.

Making a Case for State of Land Report, India

State of Land Reports-India proposes to build on these efforts and compliment with future primary surveys, to
highlight such comparative progress against some key land indicators, while also reinforcing the open data policy of
Government of India. Thanks to pioneering work of some foresighted institutions, there are already some status
reports available around critical land indicators based on secondary research and primary surveys, with differential
coverage and granularity. State of Land Report 2018, presents these information with a separate chapter on each
of such land indicators. Aligned with the objective, the focus is to make the report as illustrative with spatial
representation of indicators as far as possible.

Chapters with Land Indicators and Institutions

# Land Indicators Institution Type of data Coverage Source
(Spatial)
LAND TENURE SECURITY
1 Women Land CLG, NRMC WLR in the All State Secondary: Agriculture Census- 2010-
Rights context of SDG 11, SECC- 2011, NFHS- 2015-16, IHDS-
2011-12
2 Tenancy CLG, NRMC Tenancy and land All State Secondary: Agriculture Census 2010-11,
leasing in India NSSO 2013
3 Perception of the Land Alliance PRIndex 24 states Primary Survey, 2017
Security of
Property Rights in
India
4 Landlessness CLG, NRMC Landlessness, All states Secondary: Agriculture Census 2010-11,
homesteadless, NSSO 2013, SECC 2011, Population
houseless Census 2011
5 Land Record NCAER Progress of land All India Secondary: DILRMP (CLG)
Digitization record digitization Primary: 3 states Survey by NCAER
around
computerization
of records,
digitization of
maps, survey etc.
Land Litigations, Conflicts

4
 India: State of Land Report 2018

6 Land litigations Daksh Share of land 184 Primary Survey in 2015 (9,329 litigants
cases in Indian districts in in)
Courts 24 states;
Once
7 Investment Indian School Type and size of All India Secondary: CMIE database (ISB)
blocking due to of Business investments
land conflict and RRI blocked by land
conflicts

Objectives: Improved Access, Understanding & Use of land data

1. To bring together information on important land indicators developed by different institutions from
primary and/or secondary data together for showing a bigger picture around land tenure security in India
2. To explore and suggest potential land index through harmonization/ homogenization of similar land
indicators reported differently by multiple datasets in an attempt to present a more rationale and balanced
picture
3. To provide a comparative state-wise visual appreciation of these land indicators, land being a state subject,
to help correlate with the state contexts and land governance frameworks and trigger competition and
investigation
4. To open up avenues and investigations into data characteristics in order to improve data systems and
standards, explore the need for interoperability and harmonization of different sources through the
adoption of internationally recognised standards which are critical for measuring and monitoring land
indicators, in the context of national and global reporting and sharing viz. SDG, VGGT etc.

While dealing with land indicators constructed from secondary sources, some chapters in SLR bring datasets with
multiple land indicators as well as different datasets on same land indicators together. This provides an opportunity
for a better appreciation of the data variability related to context with respect to that parameter as well as the
metadata. Most of the research and analysis of land data deal with a single dataset (viz. NSSO, SECC, NFHS,
Agriculture Census etc.), usually around the time they are released. While they do analyse the temporal and spatial
trend of a particular land parameter (vis. WLR, landlessness, tenancy etc.) using these datasets, there are fewer
attempts to look at and portray the broader landscape of datasets around particular land parameters. Quite often
separate datasets return different value for same parameter, thus meriting closer investigation into the metadata
for harmonization and interoperability. Given the fact that data and information is increasingly become open and
used as evidence for decision making and advocacy, understanding metadata and exploring data standards become
critical while we analyse the datasets for policy and practice. Indirectly, SLR efforts would contribute towards an
understanding and appreciation of different land datasets, their metadata underlining the importance of data-
literacy while analysing and interpreting data. With data journalism growing as a discipline and open data policy
and standards being universally applicable, land datasets in India merits closer relook not only as source of
information for land indicators and indices but also being an information itself.

Road Ahead
This version of SLR is a work-in-progress version with some datasets not adequately presented the way it was
envisaged and some other remaining uncovered, primarily due to the time and resource constraints. We hope in
the subsequent attempts, more such datasets would be included and presented with better analysis, improved
visual enhancement and formats. Considering the dynamic nature of land information as well as scope of
visualization around different disaggregation parameters viz. geography, gender, ethnicity etc. there is a strong

5
 India: State of Land Report 2018

need of making these datasets interoperable and connecting them to an interactive web-GIS format as 'State of
Land Atlas’ and sharing in an open web portal to help researchers, policy makers and practitioners easily access
information, build visualization and analyze interpretation to improve land governance. Till that time, we believe
this attempt of SLR will remain a useful and informative intervention to make land governance transparent,
accountable, informed and improved in India.

Given the fact that the indicators and visualization are based on data sources and methodologies, which remain
incomplete, contested with scope of improvement and refinement, such efforts remain as attempts to present and
interpret this information with these caveats and limitations.

6
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Chapter 1: Women Land Rights

Whose land is it anyway?
A gendered approach to land rights

Women constitute 12.8% of the

landowners, accounting for 32% of
the agricultural labour force and
contributing an estimated 55-66%
to farm production

Secure and equitable land rights of

women plays a crucial role in the
achievements of four of the
Women’s land ownership fosters a sustainable goals:
culture where they are economically
independent which leads to a more Ending poverty (SDG 1)
Ensuring food security (SDG 2)
enabling environment for them to
Achieving gender equality (SDG
be decision makers. 5)
Making cities and human
settlements inclusive (SDG 11)

7
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Chapter 1. Women Land Rights: Whose land is it anyway:

A gendered approach to land rights
Center for Land Governance, NRMC Bhubaneswar

Introduction
Secure and equitable rights over natural resources is globally seen as a precursor to the achievements of numerous
global development priorities including poverty elimination, food security, rural development, gender equality and
women empowerment etc. (Choudhury et al, 2017). Governments and policymakers have a unique opportunity to
empower women financially and socially by ensuring that their rights to land are protected2. This has a profound
ripple effect3 on household income, food security, health, and other positive outcomes for women, their families,
and communities. At the macro level, securing women’s land rights could stimulate entire economies4, help grow a
more food secure future5, and even activate new allies in our response to climate change6. The Sustainable
Development Goals recognizes this fact and asserts that by 2030 women should have equal control and rights over
land as their male counterparts. At a time when tremendous efforts are being taken to bridge the gender gap in
various sectors, it is important to consider the significance of women’s land rights in achieving their economic
empowerment, subsequently moving towards a more developed and sustainable society.

Over the last few years, both central and state governments have made progressive reforms to realize the goal of
secure and equitable land tenure for all. However, the record in India when it comes to providing women equitable
access to land is rather poor. According to FAO’s Gender and Land Rights Database, India is amongst the countries
with the most skewed distribution of agricultural land. Women constitute 12.8% of the landowners, while they
account for 32% of the agricultural labour force contributing an estimated 55-66% to farm production.

Image Source: FAO Gender and Land Rights Database

2
https://www.landesa.org/blog-moving-needle-forward-land-rights-sustainable-development-goals/
3
https://www.landesa.org/resources/womens-land-rights-and-the-sustainable-development-goals/
4
http://news.trust.org/item/20160614132200-91jwi/
5
https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/blog/global-food-thought/guest-commentary-womens-land-rights-foundation-food-security
6
http://womendeliver.org/2017/women-agents-climate-change-action/

8
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Objectives and Rationale

Driving inspiration for this chapter comes from an encouraging decision by IAEG-SDG to move two important
women land rights indicator 1.4.2 and 5a2 to Tier II7 level. Indicator 1.4.28 measures proportion of total adult
population with secure tenure rights to land, with legally recognized documentation and who perceive their rights
to land as secure, by sex and by type of tenure. Indicator 5.a.2 measures the proportion of countries where the
legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to land ownership and/or control.
Another important indicator, 5a19 measuring (a) Proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or
secure rights over agricultural land, by sex; (b) share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land,
by type of tenure, was already in Tier II.

While the promotion to Tier II signals agreement at the global level on the methodology for collecting data to track
progress toward indicators, more important milestone is to achieve Tier I classification. It requires, at least 50% of
all countries in all regions must collect data and report regularly on the land tenure indicators. There is a strong
need to look at the generation, analysis and dissemination of appropriate data in this regard in right frequency,
granularity, meeting UNSTAT specifications.

Till the time SDG requirements are met, already available national datasets and indicators provide a good measure
to proxy as well as supplement WLR monitoring.

The chapter attempts to contribute to SDG preparedness, particularly in the context of 5a1 as well as present the
potential national data sets and possible indicators together for effective monitoring of WLR status. It also adopts a
new approach drawing from other such global indicators (viz. Human Development Index) to present WLR in a
combined index format for a more nuanced and composite appreciation of the status. Previous studies and
attempts on this subject are either micro-studies restricted to a particular geographical region, or report WLR in
terms of different parameters or macro-census/survey that portrays WLR at a higher aggregate level.

This chapter presents spatial distribution on WLR combined index across states of India, drawing from existing
databases/sources capturing different aspects of women land rights. The national datasets used include Agriculture
Census (2011), Indian Human Development Survey (2011-12), Population Census (2011), National Family and
Health Survey (2015-2016) and the Socio Economic Caste Census (2011). Data from each of the surveys provides a
different flavor of WLR. While combining the datasets, an attempt is also made to provide an appreciation of
relevant metadata and potential indicators they provide separately around WLR. This consolidation of indicators
aims to provide academics and policymakers an easy access to the evidences on women’s land rights in different
states and induce a comparative appreciation of the probable causes, triggering more informed action.

7
The indicator is conceptually clear, has an internationally established methodology and standards are available, but data is not regularly
produced by countries
8
https://landportal.info/book/sdgs/142/sdgs-indicator-142
9
https://landportal.info/book/sdgs/5a1/sdgs-indicator-5a1

9
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Findings
Women Land Holding Index
Data Source: Agriculture Census, 2011
Parameter: Percentage of number and area of women land holdings10
Method: Geometric Mean11 of number and area of women land holdings to compute final index

The overall Land Holdings Index for India is 11.5%, where the percentage of number of women land holdings is
12.8% and the area of women land holdings is 10.3%. The southern states show a better situation as compared to
the rest of the states. All the southern states fall in the first ten ranks with Andhra Pradesh having the best figure
(17.2%) taking the fourth place in the all India ranking. The first three places are with Lakshadweep, Meghalaya and
Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Out of 35 states and UT, for which data is reported in Agriculture Census, 15 states
have this index, better than Indian average.

Caveat: These values represent land ownership details of female heads of households; so it misses out data where (i)
women own land but the household is not female headed (ii) joint pattas or joint ownership as part of land
distribution

10 !"#$%& !" !"#$% !!"#!# !!" !"#$%& !" !"#$%&'!(%) !!"#$%&

Number of women Holdings = x 100
!"#$% !"#$%& !" !!" !"#$%& !" !"#$%&'!(%) !!"#$%&
!"#$% !"#$ !" !"#$ !"##$##$% !" !"#$%
Area of land possessed by women = x 100
!"#$% !"# !" !"#$ !"##$##$% !" !"#! !"#$"%&

11
While compositing the data from the different surveys, geometric mean was used instead of arithmetic mean as the former reduces the
level of substitutionality. Preferring geometric mean is in line with the method employed by UN for computing the HDI since 2010

10
 India: State of Land Report 2018

SC/ST Women’s Land Holding Index

Data Source: Agriculture Census, 2011
Parameter: Percentage of number and area of SC/ST women land holdings12
Method: Geometric Mean of number and area of SC/ST women land holdings

The national index for SC/ST women’s land holdings is at 19.7%, which is significantly higher than the national
average of 12.9%. It means that the ratio of SC/ST women’s land ownership to that of the SC/ST men is better than
the same ratio in case of all social groups combined. This indicates comparatively better rights for women among
dalit and tribal communities.
Similar to earlier findings, the situation of women’s ownership of land amongst SC/ST women is better in the
southern states with all states making it to the top ten ranks. Andhra Pradesh and Kerala score above 40% - more
than twice the national figure – while smaller states like Daman & Dui, Lakshadweep, Meghalaya, also feature in
the top ten states. Maharashtra and Gujarat take the 9th and 10th place respectively. In general SC/ST women in the
southern and western states are better off than their counterparts in rest of the India. The states of Assam,
Manipur and Punjab rank the lowest with SC/ST women having control over less than 7% of the land. Out of 35
states and UT, for which data is reported in Agriculture Census, 14 states have this index, better than Indian
average.

12 !"#$%& !" !"/!"#$%&' !!"#!# !!" !"#$%& !" !"#!"#$%&"' !!"#$%&

Number of women Holdings = x 100
!"#$% !"#$%& !" !"/!" !!" !"#$%& !" !"#$%&'!(%) !!"#$%&
!"#$% !"#$ !" !"#$ !"##$##$% !" !"/!" !"#$%
Area of land possessed by women = x 100
!!"#$ !"# !" !"#$ !"##$##$% !" !"#! !"#$"%& !"/!" !!"

11
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Women’s Land Rights Index

Data Sources: Five Surveys/national datasets indicated in the Section 2: Objective and rationale
Parameters (relevant to SDG 5a 1)
A. Share of women operational holders among total operational holders of agril land (Ag Census, 2011)
B. Share of adult women population owning agricultural land among total adult land owners of agricultural
land (Indian Human Development Survey (2011-2012))
C. Share of women headed houses owning land (Socio Economic Caste Census, 2011)
D. Share of women owning house and/or land (alone or jointly) (NFHS, 2015-16)13
Method: Geometric Mean of parameters A, B, C, D
The composite indicator brought together values from surveys to present a more complete and balanced picture.
The national average is 12.9%. While Lakshadweep tops the women’s land rights index with 31.1%, Meghalaya
(26%) and Arunachal Pradesh (19.7%) take the second and third place. Even with this combined indicator the
southern states with an average of 15.4% and north eastern with an average of 14.1% fare better. Apart from
Uttarakhand, which jumped up the rankings as compared with women’s land holding index, the combined index
shows that the northern (9.8%) and eastern (9.2%) states have poor WLR.

13
A. Agriculture Census: Share of women operational holders among total operational holders of agricultural land = [(Number of women
headed HHs listed as operational holders)/(Total number of HHs listed as operational holders)] x 100
B. IHDS and Population Census: Share of adult women population owning agricultural land among total adult landowners of agricultural
land= [(No of adult women agricultural land owners)/ (Total population of adult land owners or cultivators)] *100
C. SECC: Share of women headed houses owning land= [(No of Women headed HHs owning land) /(Total Number of HHs)]*100
D. NFHS: Share of women owning house and/or land (alone or jointly)

12
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Discussions
The southern and northeastern states indicate better land rights regime of women as evident from both the
women’s land holding index as well as women land rights indicator. Five states and UT, three in south (Andhra
Pradesh, Kerala and Karnataka) along with Meghalaya and the Andaman and Nicobar islands have consistent in
having better women land rights than the India average for all the three index.

In the Eastern and North Western states on the other hand, women’s land rights are lower, which is in line with the
study by Agarwal (2003). The southern states on an average score 14.4% in comparison to 7.2% and 8.9% by
Eastern14 and Northern15 states respectively. Studies like that by Choudhury et al (2017) have tried to explain the
reasons behind the spatial differences by exploring legal-institutional frameworks (viz. historical land governance
systems, Hind Succession Act Amendments, Stamp duty reduction16, joint registration of government land etc.),
traditional practices (viz. matrilineal, purdah, karewa17 etc.) as well as socio-economic trend (viz. male migration,
NGO facilitation18 of WLR etc.) in these states.

45.00 Women's Land Rights Index (Combined Index) Women's Land Holding Index
40.00 SC/ST Women's Land Holding Index
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
North Eastern Southern Central Western Northern Eastern India

14
Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Odisha
15
Chandigarh, Delhi, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Rajasthan; Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand
16
According to a study by Landesa (2013) conducted in four states namely Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, which have
lowered stamp duty for women, the average number of women’s operational holdings increased by 42% during the period of 2001-2011 as
opposed to the national average of 37%.
17
By which, the widow is accepted as a wife by one of the younger brothers of the deceased husband or by the husband's elder brother, or
his agnatic first cousin. The primary reason for continuing with this custom is to retain land and property within the family. The purpose is to
transfer the control of land from the widow who acquired life estate in the absence of male descendants, to her husband’s brother or to a
patrilineal family member.
18
Rao (2011) observed that a legislation like HSA alone did not do much to improve the situation; the involvement of Society for Elimination
of Rural Poverty, a body linked to the Department of Rural Development of the Government of Andhra Pradesh translated the law into action
by raising awareness which encouraged husbands and wives to have negotiations about the terms on which wealth should be distributed to
their children. In North India a campaign led by AROH Mahila Kisan Manch and the Gulabi Gang Group have led women’s movement to
dismantle existing power structures that deny women land ownership. This 400,000 member strong group that works in 71 districts in Uttar
Pradesh has managed to affect change women’s access and control of land. Similarly, the (WGWLO) is a Gujarat based NGO that has been
working towards grassroots action and policy advocacy in the realm of women’s land rights and was successful in securing land deeds to
more than 5000 vulnerable women and linked 9000 women farmers to different agricultural schemes of the government (UNDP, 2015).

13
 India: State of Land Report 2018

With the advent of the digitization of land records, tracking gender based land ownership data can become more
accurate and efficient. As of now the studies on land rights relies on proxy or alternate sources for information
regarding land ownership. This is also one of the caveats of this chapter. Although the four surveys employed
different methods to capture data regarding land ownership, all have some shortcomings. For example the
Agriculture Census and SECC data assumes that the land owned by women headed households have women as
owners in the land records as well, which might not be the case. Instead if the land records system mandates the
inclusion of gender in ROR/land records, it will be easier to monitor the gender gap and its implications. A study by
Choudhury et al (2016) using DILRMP data of four districts in Odisha indicated 26% land records in the name of
women either singly or jointly, a figure that famous WLR researcher Bina Agrawal19 also estimate.

Capturing the gender of the land owner must be considered an integral aspect of the land records
modernization process

Women’s Land Rights Datasets

Table 1 : Open access National Datasets around Women Land Rights

Open access National Frequency Sampling Sample Size Measureme Dis- Data
Datasets around of method nt Units aggregation Format
Women Land Rights collection other than
gender
Agricultural Census, 5 years Two stage All villages in land Household Caste, farm pdf
[1]
Division, Ministry of sampling record states , 20% size etc.
Agriculture, GoI sample villages in non
[2]
land record states
IHDS, National 2 rounds Stratified 42,152 Household Individual age, caste, excel
Council of Applied conducted random mode of
Economic Research, (2005-06 sampling acquisition
University of & 2011-
Maryland 12)
NFHS, IIPS & Ministry 4 rounds Stratified 568,200 Households Individual Age pdf
of Health and Family conducted random (NFHS 4)
Welfare (MOHFW), since sampling
Government of India 1992-1993
Population Census, 10 years Full Population Total Population Individual CasteReligion execl
Office of the Registrar , Occupation
General and Census
SECC (socio-economic Conducted Full Population 17.91 crore household Individual Caste, excel
caste Census) once in in Primary
Ministry of Rural 2011 enumeration Source of
Development blocks Income

19 rd
Prof Agrawal’s estimates that women in India own about 1/3 of land, as per personal interaction

14
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Potential Women’s Land Rights Indicators in India constructed with open

access data with state/district wise segregation
(i) SDG 5 a 1(a): Proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural
land, by sex;
(ii) SDG 5 a 1 (b) Share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land, type of tenure
(iii) Share of women operational holders among total operational holders of agricultural land: Agriculture
Census (Choudhury et al 201720 and Report on Women’s Land Rights Mapping in India21 in the context of
the SDGs, NRMC for the World Bank
a. Percentage of land area (area of holdings) in the name of Women
b. Percentage of operational holdings in the name of Women
c. Percentage change in area of Holdings in the name of women (2001 & 2011)
d. Percentage change in number of Holdings in the name of women (2001 & 2011)
e. Ratio of average size of holdings own by women and men (2011)
f. Ratio of average size of holding own by ST women to women and to ST men (2011)
g. WLR indicators around number and area of holding around size-class (viz. % of small and marginal
holdings and area owned by women vis-.-vis men) and around social category (viz. % of SC & ST
holdings and area owned by women vis-.-vis men)- 2
(iv) Share of adult women population owning agricultural land among total adult land owners of agricultural
land: IHDS and Population Census (Choudhury et al 2017)
(v) Share of women headed households engaged in cultivation among total households engaged in cultivation:
Socioeconomic Caste Census (Choudhury et al 2017)
h. Percentage of landlessness among women and their ratio to percentage of landless men, (only
state-wise; through indirect estimation from Socio Economic Cast Census, 2011)
(vi) Share of women owning house and/or land (alone or jointly): NFHS

20
https://landportal.info/library/resources/administrative-and-open-source-data-monitoring-land-governance-mapping-women-land
21
https://landportal.info/library/resources/women’s-land-rights-mapping-india-context-sdgs

15
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Recommendations and Way Forward

Gender disaggregated data on land ownership and tenancy reported along with operational holding reported by
Agriculture Census;

• Compulsory Gender capture in DILRMP in prospective land records and conversion of old records
• DILRMP national portal should report and update every year, district-wise gender-disaggregated data on
land records in rural, agriculture and homestead land
• All data maintained in inter-operable and geo-referenced format

"Having the title in my name means a lot to me: it means I have a say in what we do with the
land, and my husband can't throw me out or sell the land without my permission."

A woman speaking at a land-literacy meeting of advocacy group Landesa at a local school in

Taardeh village (Huffpost)

Land rights for women means greater financial stability, food security and social status for the
entire family. Land provides food for the family for the entire year. We don’t have to buy food. We
can grow gram, wheat and lentils and use most of it for household consumption. Whatever is left
can be sold in the market. Also, if land is in the woman’s name a man cannot sell or lease it out
wrongfully especially under the influence of alcohol.

Suhadra Devi from Chakchatgan village in Banda, Uttar Pradesh (The Better India)

References
Agarwal, B. 2003 Land Rights Revisited: Exploring new prospects via the state, family and market.Journal of Agrarian
Change, 3 (1&2): 184-224.

Choudhury, Pranab & Behera, Manoj & Sharma, Saumya & T Haque (2017) “Combining Administrative and Open Source
Data for Monitoring Land Governance: Mapping Women Land Rights in the Context of UN’s SDG in India” For presentation
at the World Bank Conference On Land And Poverty https://landportal.info/library/resources/administrative-and-open-
source-data-monitoring-land-governance-mapping-women-land

Choudhury, Pranab & Behera, Manoj & T Haque, Dr. (2016). Women Land Rights Mapping in India : Status, Process-
validation and Rationalisation of Variation (Draft for Feedback). 10.13140/RG.2.1.4986.0884.

Government of India (GOI) 2011 Ministry of Agriculture, India Agricultural Census; http://agcensus.nic.in

16
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Government of India (GOI) 2011 The Ministry of Rural Development Government of India, Socio Economic and Caste
Census (SECC)

India Human Development Survey-II (IHDS-II), 2011-12 (ICPSR 36151) available at

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/DSDR/studies/36151

International Institute for Population Sciences (2016) National Family Health Survey; http://rchiips.org/NFHS/nfhs4.shtml

K. Allendorf, 2007, Do women’s land rights promote empowerment and child health in Nepal. World Development,
Volume 35, Issue 11, pages 1975-1988.

Kelkar, Govind. “How Rural Women Are Challenging Gender-Based Exclusion from Land Ownership in India.” The Better
India 19 June. 2016 available at https://www.thebetterindia.com/58022/women-champion-equal-land-rights/

Landesa. 2013. Report on The Formal and Informal Barriers in the Implementation of the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 in the context of women agricultural producers of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya
Pradesh

OECD Development Center, Social Institutions and Gender Index, 2014 available at
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SIGI2014

Rao , 2011 “Women’s Access to Land: An Asian Perspective” Expert Paper, UN Women In cooperation with FAO, IFAD and
WFP

Shelter Report. 2016. Level the Filed: Ending Gender Inequality in Land Rights available at
https://www.habitat.org/sites/default/files/shelter-report-2016.pdf

UNDP, 2015. In the family tree, women becomes land owners in India available at https://undpindia.exposure.co/in-the-
family-tree-women-become-land-owners-in-india

“Women Farmers In North India Battle Inheritance Laws, Self Doubt, To Own Land.” Huffpost. 29 December. 2016.
Available at http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/12/29/women-farmers-in-north-india-battle-inheritance-laws-self-
doubt_a_21643979/

17
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Chapter 2: Tenancy in India

Hidden Farmers, Concealed Identities,
Confusing numbers

Small and marginal farmers,

who account for more than
half of the total land
holdings, and may not hold
formal land titles, are unable
to access institutionalized
credit – Reserve Bank of
India, 2015

An estimated 21.3 million tenants Legalisation of land

cultivate about 10.7 m ha of
tenancy would also ensure
leased in land in India, which is
that farmers get access to
about 1/9th of area under
formal credit, insurance,
operational holdings
and inputs such as
- NSSO, 2013 fertilizers-
Niti Ayog, 2016

18
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Chapter 2: Tenancy in India

Hidden Farmers, Concealed Identities, Confusing numbers
Center for Land Governance, NRMC Bhubaneswar

Introduction
For an agrarian economy like India, tenure security of farmers over farm land is critical for growth, livelihoods and
development. Tenancy was a systemic practice and a common agrarian relation in pre-independent India in
princely states as well as during colonial administration. In an agriculturally dominant economy, the practice was
exploitative and had led to operation of a series of intermediaries, between the owner and the actual tiller or the
tenant. Abolition of intermediaries and giving away land to the recorded tenants was seen as an answer to address
this issue. Post-independent, state governments made efforts for abolition of intermediaries and the exploitative
practices like Zamindari system, by bringing in progressive and pro poor land legislations to address Ceiling,
Zamindari, tenancy, consolidations etc. However, despite tenancy prohibition in most state reform laws, practice of
tenancy continue overtly and covertly due to the practicality of the arrangement and convenience. Legal
restrictions on tenancy, has proved counterproductive to the tenant and has affected investments on and
production from land while contributing substantially to the farm crisis.

In cases of disaster, crop losses and many such exigencies, the government has been handing over monetary
compensation, which hardly reaches the tenant farmers. In absence of any evidence of record, they become
invisible farmers with the government schemes and programmes failing to reach them. Tenant doesn’t get the
entitlements meant for farmers viz. fertilizer subsidy, MSP, benefits from farm schemes and also loses formal
access to credit, insurance etc. This has led to an eternal cycle of informal debt and frequent crop failures for the
tenant farmers (particularly those who are landless) which often push them into situations where they are driven
to commit suicide22. While tenancy in India has remained widespread and concealed, they seem to also be
expanding with land reforms remain unfinished, absentee landlordism growing, rural-urban migration increasing
and the number of marginal farmers and agriculture labourers growing.

Insecurities around the prevailing practice of tenancy can lead to a) lack of investment on land development
leading to reduced production; b) lack of access to financial support resulting in reduced investment on land; c)
large extent of land lying fallow d) an unequal distribution of land resources leading to increased poverty.
The issue of tenancy is relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals 1- Ending poverty and Goal 2- Zero hunger.
23
- Goal 1, Target 1.4 Talks about equal rights to economic resources, access to basic services, ownership and control
over land and natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance. Target
24
1.5 further iterates building reliance of the poor and those vulnerable; reduce their exposure and vulnerability to
climate-related extreme events and economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.

22
As per a study by Choudhury et al, 70per cent of the farmers who committed suicide in Odisha during 2016 were tenants.
http://igsss.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Why-Farmers-Quit.pdf
23
1.4 By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as
access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new
technology and financial services, including microfinance
24
1.5 By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-
related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters

19
 India: State of Land Report 2018

25
- Goal 2 Target 2.3 emphasises on doubling agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers,
family farmers, through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial
services, markets and opportunities for value addition.
Addressing the tenure security of tenant farmers are important to meet these goals.

Objectives and rationale

While tenancy continue as an important agrarian relation bottlenecking land tenure security and impacting
farmers’ welfare, income and agriculture growth, information on tenancy remain either remain hidden or
confusing. With mandatory SDG reporting on the anvil and Government of India’s reform on land leasing and
doubling farmers’ income on the priority agenda, contours of tenancy required to be better understood and more
transparent.

Inspiration for this chapter comes from the importance attached to ownership, secure access and control over
land in SDG (target 1.4 Target 2.3) and from Govt of India’s decision to bring in land lease reform26 through Niti
Ayog in form of a model agriculture land leasing Act in 2016 as well as recent plan of Government to double farm
income27 by 2022, which also looks at addressing tenancy through Structural Reforms and Governance
Framework28

Extent of tenancy, reported or concealed varies across states as per the historical land governance contexts, post-
independence land reform laws29 as well as the present stage of socio-economic development and market
contexts. Information and trend on tenancy along with that of ownership of land holdings and distribution state-
wise is critical for understanding agrarian structure, relation and address farm crisis and sustainable development.
Apart from spatially and temprally specific primary research studies, two national periodic data sources report
tenancy
30 th th
• NSSO : Owenership and Operational Land Holding Survey and Land and Livestock Survey (viz. 8 round 1953, 16
th th th th th th
Round 1960-61, 17 Round 1961-62, 26 Round 1971-72, 37 Round 1982, 48 round 1992, 59 round 2003, 70
around 2013)
31
• Agriculture Census conducted every five year since 1970.The 10th Census with reference year 2015-16 is the latest

As per NSSO, the area under tenancy, decreased from 23 per cent during the year 1952-53 to 11 per cent in 1961-
62 and then to 7 per cent in 1982. However it increased to 12 per cent in 2013, while oscillating at 9 per cent in

25
2.3 By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples,
family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs,
knowledge, financial services,
26
http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/writereaddata/files/document_publication/Final_Report_Expert_Group_on_Land_Leasing.pdf ;
27
Niri Policy paper 1/2017; Doubling Farmers’ Income : Rationale, Strategy, Policy and Action Plan,
http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/DOUBLINGper cent20FARMERSper cent20INCOME.pdf
28
Report of Committee on Doubling Farmers’ Income, Volume XIII “Structural Reforms and Governance Framework”
“Strengthening the Institutions, Infrastructure and Markets that Govern Agricultural Growth”
http://agricoop.gov.in/sites/default/files/DFIper cent20Volumeper cent2013.pdf
29
Based on legal position of land leasing, various regions of India can be broadly grouped into five categories (Haque,
2014http://www.landandpoverty.com/agenda/pdfs/paper/haque_full_paper.pdf .
30
Surveys of Land and Livestock Holdings are conducted by NSSO once in ten years. In these surveys, detailed information is collected on
various aspects of land and livestock holdings. These include collection of plot-wise data on land use and on tenurial status.
http://www.indianstatistics.org/land.html#meadcain1983
31
Data from Agricultural Censuses pertain only to operational holdings; there are no data on ownership of land. Agricultural Censuses are
conducted as part of the World Censuses of Agriculture coordinated by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. In a
majority of States, agricultural censuses are based on retabulation of land records. Land records are often not updated. In the survey
manuals for Agricultural Censuses, individual holding is defined at the level of the household.
http://www.indianstatistics.org/land.html#meadcain1983

20
 India: State of Land Report 2018

1992 and 7 per cent in 200332. There is also a declining trend in the percentage of households leasing in land over
the three decades. The ratio of area leased-in to area owned by households dropped from 1971-72 (25 per cent) to
2003 (12 per cent), but increased in 2013 (14 per cent). The same pattern is seen in the ratio of area leased-out to
area owned. The average area leased-in area per reporting household was 0.5 ha, while leased-in area as percent
of total area owned was 11.6 per cent 2013. The NSS data may be an under-estimate due to concealment of
tenancy and the practice of oral leasing.33

As per agriculture census, however, tenancy was 8.4 per cent34 in 1970 and reduced gradually to 2.34 per cent in
2010-11 (5.9per cent in 1980-81, 3.34per cent in 1990-91 and 2.84per cent in 2000-01). Similarly the area under
tenancy has decreased from 8.9 per cent in 1970 to 2.3 per cent in 2010-11. The share of tenants and area under
tenancy have been reported as more or less uniform across farm size classes in 2000-01. Agriculture Census also
attributes tenancy35 as a sensiitive information to be correctly collected.

This two important administrative date sets collected and presented by legitimate agencies following robust
statistical procedures presents a completely contrasting picture around tenancy, which remains an enigma in Indian
Agriculture. Though both of them indicate a declining trend which can attributed to reformistic legal-institutional
frameworks, the variations are too high as per latest figure. While 13.65 per cent of farmers lease in land as per
NSSO (2013), it is 2.39 per cent as per agriculture census (2010-11). Land being a state subject and historical and
prevailing tenancy laws varying widely across the state36, appreciation and comparision of state-level information is
critical for understanding of context and informed decision making. This chapter makes an attempt to present
these two datasets together across states in terms of simple tenancy parameters while also attempting to build
indicators for a more harmonized appreciation.

Findings
Percentage Leased in Area per Household
Data Source: NSSO 70th Round 2013
Parameter: Leased-in area as percent of total area owned by a household
Method: Directly collected from Statement S4.7: State-wise incidence of tenancy from NSSO report 201337
One in every seven household (13.65 per cent) was a tenant in 2013, which turns out to be an estimated 21.29

32
http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/Report_571_15dec15_2.pdf
33
Discussion paper ‘Tenancy reforms vs open market leasing – what would serve the poor better?’ (2013, Dr. N.C. Saxena, Former Secretary,
Planning Commission)
34
Percentage of holding which are not wholly owned nor self operated; this include Wholly leased in, Wholly otherwise operated, Partly
owned, Partly leased in & Partly otherwise operated; http://agcensus.nic.in/document/analysis01natasg.htm
35
The information on a sensitive subject, like, tenancy collected during Agriculture census 2000-01 and also during earlier agriculture
censuses may not represent the full picture. Collection of information on such a sensitive subject has been a difficult task, due to the
enactment of land reform legislation abolishing the tenancy in most of the States. As a result, land records may not reflect the de-facto
position about the concealed tenancy, if any. The cases of recorded tenancy have been very few and no information could be collected
regarding concealed tenancy. There may be deliberate cases of misreporting in the land records, which are the primary source of information
for the Agriculture Census. Even in regard to the States which do not have comprehensive land records and where the information was
collected by Household Enquiry Method, the information supplied by the respondents and their close relatives could not be relied upon. The
information on tenancy has, therefore, to be viewed keeping this limitation in view. http://agcensus.nic.in/document/analysis01natasg.htm
36
Currently, laws of tenancy of agricultural land vary across different states.21 States such as Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir and Manipur
completely prohibit the leasing of agricultural land. Others such as Bihar, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Telangana and Odisha allow land leasing
only by certain categories of land owners. On the other hand, states such as Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Assam do not explicitly prohibit
leasing, and allow the tenant to purchase the land from the owner after a specified period of tenancy. In Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and
West Bengal, there is no legal ban on leasing land. Different states also have different ceilings on the area of land which may be leased.
Report of the Expert Committee on Land Leasing, NITI Aayog, March 31, 2016,
http://www.niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/Final_Report_Expert_Group_on_Land_Leasing.pdf.
37
http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/Report_571_15dec15_2.pdf

21
 India: State of Land Report 2018

million tenants cultivating about 10.66 m ha of land. While percentage of tenancy indicates tenurial insecurity and
vulnerability, intensity of dependence of leased in land or tenancy determines the degree of vulnerability. Leased in
area as percentage of total area owned by farmer provides intensity of dependence on farming on leased in land,
which is a critical determinants for farm input use, productivity and income.

The national average of ratio of land leased-in to total area owned was 11.6per cent. States like Andhra Pradesh
had almost four times leased in area (59.0per cent), while Bihar (30.7per cent) and Punjab (29.1per cent) about
thrice and Odisha about twice (20.5per cent) of the national average, indicating higher dependency on leased in
land or tenancy for farming. Telangana (18.6per cent), West Bengal (17.29per cent), Haryana (16.38per cent) and
Tamil Nadu (15.03per cent) were other states having more leased area ratio than the national average. J&K has
lowest leased in area ratio at 0.24 followed by NE states (4.08per cent) and Assam (4.5per cent)

Caveat: Land held in owner-like possession under long term lease or assignment was also considered as land owned
in NSSO. Average area owned per household was 0.594 ha, while average area leased in was 0.50 ha. Sample size
consists of 4529 villages in all states and UT covering about 35,500 households. Usual caveat applied to sample and
concealing tenancy information is also applicable here.

22
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Leased in Index
Data Source: NSSO 70th Round 2013 and Agriculture Census 2010-11
Parameter: Percentage of number of households reporting leased-in land (NSSO, 2013) and Percentage number
of operational holding not fully owned or self operated38 (Agriculture Census, 2010-11)
Method: Geometric mean39 of both parameters to compute Leased in Index

This is an attempt to combine two different sets of data with an idea of harmonization to provide a blended picture
of tenancy by using Geometric mean.

All India figure for leased in index is 5.71 per cent, with four states having higher percentage. While two states of
West Bengal (20.2 per cent) and Odisha (18.9 per cent) have almost 3-4 times of tenancy, Punjab (6.1 per cent) and
HP(5.9 per cent) are almost same as national average. All other states have less than 5 per cent.

In contrast all India figures of percentage leased in area is 2.4 per cent as per Agriculture Census, 2010-11, with
West Bengal highest at 22.8 per cent and Odisha following closely at 18.4 per cent. National average as per NSSO,
2013 is 13.7 per cent, with Andhra Pradesh standing tall at 37. 2 per cent, followed by HP (21.2 per cent), Odisha
(19.3 per cent), Bihar (18.7 per cent) and West Bengal (17.8 per cent). Among two data sets Odisha and West
Bengal seems to have similar score.

Caveat :. As actual situation of tenancy differ from these datasets, it may also not overlap with this index. However,
this approach of using geomteric mean would portray a more balanced picture than either of the database alone.
More importantly the objective is to provide a state-wise visual appreciation of a harmonized single index. This is
probably the first such attempt and critique are welcome. NE states and UT not considered as NSSO put them as
clusters and Agriculture Census presents them separately

38
Percentage of holding which are not wholly owned nor self operated; this include Wholly leased in, Wholly otherwise operated, Partly
owned, Partly leased in & Partly otherwise operated
39
While compositing the data from the different surveys, geometric mean was used instead of arithmetic mean as the former reduces the
level of substitutionality. Preferring geometric mean is in line with the method employed by UN for computing the HDI since 2010

23
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Land Leasing Index

Data Source: Agriculture Census 2010-11
Parameter: Percentage number of operational holding not fully owned or self operated and Percentage area
operated by these households (Agriculture Census, 2010-11)
Method: Geometric mean of both parameters to compute Land leasing Index

This is an attempt to combine two relevant types of data on tenancy reported by a single (Agriculture census, 2010-
11) dataset to provide a one composite tenancy indicator for better appreciation. Using Geometric mean the
number and area under tenancy, two key attributes of leased in land, are combined to showcase Land leasing
index.

All India figure for Land leasing index is 2.3 per cent, with four states having higher percentage. While two states of
West Bengal (24.2 per cent) and Odisha (18.9 per cent) have almost 3-4 times of tenancy, Punjab (3.1 per cent) and
Assam (2.5 per cent) are almost same as national average. All other states have less than 2 per cent. In states like
Gujarat, Karnataka, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram, land leasing is not reported.

Caveat: Tenancy information collected during Agriculture census may not represent the full picture of tenancy (Refer
footnote 14)

24
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Status of tenancy law in India

Data Source: NITI Aayog, Government of India
Parameter: Legal status of Tenancy in different state
Method: As reported in the Niti Ayog’s Final Report Expert Group on Land Leasing40

The states where land leasing/ tenancy of agricultural land is legally banned except to disabled, armed personnel,
previleged farmers and so on are – Telengana area of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh,
Uttar Pradesh. In Kerala States leasing out of agricultural land is totally prohibited, without any exception. In states
like Gujarat, Maharastra, Punjab and Haryana leasing is not banned, however, the sub-tenant acquires a right to
purchase the leased in land within a specified period of creation of tenancy. State where there are no restrictions
on land leasing are Andhra area of Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. In West Bengal only
sharecropping tenancy is permitted

40
http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/Final_Report_Expert_Group_on_Land_Leasing.pdf

25
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Discussions
The eastern states indicate a higher prevalence of tenancy practice followed by the western states and the north-
eastern states in terms of leased in holding and leased in area by region. While the Agriculture Census 2010 reports
data from states of Goa and Rajasthan, data from other states like Maharastra, Daman and Diu, Gujarat etc in the
western region is not captured.

In the southern and northern states the practice shows a lower prevalence. The data from the southern region is
reported for the states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh etc., while,data is not reported from the
state of Karnataka. In the northern region following a similar trend data from Uttar Pradesh is reported and states
like Delhi, Haryana, Chandigarh etc remain unreported. Therefore, while calculating the geometric mean, the
regional data reflects only the states from which data was reported.

26
 India: State of Land Report 2018

In 2016, NITI Aayog has drafted a Model Land Leasing Law by following a due consultative process and has
recommended States to bring in reforms in land leasing by bringing in laws. Madhya Pradesh was the first state to
bring in reforms in tenancy/ land leasing by amendment of their existing land reforms law. Odisha government has
drafted a new law but it has progressed slowly in this regard. Other states like Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar etc
have initiated the process.

Tenancy Datasets
Table 1 : Open access National Datasets around land leasing and Tenancy

Open access Frequency Sampling Sample Size Measurement Data Data

National Datasets of method Units Format
around Women collection
Land Rights
Agricultural 5 years Two stage All villages in land record Household Tenurial status, Tenancy Pdf (upto
,
Census, Division, (since 1970- sampling states 20% sample villages (operational types Seggregation: sub-
Ministry of 71) in non land record states holding) Gender, Caste, farm size district
Agriculture, GoI etc. level)
National Sample 10 years Stratified multi- 4529 villages in all states Household Plot-wise data on land use Pdf (upto
Survey (since 1953) stage design and UT; about 35,500 (operational and on tenurial status, state
41
Organization: households holding) Tenancy types level)
Surveys of Land Seggregation: Gender,
and Livestock Caste, farm size etc.
Holdings

Recommendations and way forward

• Data on the tenancy are required to be appropriately captured and recorded for de-fator appreciation of
the tenure security around farm land for mandatory reporting for SDG as well as informed decision on
agriculture policy through desired monitoring.
• A legal-institutional framework for such data collection can be developed as part of National Open data
policy. DILRMP can also prescribe and ensure recording of tenancy, as it is aleady practiced and recorded

41
http://www.icssrdataservice.in/datarepository/index.php/catalog/96/overview

27
 India: State of Land Report 2018

under Records of. Rights, Tenancy and Crop Inspection Register (RTC) (viz. Pahani in Karnataka) with a
provision of data aggregation state-wise, retrieival and reporting.
• Attempts must be made some nodal agency like MOSPI or Niti Ayog to analyze the meta data, data
standards and methodologies adopted by NSSO and Agriculture Census andexplore if harmonization is
possible and also if and how they supplement each other.
• Other periodic household and living standard measurement surveys like Indian Human Development
Survey (IHDS), National Family Health Survey already collecting land ownership information must be
encouraged to seggregate ownership by adding in tenancy
• All datasets need to focus on gender-disaggregation of tenancy data going beyond gender of head of
households and including intra-household and single women cases.

28
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Chapter 3: Property Right Index: Reflections

from a Pioneering Primary Survey on Perceptions
of Property Rights

PRIndex is based upon

nationally representative
surveys targeting
individuals aged 15 and
above

25% of the respondents

Level of self-reported tenure
globally surveyed in the pilot insecurity varied depending on the
phase feel their property phrasing of the questions and
rights are at risk answers put to respondents.

- 1st Round of Survey, 2016 - 1st Round of Survey, 2016

29
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Chapter 3: Property Right Index: Reflections from a Pioneering Primary Survey on

Perceptions of Property Rights
Land Alliance

Introduction
Secure property rights allow individuals and households to retain the benefits of investments in housing, land or a
business and even pass it on to their next generation. They create the possibility for households to use their land or
their home as collateral for bank loans. Clear land rights reduce transaction costs in property markets by limiting
uncertainty and the need for expensive verifications. Secured tenure creates the long-term incentives needed to
manage natural resources such as forests in a sustainable manner. Households with secure rights to their home
show increased participation in the labour market, invest in improving their housing conditions and realize
educational benefits for their children. Conversely, insecurity of property rights can have the opposite effect and
foster conflict. When people worry about losing their property, they find it more difficult to plan for their future.

In rural India, land continues to be an important asset for rural livelihoods. Nearly 90M agricultural households in
rural India depend upon land42. The Reserve Bank of India’s Committee on Medium term Path on Financial Inclusion
stated in its December 2015 report “In agriculture, millions of small farmers live on the precipice, starved of credit.
In the absence of bold structural reforms of land (record) digitization and tenancy certification to enable credit to
the tiller, the problem is likely to persist”.

The Global Property Rights Index (PRIndex) is the first-of-its-kind indicator to attempt to create a global dataset and
index on citizens’ perceptions of property rights. PRIndex is a baseline, multi-national dataset measuring how
secure people feel about their rights to the land and property on which they live and work. This data will provide
the grounding for a global conversation and movement around securing the property rights of billions who
currently lack them, and has the potential to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)43.

Objective and Rationale

Property rights provide the necessary foundation for people to build better lives for themselves and their families,
ultimately driving sustainable economic growth in their countries. However, identifying, administering and
maintaining property rights is a challenge for many countries around the world as governments often do not have
information on who has those rights, and rights holders are not always able to protect them.

The perception of people in India on security of their property is unknown. To address the critical questions viz. Are
people worried about their property rights or not? How do these perceptions affect citizens’ decision-making and
future planning? How can government and other actors focus on strengthening property rights? Land Alliance, with
support from Omidyar Network, initiated a multi-state survey with Gallup in India in early 2016, and then carried
out a second national test survey in 24 states and union territories in 2017 with Karvy Insights, which interviewed

42 Key Indicators of Situation of Agricultural Households in India, NSS 70th round Jan-Dec 2013
43 http://www.prindex.net

30
 India: State of Land Report 2018

16,475 individual respondents. The focus of the test surveys was to examine the best ways to ask the questions
about security of tenure, and the results provide a series of new insights into these questions.

Individual respondents across India were interviewed to gauge how secure people feel about their property. Do
people worry that they may forcibly lose their land or their home? What drives feelings of security and insecurity?
Are women more worried than men about their property rights? The results of this survey offer a better
understanding of how secure people feel about their property and how this sense of security or insecurity affects
the decisions they make about their future. The results of this survey can contribute towards more informed policy
decisions, better business models, and more effective development assistance.
In this chapter we present three important indicators from the PRIndex test surveys 2017 dataset.

Findings
Tenure Security Perception
Data Source: PRIndex Database
Parameter: Percentage of households with tenure security
Method: Weighted dataset of respondents agreed to the question “How worried are you that you could lose the
right to live in this <property>, or part of this property, against your will in the next 5 years?”

According to the PRIndex test, 77% of people in India do not feel worried about losing their rights over their
properties. The state with the highest perceived security is Himachal Pradesh, where 92% of respondents report
feeling secure over their land rights followed by Andhra Pradesh (87%), Jharkhand (86%), West Bengal (85%), Bihar
(84%) etc. There are 15 states in which tenure security is is higher than the national average. This also indicates
that the tenure security of southern states (except Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh) are lower than the northern and
eastern states. The western states like Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh are also less secure than the national
average. The least secure states are Puducherry, Chandigarh, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and Kerala. Despite a high
incidence of home ownership among the sample (76%)44, more than a quarter of respondents were worried that
they may lose their home in the next five years.

44
Individuals not households

31
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Caveat: Data for 12 Indian States are not available, which are not included in calculating the national index. These
are mostly north eastern states and Jammu & Kashmir.

Formal Tenure Documentation

Data Source: PRIndex Database
Parameter: Percentage of households with formal tenure documentation
Method: Weighted dataset of respondents agreed to the question “a) Do you have any of the following
documents that demonstrate your rights to live in this <property>? b) What kind of documents do you have that
demonstrate your rights to live in this <property>?

Most Indians in the survey reported having formal tenure documents. States where more than 90% of respondents
reported having formal tenure documentation are Assam (97%), Kerala (95%), Chandigarh (93%) and Punjab (92%);
only about half of Indians in NCT Delhi (56%), Jharkhand (56%), and Gujarat (50%) reported having formal
documents. Especially in Kerala and Chandigarh, having documents does not translate into higher perceived tenure
security. In contrast, perceived tenure security is relatively high in Jharkhand despite a relatively low level of
respondents possessing documents. In Tamil Nadu and Delhi, both perceived tenure security and documentation
levels are relatively low. Owners who expressed worry about losing their home or agricultural land pointed to a lack
of documentation as a major source of concern. Similarly, renters without documentation proving their rental
status were more likely to be worried about losing their home than those who had documentation.

32
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Caveat: Data for 12 Indian States are not available, which are not included in calculating the national index. These
are mostly north eastern states and Jammu & Kashmir.

33
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Confidence on Authorities for protection of Tenure

Data Source: PRIndex Database
Parameter: Percentage of households that have confidence in authorities to protect their tenure rights if those
rights were challenged.
Method: Weighted dataset of respondents answering ‘Very Confident’ or ‘Confident’ on a 5-pt scale to the
question “How confident are you that the authorities would protect you if somebody tried to take away your
right to live in this <property> and force you to leave?”

Respondents reported varying levels of confidence in authorities to protect their property rights in the event of a
threat. Respondents in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Uttarakhand lead the list with 86%, 85% and 81%
respectively expressing the perception that the government authorities would protect their tenure rights.
Respondents from Goa (43%), Kerala (42%) and Rajasthan (38%) expressed lower levels of confidence in the
authorities to protect their property rights.

Caveat: Data for 12 Indian States are not available, which are not included in calculating the national index. These
are mostly north eastern states and Jammu & Kashmir.

Discussions
The results of the PRIndex test surveys on citizen perception of tenure security highlight the large absolute
numbers of individual Indians who feel worried about their property rights. PRIndex provides a new tool (though
still being refined) to generate primary information around perception of property rights that will have critical
implications on policy, business, and sustainable development. Being a non-government initiative it has its own

34
 India: State of Land Report 2018

advantages as well as challenges. However in the data space, it brings in a robust option to supplement and
complement data vacuums and supports government efforts to report and monitor progress on the SDGs. In the
absence of standard household surveys capturing such land data, PRIndex can also help SDG land indicators to
move to Tier I and thus become an institutionalized metric of tenure security worldwide.

The methodology tested, validated and refined by PRIndex has potential uptake among land stakeholders, while
their critique and contribution also would potentially enrich the process and make it more robust and efficient. In a
country like India with a strong history of land governance, pluralistic and diverse legal and institutional framework,
elaborate architecture of land information recording and reporting, third party and independent surveys like
PRIndex provide immense opportunities for states to reflect upon and improve measures to improve perceptions of
tenure security among their citizens. However in order for PRIndex get acceptance and buy-in from government
and other important stakeholders, active interfaces and dialogues are essential in its formative stage. Forward and
backward feedback loops among these stakeholders can improve the process, reliability and impact of such
datasets. PRIndex datasets are now available in CSV format. Subsequently, in line with open data standards, these
data can be shared and disseminated in other inter-operable formats that make them more discoverable.

35
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Chapter 4: Landless, Homestead-less, House

Ownership

The dichotomy of defining

landless is a challenge. NSSO
counts those having less than
0.002 ha and Agriculture Census
counts with less than 0.5 ha.
SECC does not define landless.

Landlessness and dependence on

manual casual labour for a The India Rural Development
livelihood are key deprivations Report of 1992, indicated
facing rural families. Socio- nearly half of the country’s
economic census figures rural population was
indicates that they are far more absolutely or near landless.
The NSSO survey estimated
vulnerable to impoverishment
that half of all urban
than indicated by a plain reading households were landless
of the census data. with a ratio of one in 10 in
rural areas.

36
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Chapter 4: Landless, Homestead-less, House Ownership

Center for Land Governance, NRMC Bhubaneswar

Introduction
Land has always been characterized as a means of livelihood, food security and dignity of an individual being a key
asset for both rural and urban poor. It provides a foundation for economic activity and the functioning of market
(e.g. access to credit) and nonmarket institutions (e.g. local governments and social networks) in many developing
countries. The bulk of poverty in India is found among those with no land or insufficient land with which to feed
them. (Baidya, 1985)45 Landlessness and dependence on manual casual labour for a livelihood are key deprivations
facing rural families found out socio-economic caste census in 2011. As per All India Agricultural Workers Union
(AIAWU) growth of the landless in rural society has been steadily rising from 28.1% in 1951 to 37.8% in 1971, 40.3%
in 1991 to around 55% in 201146.

Post-independence of India, the Indian states enacted a series of land reforms intended to both improve equity in
land distribution and improve efficiency in agricultural production. These reforms succeeded in reallocating some
of the land in India; for instance 8.5 million hectares under tenancy and ceiling laws alone – from large holders to
the landless and land poor. However, the reforms were plagued by loopholes and faulty implementation, and
actually harmed the poor in some instances, usually through unintended consequences. For example, to avoid the
application of land ceiling laws and laws granting owner-like rights to tenant cultivators, many landlords evicted
poor tenants and reduced the amount of land leased to tenants, adding to landlessness (Hanstad and Nielsen 2007;
LRAN 2003a).

Objectives and Rationale

While landlessness remains the raison d'être for persistent poverty in rural India, and the growing inconvenience,
uncertainity and deprivation in expanding urban India (along with homesteadless), data on landlessness and
homesteadless remain inconclusive and debatable. With global commitments of SDG (Goal 1.2 and 2.3) towards
ownership, secure access and control over land and the mandate of a welfare state to address poverty, housing
and welfare, reliable and transparent information on landlessness is critical for an informed policy and actions.

How many Indians are Landless?

In 2015, finance minister Arun Jaitley said 300 million people do not own land, while launching the government’s Mudra
refinancing scheme for micro enterprises. “The current estimate for India’s landless is around 100 million households,
which would constitute at least 300 million of our population,” M.J. Akbar wrote in his column in the Times of India on 5
April 2015. The draft national land reforms policy released in July 2013 said 31% of all households are landless. That
number is derived from a 2003-04 survey of the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO). This NSSO survey estimated that
half of all urban households were landless; the ratio was one in 10 in rural areas. Assuming an average household size of
five, the total landless population works out to be 200 million. As per a 2008 paper by Vikas Rawal of the Centre for
Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University , 41.63% of rural households were landless. That works out to
61.5 million households and 307 million people in rural India alone.

Sourc : http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/PUzqHSs3xejXk4hm2djTPM/How-many-Indians-are-landless.html

45
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12266988
46
https://newsclick.in/agricultural-workers-demand-rights-indias-rural-landless

37
 India: State of Land Report 2018

There are arguments that the problem of landlessness is grossly exaggerated47. Data on landlessness has been
reported differently by different sources. Although the sources are credible government surveys, yet there are
differences, which could be attributed to the differences in methodologies and the approaches of survey. There are
different definitions48 landlessness adopted.
This chapter attempts to present the status of landlessness both in rural and urban context by combining these
datasets, by reflecting on dimensions of landlessness, homesteadlessness and houseless in a composite manner.
The national datasets used for the preparation of the report are Agriculture Census 2011, Population Census 2011,
Socio Economic Caste Census (2011), Household ownership and operational holding in India, NSSO 70th Round
2013, NSSO Land and Livestock Report, 2003-04 and draft national land reforms policy 2003. Data from these
sources though have differences, provide substantial insights into landlessness in India. While questions have been
raised on the methodologies and data collection and analysis processes, the approach adopted here is more about
exploring if a more balanced picture can emerge by combining these data sources. The data have been used to
construct some indicators for better appreciation of landlessness from various dimensions with a composite view.
Land being a state subject, the status is presented state-wise for better comparative appreciation.

Findings
Landlessness Index
Data Source: : a) Socio Economic Caste Census, 2011, b) National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), 70th Round, 2013
and c) Agriculture Census, 2011 and Census, 2011
Parameter: Percentage of number of landless households49 from SECC, Percentage of landless households50 as
per NSSO, Percentage of landless households as per Agriculture Census and Census51
Method: Geometric Mean52 three datasets from SECC, NSSO and Agriculture Census

This is an attempt to combine three different sets of data with an idea of harmonization to provide a blended
picture of landlessness by using Geometric mean.

The landlessness as per SECC (2011) in 56.4% (Landless households with depndent only on manual casual labour is
30%), while as per NSSO (2013) 7.41% equivalent to 11.56 million (10% or 14.84 million in 2003) and 29.7% taking
into account the different of total rural households and number of operational holdings. While the NSSO data
provides a far lower figure and SECC a higher one, the difference between Census and Agriculture Census is
between the two. However the country level pictures are not same at state level, with some states showing higher
landlessness as per Agriculture and population census than SECC.

Based on the methodology adopted for this index, the overall landlessness index is 23.15% in India. The landless
index are highest in the eastern and southern coastal region including the state of Gujarat, some north eastern
states and northern hill states with more than 20% households. The central and south-west region of India has
landless index between 10-20%. The landless index in the UTs tops the list with more than 50% landless

47
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/182462/2/IAAE-CONF-155.pdf
48
There are three alternative definitions for the 'landless' in rural areas: (a) those who own no land; (b) those who operate no land; and (c)
those whose major source of income is wage employment. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/182462/2/IAAE-CONF-155.pdf
49
Percentage of households with no land http://secc.gov.in/statewiseLandOwnershipReport?reportType=Land%20Ownership
50
‘less than or equal to 0.002 hectares as classified under ‘landless’ category, also includes plots where area is not reported
51
The difference between total number of rural households as per Census, 2011 and total number of operational holdings as per agriculture
census 2011
52
While compositing the data from the different surveys, geometric mean was used instead of arithmetic mean as the former reduces the
level of substitutionality. Preferring geometric mean is in line with the method employed by UN for computing the HDI since 2010

38
 India: State of Land Report 2018

households. The top three states from main land India are Uttarakhand (35.41%), Goa (34.33%) and Gujarat
(33.86%). The bottom two are Maharashtra (10.93% ) and Karnataka (10.31%). There are 18 states and UTs which
have landless index more than the national index. The states at par with the national landless index are Odisha
(23.15%), Tamil Nadu (21.63%) and Andhra Pradesh (20.64%).

Caveats:. Third set of data for Landlessness was calculated by deducting the total number of operational holdings
(individual) as per Agriculture Census 2011 from total number of rural households from Census 2011, with an
assumption that operational holdings represent single rural household, which may be incorrect, as in some states
like Kerala, there are more number of operational holdings than number of rural households. Usual caveat for NSSO
and SECC remains applicable

39
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Homestead less
Data Sources: NSSO 70th Round – Household ownership and operational holding 2013.
Parameters: Per 1000 distribution of households with homestead site ownership holding
Method: Conversion of per 1000 households with nil average area of homestead land per households to
percentage terms.

NSSO has defined in its 70th Round(Household ownerhsip and operational holding) homesteadless as having nil
(no or zeo area) ownerhip holding by the housheolds. The homesteadless counts of households almost matches
with the landless households reported under NSSO; however, while analysing the state specific data, a different
trend is noticed in the states of Karnataka (4.90%), Maharashtra (7.7%), Gujarat (3%) and Delhi (2.8%), where the
proportion of homesteadless households are quite lower as compared to the percentage of landless households.
The overall index of homesteadless is 6.7% and 17 states including the UTs are above the national index of
homesteadless-ness. The lead states with higher number of homestedless househods are Sikkim (39.4%),
Uttarakahand (20.4%), Andhra Pradesh (15.5%), Himachal Pradesh (14%), Arunachal Pradesh (12.8%) and the lead
UTs are Dadra & Nagar Haveli (63.3), Chandigarh (54), A&N Ilands (28.8%) etc.

Caveats: Usual caveat for NSSO data on sampling and methodology is applicable here. These households do not
have homesteadland, but may have other lands.

40
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Houseless
Data Sources: Socio Economic Caste Census 2011
Parameters: Percentage of households without ownership of house (all and women only)
Method: Difference of households with ownership of house from total households reported under SECC (all and
women)
The houseless index has been constructed from the data on ownership pattern of house reported under SECC 2011.
The all India houseless index is calculated to 5.09%. The most houseless are in UTs including NCT of Delhi with an
index of 24.33%. The northeastern states, southern and western states are above the national index for houseless
with 8.39%, 7.95% and 6.66% respectively. The eastern and northern states are below national index with 3.31%
and 3.13% respectively.

When the houseless index is calculated for women, the figures are completely contrast with 87.87% of women
found to not have ownership over their house either single or jointly. And the trend is so linear that across the
region the values are more or less same. In almost all states more than 70% of women do not own houses. While
southern states like Kerala followed by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Telengana and northern states like HP and
Uttarakhand have comparatively better status with upto 30% women owning houses, in other states less than 15%
women had ownership of houses.

41
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Caveats: The data only represents the households do not own a house reported under SECC 2011. It does not include
the households with rented or other form of accommodation reported under SECC 2011. Other methodological
caveats of SECC apply.

Discussions
Data and debate on landlessness remain inconclusive. Many researcher feel that landlessness like poverty is always
overestimated The India Rural Development Report of 1992, indicated nearly half of the country’s rural population
was absolutely or near landless. The draft national land reforms policy53 released in July 2013 mentioned 31% of all
households in India are landless. The NSSO survey in 2003 estimated that half of all urban households were landless
with a ratio of one in 10 in rural areas. According to National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) data (2003-04)
about 41.63% of households do not own land other than homestead. The 2013 NSSO survey covered only the rural
areas and showed that the proportion of landless households decreased to 7.4%, or 11.56 million households and
57.7 million people. The definition of landlessness by NSSO has been changed over a decade by reducing the
ownership limit from 0.4 ha to 0.002 ha per household54. This has resulted in change in percentage of landless
households over a decade (from 41.63 in 2003 to 7.41 in 2013).

For a common man, media as well as decision maker, all these datasets are legitimate being carried out by
specialized government agencies, with legal back up. Therefore perceptions, interpretations and decision do

53
This number is derived from a 2003-04 survey of the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), however the definition of landless is unclear in
the said survey.
54
According to NSSO, landless is defined as possessing land below 0.002 hectares, or 215 sq. ft.

42
 India: State of Land Report 2018

influence by each of these datasets though they provide different macro and a diversity of macro pictures. In this
chapter an attempt has been made to see if the combination of these datasets can provide another option to look
at these datasets in a different manner. While the data on housing is presented using single datasets (viz. NSSO,
2013 for homsteadless and SECC, 2011 for houseless), there is also scope to further buttress them with other such
datasets with population census, NFHS etc.

43
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Chapter 5: Land Record Digitization

44
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Chapter 5: Land Record Digitization

National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER)
55 56
Deepak Sanan and Prerna Prabhakar

Abstract
India recorded a spectacular improvement from 130 to 100 in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business (EoDB)
rankings for 2018. An important component of this index is the ease of registering property which also seeks to
capture the quality of land administration. Despite the overall jump in EoDB ranking, India has dropped sixteen
ranks in the “ease of registering property” subcomponent, from 138 to 154. This slippage represents a huge
potential for creating an improved environment for business by removing rigidities with regard to land markets and
institutions. The significance of better land records in security of tenures and an improved property rights scenario
has long been recognized by the central government. Programmes aimed at computerizing and modernizing land
records were initiated in the late 1980’s. In 2008, the Department of Land Resources (DoLR), Ministry of Rural
Development (GOI) amalgamated two earlier schemes and launched the National Land Records Modernization
Programme (NLRMP). This was rechristened the Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme (DI-LRMP) in
2014. Although this programme has been in operation for many years, no independent evaluation had been
undertaken. In this context, a pilot impact assessment of the DI-LRMP was undertaken in three states by three
institutions. The National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) carried out an assessment in Himachal
Pradesh, the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP) in Rajasthan and the Indira Gandhi Institute of
Development Research (IGIDR) in Maharashtra. The selection of these states catered to factors like ensuring
diversity both geographically and in terms of land administration systems. On the completion of the three state
study, the NCAER prepared a synthesis report which compared the findings across the three states.

This chapter aims to discuss the status of land record digitization as reported by DoLR on the DI-LRMP Management
Information System (MIS) for the whole of India and further to present a comparison of the status on the DoLR
website with the findings of the three state impact assessment. Digitization of land records serves little purpose if
the information provided does not reduce conflict, dispute and litigation in relation to land and property. A
comprehensive and accurate record, updated in real time, is critical if this objective is to be achieved. In order to
make some comments about the accuracy of the digitized land records, this chapter also includes a discussion of
the findings of the impact assessment with regard to the extent of consistency between the land record and the on
ground situation. This comparison of the record and the on ground situation was conducted for sample land parcels
in two selected tehsils in each of the three states. The comparison between the on ground situation and the record
was conducted with respect to five features of each land parcel– ownership, possession, land use, extent or area
and encumbrances. Consultations with officials dealing with land record administration to secure suggestions to
better pursue the core objective of a better record and changes in the DI-LRMP in this context, were part of the
work done in this study. Suggestions emanating from the study in this regard are also discussed in this chapter.

55
Senior Advisor, National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER); Addl Chief Secretary (Retd), Himachal Pradesh
56
Associate Fellow, National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER)

45
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Key Messages

In the computerisation of land and associated records, DoLR’s MIS highlights the greatest achievement with
respect to computerized RoRs and the least achievement with respect to integration of RoRs with digitized CMs.

There is lack of clarity with regard to what computerization of mutation is meant to convey – does it refer merely
to an online entry of an application for mutation or does it capture the final change in the RoR?

The MIS does not appear to seek information on availability of digitally signed copies of the spatial record.

The registration process is characterized by multiple steps which are not captured by the DoLR MIS- only the
information pertaining to online availability of circle rate is provided.

It is unclear what the Integration of registration and RoR means as per the DoLR MIS- does it mean that the
registration process checks RoR details to verify details in the proposed deed? Does it mean an immediate note in
the RoR on a registration event or does it go even further and mean an instant update of the RoR following the
registration?

Financial performance of DI-LRMP exhibits underutilization of the funds allocated and released by the centre to
the states and the financial information in the MIS on expenditure by the states does not appear to be updated
regularly.

The Impact Assessment (IA) data and the DoLR MIS are more or less consistent with regard to the physical
progress with regard to computerisation in most of the land record categories. It does however, highlight the
need for more accurate reporting by states.

The comparison of land records with the on ground situation in the IA brings out the fact that even with
significant achievement in computerizing the land record, real time updating of land records on various
dimensions is still some distance away.

Based on the focus group discussions and state consultations with revenue officials, IA exercise provides
suggestions for improving real time updation of land records, improving DI-LRMP design and effective ways of
data reporting by states on DI-LRMP MIS.

46
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Introduction
India’s relatively low ranking on the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Index is in part caused by poor performance on
‘the ease of registering property’, which also seeks to capture the quality of land administration. It has been
estimated that land market distortions account for about 1.3 per cent of lost annual economic growth57 and a
significant number of land parcels in India are the subject of litigation58. In this context, it has been suggested that
conclusive titling needs to be adopted as a way of reducing litigation and associated transaction costs, and
consequently improving the “Ease of Doing Business”. An essential first stage, in seeking to achieve such an
objective, is a better existing record of land and property.
The importance of modernising land records through the application of technology has been recognized for a long
time in India. After running two parallel programmes on computerisation and modernisation of land records for
many years, the Government of India (Department of Land Resources (DoLR), Ministry of Rural Development)
amalgamated these programmes in 2008 into a new centrally sponsored scheme called the National Land Records
Modernisation Programme (NLRMP). The NLRMP, which projected conclusive titling as the ultimate goal of land
record modernisation, has now been made a central scheme and renamed as “The Digital India Land Records
Modernisation Programme (DI-LRMP)”. The main aims of DI-LRMP are enunciated as the provision of a system of
updated land records, automated and automatic mutation, integration between textual and spatial records, inter-
connectivity between revenue and registration, and finally the replacement of the present deed-based registration
and presumptive titling system with conclusive titling including guarantee of the title.
In effect, the objective of the DI-LRMP is to facilitate the setting up of a modern and efficient land records
management system in the country with land records updated in real time. The main components of the
programme are:
• Computerisation of the records of rights (RoRs)
• Digitisation of maps and survey / resurvey of land to create more accurate spatial records,
• Computerisation of the registration process; and
• Integration of all these three activities / data bases.

Given the existence of the programme for almost a decade, there was some discussion around the need for an
impact assessment of DI-LRMP. In this context, before a nationwide exercise, a pilot impact assessment was
undertaken. The pilot was jointly conducted by three Impact Assessment Agencies (lAA) and one overall
coordinating agency (OCA). The National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) was both the IAA for the
first state (Himachal Pradesh) as well as the OCA for the project. The National Institute of Public Finance and Policy
(NIPFP) was the IAA for the second state (Rajasthan) while the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research
(IGIDR) for the third state (Maharashtra)59. The three states were selected to capture some of the variations in the
geographical context as well as land administration systems in the country.

This chapter examines the status of land record digitization in the country as brought out by the DoLR website and
the extent to which this is borne out by the impact assessment study. In this context, section 2 of the chapter
points out the extent of digitization stated to have been achieved by all the states of the country as per the DoLR
website. It also briefly discusses the financial progress under the DI-LRMP (including its predecessor the NLRMP) for
India as a whole. Thereafter, section 3 presents a comparison between the status of land record digitization in the
three states brought out by the impact assessment study and the DoLR’s DI-LRMP MIS. It also looks at the three

57
McKinsey Global Institute 2001.
58
Daksh (2016), a civil society organization in India, as per which two-thirds of the civil cases in districts courts pertain to land/property
issues.
59
NCAER 2017a, IGIDR 2017, and NIFPF 2017, NCAER 2017b

47
 India: State of Land Report 2018

state data on financial progress in order to draw attention to the accuracy and consistency of the data on the
website. Section 4 of the chapter is about the findings of the impact assessment study with regard to the extent to
which the land records are an accurate, comprehensive and up to date mirror of the actual position on the basis of
a comparison between the land record and the on ground situation. Finally, section 5 offers suggestions to address
the various shortcomings brought out in the preceding sections. These include suggestions to increase the accuracy
and usefulness of the data being collected by the DoLR to monitor progress in digitization of the land record,
improvements with regard to the DILRMP programme as well as improving the real time accuracy of the record.

Land record digitization: DoLR

The DoLR website shows the up to date status of land record digitization in India as reported by the states on the
following components– Record of Rights (RoRs), Cadastral Maps (CMs), Registration process and the integration
across these key components. Table 1 below attempts to capture the overall India picture in this regard. The first
column provides the percentage of digitization in the country as a whole for the various components of land
records that are sought to be digitized. The next four columns mention the number of states under brackets of
digitization percentage for the mentioned categories of land records.

TABLE 1: STATUS OF LAND RECORD DIGITIZATION (YEAR 2018)

Digitization
percentage Number of States with

India’s

information
digitization

digitization

digitization

digitization
digitization

available
91-100%
51-90%
6-50%
percentage 0-5%

No
RoR computerization (percentage of total REs /villages) 86.35 5 6 8 17
Mutation computerized (percentage of total villages) 47.23 11 8 7 10
Digitially signed RoR (percentage of total villages) 29.57 23 4 4 5
Digitized CMs (percentage of total CMs) 46.37 2 5 3 16 10
Number of REs in which Cadastral Maps linked to RoR
26.64 25 7 3 2
(percentage of total REs)
Web based computerization of registration process
54.49 18 5 2 11
(percentage of total SROs)

Circle rate online (percentage of total SROs) 69.36 14* 4 3 14

Integration of registration process with RoRs (percentage of

52.26 20 3 3 10
total SROs)
Source: Website of Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. Accessed on 1-2-2018
An analysis of the information in Table 1 (read with the information in the table A1 in the annexure) brings out the
following.
1. The country as a whole appears to have made significant progress in computerizing RoRs, with a country
wide percentage of 86.35% of the revenue estates or villages now possessing a computerized RoR. All
major states show an above average coverage. Yet how significant is this achievement in making available a
more comprehensive and up-to-date record is difficult to make out from this information. The

48
 India: State of Land Report 2018

computerisation of mutations, in which the achievement is only a little over half of that for digitization of
the RoR, may point to a considerable gap in this regard. This data on the computerization of the mutation
process, does not really enable a comment on whether this ensures a ready availability of an updated
record. This computerization may, in fact, be entirely unrelated to the time gap between attestation of a
mutation and its incorporation in the record. In effect, computerization of the RoR, could be a one time
exercise which can certainly enable timely updating of the record but does not necessarily reflect that this
is actually occurring. A digitally signed RoR is a good measure of a facility that aids the public. This
achievement on this front is only a little more than a third of the extent to which RoRs are digitized.
Significant achievement is reflected in only a few states. Furthermore, what is the extent to which digitally
signed copies of the RoR are readily available on the web may be more meaningful information than just
the extent of computerisation of the textual record.
2. Digitisation of CMs is a step towards improving public access to the spatial record. Reported performance
in this is only a little over half of that reported with respect to computerization of RoRs. Meaningful
availability of this record can occur only when it is linked to the RoR. In this respect achievement drops to
only 26.64%. There is no indicator to gauge the extent to which this digitized spatial record is being made
available on the web in a digitally signed form. Updating this spatial record in real time would require
integration with RoRs which in turn should be integrated with the registration process. The figures would
appear to show that achievement on this front is likely to be very low.
3. Computerisation of the registration process can represent both a major improvement in delivering a service
to the public as well as being an important step in enhancing the availability of a comprehensive record of
transactions related to property. The current data shows that over 54% of the SROs in the country are
computerized. However, this information is insufficient to comment on two important aspects. How far
does this relate to actual property related transactions? Placing computerization in the context of
transaction intensity will enable a better idea of the extent to which the public has been facilitated than the
number of SROs covered. More significant is the fact that a blanket assertion of computerization of
registration can cover a lot or very little! Thus, a fully computerized process can cover all steps in
registration from web based entry of data pertaining to a proposed registration through checking of circle
rates on the web, payment online of relevant fees and duty, the SRO being able to scrutinize and verify
details and digitally affix her signature online to immediate electronic delivery of the registered document.
The current information enables at best a comment on the extent to which circle rates are available on line
(and even these may not be updated rates).
4. Finally, integration of data bases of registration with RoR is shown to have reached 52.28% in the country.
This is shown as a percentage of SROs. It would be more meaningful if this was expressed in terms of the
revenue estates or villages that are integrated with the registration process. A more serious lacuna related
to the fact that this information does not allow us to ascertain how far this integration translates into a
record that is updated in real time. Does this mean that as soon as a transaction relating to a property is
registered, the RoR receives a notification in this regard? It does not enable us to know the extent to which
it enhances the credibility of the registration process. Is it the integration of a reliable RoR from which
various details are checked at the time of registration?
Overall, it can be said that the status of land record digitization as per the DoLR MIS reflects the greatest
achievement with respect to computerized RoRs and least achievement on integrating RoRs with digitized CMs.
After almost three decades of effort, the results are not very heartening. However, even more disconcerting is the
fact that even this information does not really allow definite comments with regard to the extent to which
comprehensive, accurate records updated in real time are being generated with this technological input. The MIS
also needs improvement in order to be able to see the extent to which the computerisation efforts have actually
facilitated the public.

49
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Financial progress under DI-LRMP

The financial picture of DI-LRMP implementation indicates considerable underutilization of the funds allocated and
released by the centre to the Indian states (Table 2). The DI-LRMP comprises various components under which
funds are sanctioned. This either reflects a failure by the states to report expenditure on the MIS or shows that the
central programme has serious design issues that constrain expenditure under it. It would seem that even much of
the physical progress recorded on the website may not have been undertaken by the states under this programme.
Many of these components under the NLRMP (when it was a centrally sponsored scheme) had different matching
requirements from the states. This also possibly induced the states to seek more funding under segments with a
higher central share, which did not necessarily translate into the concomitant expenditure.

TABLE 2: FINANCIAL PROGRESS OF DI-LRMP (2008-09 TO 2017-18) (RS LAKH)

Funds Sanctioned by Funds Released by Expenditure (as Fund Utilization
Centre Centre Entered by State/UT) (expressed as a %age of
funds released)
Total 192673.1 115908.8 12067.89 10.41

Source: Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.

Status of Land Records: Impact Assessment study

Physical Progress
Information regarding the status of computerization of land records in the states covered by the impact assessment
study was canvassed through questionnaires drafted jointly by the three institutions engaged in this exercise.
Information obtained from the MIS of the DI-LRMP was verified with the concerned department of the state
government, and where relevant, with the National Informatics Centre at the state level. As a part of the
assessment of state level computerisation of land records, the claims made by the state government were verified
by performing random test checks.
Broadly, the land record digitization status of these three states (Table 4) shows considerable difference in
emphasis. HP has taken the lead in computerising textual records (RoR) and making available digitally signed copies
of RoRs. Maharashtra has clearly marched ahead in terms of digitization of the registration process while Rajasthan
is catching up in this regard. In digitizing cadastral maps, HP has made most progress, with the other two states still
at a nascent stage. With respect to integration of RoR and CM data bases, maximum progress is again witnessed in
HP. Even the registration and RoR linkage, is most visible in HP in practice.

IA and DoLR comparison

The IA report had shown the overall achievement reflected on the DoLR website data and the status of the three
states in this context in early 2017. This information is reproduced in table 3 below.

50
 India: State of Land Report 2018

TABLE 3: PROGRESS ACHIEVED IN THE THREE PILOT STATES REGARDING

VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF DI-LRMP

Component Total number of States/Union Number of pilot states reported to have

Territories reported to have completed completed the component activities
the component activities
Computerisation of Land Records 27 3 (Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra and
Rajasthan)
Computerisation of property 30 3 (Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra and
Registration Rajasthan)
Integration of land records and 11 2 (Himachal Pradesh and Maharashtra)
property registration
Stoppage of manual issuance of RoR 18 1 (Maharashtra)
Data Placed on Websites 22 3 (Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra and
Rajasthan)
Bhu-naksha (Cadastral Maps) 15 3 (Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra and
customised Rajasthan)
Digitally Signed RoRs 7 1 (Rajasthan)
Integration of Bhu-Naksha and RoR 5 -
Source: DI-LRMP Pilot Impact Assessment study, NCAER, 2017

As is obvious from the above, the achievements were shown in a binary form of whether a particular action had
been performed or not. As such, a state had either computerized RoRs or it was still to do so. The IA revealed the
need to nuance how this achievement on various components is exhibited if it is to be meaningful. Even as a binary
construct, the information was not completely accurate. Both on digitally signed RoRs and integration of spatial and
textual records, it did not show Himachal Pradesh amongst the achievers. With over 97% RoRs available in digitized
form, this was probably amongst the highest in all states. Instead Rajasthan which barely registers a presence on
this component figured as an achiever. Similarly, on integration of textual and spatial records, HP is one of the few
states to have made a start on this but had not posted its achievement (not humility on the state’s part, just plain
failure to report on the MIS!).

In order to make a more meaningful comparison, data obtained in the course of the IA exercise and that reflected
on the DoLR website currently, is presented in Table 4 below. This comparison has to take into account the fact that
the IA data largely relates to 2016 and the comparable figures are those currently on the DoLR website. Some
variation is likely due to this fact. Another problem in comparing the figures is that the IA has not necessarily
captured the information in the same way as required by the MIS. Eg. The IA did not seek information on the
computerisation of mutations since per se this information has little relationship with more efficient updating of
the record which is more likely to be captured by the integration of the registration and RoR data bases and the
facility of registered transactions being immediately noted in the RoR in some form. With respect to
computerization of the registration process, the IA obtained information on the various stages of the process and
not as an omnibus single indicator of computerization of registration (Table 4).

51
 India: State of Land Report 2018

TABLE 4: LAND RECORD DIGITIZATION STATUS: COMPARISON

BETWEEN IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DOLR DATA

Himachal Pradesh Maharashtra Rajasthan

RoR computerization (percentage of total IA 97.6 99.01 96
villages)
DoLR 99.9 98.83 96.6

Mutation computerized (percentage of total IA n.a n.a. n.a

villages)
DoLR 1.54 98.84 8.65
Digitially signed RoR (percentage of total IA 97.6 0.0 7.6
villages)
DoLR 85.7 0.03 7.6
Digitized CMs (percentage of total REs / CMs) IA 17.91 3.8 0.0

DoLR 99.8 3.6 5.12

Number of REs with Cadastral Maps linked to IA 17.91 0.0 0.0
RoR (percentage of total villages)
DoLR 34.2 0.0 0.02
Web based computerization of registration IA 0.0 n.a. n.a
process (percentage of total SROs)
DoLR 0.0 96.8 4.5
Circle rate online (percentage of total SROs) IA 100.0 96.8 100

DoLR 100.0 96.8 33.4

Integration of registration process with RoRs IA 97.6 n.a. n.a

(percentage of total SROs)
DoLR 100.0 96.6 1.71

Source: DI-LRMP Pilot Impact Assessment study, NCAER, 2017 & Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural
Development, Government of India.

1. RoR digitization shows consistent results in the case of all the three states, with only HP showing a slight
mismatch between the IA and DoLR figures.
2. Again in the case of digitally signed copies of RoR, Maharashtra and Rajasthan figures in both sets of data
match perfectly with some variation in the case of HP.
3. In the digitisation of cadastral maps, the two sets of data do not match in the case of any of the states.
However, the variation is nominal in the case of Maharashtra. HP shows almost 100% digitisation on the
DoLR website against less than 18% in the IA. However, the IA does mention that this work is proceeding
apace in most districts and it is possible that significant progress has been achieved. Similarly, in the case of
Rajasthan, a start has been made in digitisation of CMs as per the DoLR website against the nil achievement
at the time of the IA.
4. The position on integration CMs and RoRs, is again more or less consistent as reflected in both the IA and
the DoLR website for the case of both Maharashtra and Rajasthan. In HP’s case, the DoLR website shows
almost double the achievement brought out in the IA. This is also possible given that this work has been
progressing quite fast since the IA was carried out.

52
 India: State of Land Report 2018

5. On circle rates being available on the web, the position in the IA and DoLR website is consistent for HP and
Maharashtra. In Rajasthan’s case, the DoLR website data is only a third of the 100% availability reflected in
the IA.
6. On the computerisations of mutations, no information was obtained during the IA. As mentioned in the
earlier section, it is difficult to understand the value addition in computerisation of mutations which is not
captured by the integration of the RoR and registration data bases. So while Maharashtra, reports almost
99% of computerisation of mutations, the integration of the two data bases is actually reported at a slightly
lower level. The mutation computerisation is an automated notice of a registration event to the revenue
officials responsible for maintaining the record and not a note in the RoR itself.
7. The information on web based computerisation of the registration process is consistent between the IA
and the DoLR website at the overall level in that it reflects the advances made in Maharahstra in this
sphere and the relative lack of progress in HP. The IA brings out some inconsistency in the figures for the
total number of SROs and those linked to the web based system in Maharashtra. More important, the IA
brings out that attempting to capture computerisation of registration as a single step process cannot reflect
the position on a multi stage process like registration. The IA brought out the position on computerization
of the various stages of the registration process in the three states as shown in the table below.

53
 India: State of Land Report 2018

TABLE 5: DIGITISATION OF THE REGISTRATION PROCESS— COMPARATIVE POSITION OF THE STATES

Steps Undertaken By Client, Himachal Pradesh Maharashtra Rajasthan

Registration Office or
Both
1. Title Search Client

1a. Checking with RoR Client Online Offline (mostly) Offline

1b. Access to Legacy Client Nil 46% SROs permit search from Nil
Registration Record 1985 onwards and 47.3% (rapidly being made
from 2002 onwards available for last 2
years)
2. Circle Rate (real time Both Available Available Available
availability of notified
rate)

3. Payment of Duty Client e-stamp On line system e-stamp/on line

system introduced

4. Document Preparation Client Offline Partially web based Off line (now data
and Application entry partially web
based)

5. Verification of Duty and Office Offline Duty verification- Online Off line
Documents Documents verification –
partially web-based
6. Attestation of Office Offline Partially web-based Off line
Registration

7. Delivery of Document Office Offline Online system Off line

8. Updating of record Office

8a Notice for Office In all cases where RoR 2.8% of SROs Offline
Updating is noted in the is computerised
land/property record: (97.6%)

8b Actual Record Office No No No

Updation occurs in real
time:

Source: DI-LRMP Pilot Impact Assessment study, NCAER, 2017

Overall, comparison of the position brought out in the IA and that reflected on the DoLR website, shows a
consistency in many important details. It does however, bring out the need to ensure states pay greater attention
to accurate reporting on most fronts. More important, it brings out the need to ensure that the information on
computerisation of registration is collected for a multi stage process.

54
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Financial Progress
While the figures in Table 2 (shown earlier) relate to aggregate financial figures from 2008-09 till the latest year,
2017-18, the IA has information for the three states only till the latest time period at the time of the study (Table
6). Still, the national level picture of underutilization is mirrored by the data of the three states. In effect, the earlier
observations on issues in the design of the DI-LRMP can be safely reiterated.

TABLE 6: FINANCIAL PROGRESS OF DI-LRMP FOR PILOT STATES

(2008-09 TO 2015-16) (RS LAKH)
State* Funds Sanctioned by Funds Released by Expenditure Incurred Fund Utilisation
the Centre the Centre (in Lakh Rs.) (expressed as a %age
(in Lakh Rs.) (in Lakh Rs.) of the funds
released)

Himachal Pradesh 6907 4330 303 7.00

Maharashtra 8420 6536.16 1673.67 25.61
Rajasthan* 752.630 550.450 263.650 47.90

Source: Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.

Note: *Details in the case of Himachal Pradesh and Maharashtra pertain to the period 2008–09 to 2015–16, while
for Rajasthan, the data is for the time period 2012–13 to 2014–15.

In Table 7 below, the latest financial details on the DI-LRMP website for the three IA states have been exhibited. A
comparison with the data in Table 6 above brings out an anomalous result. The latest figures of expenditure for
Rajasthan are nil and almost negligible for Maharashtra! Clearly, the systems for reporting and monitoring data up
loaded on the DoLR website need improvement.

TABLE 7: FINANCIAL PROGRESS OF DI-LRMP FOR PILOT STATES

(2008-09 TO 2017-18) (RS LAKH)
Funds Sanctioned by Funds Released by Expenditure (as Fund Utilization
Centre Centre Entered by State/UT) (expressed as a %age
of funds released)
HP 6927.818 4344.259 705.96 16.25
Maharashtra 10432.07 6535.435 58.472 0.89
Rajasthan 19319.07 4137.21 0.00 0.00
Source: Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.

55
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Comparison between land records and on ground situation

One of the key objectives of the IA was to comment on the extent to which computerisation of the land records is
facilitating a more comprehensive and accurate land record updated in real time. For this purpose, an exercise was
undertaken to compare the position in the land records with the actual on ground situation with respect to sample
plots. The comparative analysis was undertaken in two tehsils (selected on the basis of a pre decided criteria) in all
the three states and involved a survey of 50 land parcels in each of the two tehsils. The consistency or variation
between the record and the on ground situation was examined with respect to five features that characterize every
property– Ownership, Possession, Land use, Extent or Land Area and Encumbrances. The three institutions varied in
the methodology used to select the sample plots so the results were not comparable across the states. However,
the results still make it possible to comment on the nature of the variation and the gaps that need to be addressed.
1. In the case of ownership, it is clear that the existing emphasis on computerisation and integration of the
three areas of textual record, spatial record and registration process needs to be pursued with greater
viguor if records are to be updated in real time after registration of transactions. Furthermore, even after
this is completed, it will leave an important gap. Succession as an event that necessitates change in the
record is still not covered as a sphere where appropriate data base linkages are required to bring about the
possibility of real time updating of the record.
2. In the case of possession, the gaps relate to entry in the record of tenants or others using land and
property. Addressing this gap, will require statutory or procedural changes in every state to facilitate
appropriate entries to be made and data bases to be linked. In Rajasthan, for example, the land record does
not have a column to record possession at all. In HP, the tenancy reform law creates perverse incentives
militating against recording tenants or sharecroppers.
3. In all three states, the findings suggested a considerable gap between the record and the on ground
situation in the case of land use. Updating this in real time, requires bot changes in procedure and use of
appropriate data bases.
4. In all three states, it was noted that the area given in the RoR and the on ground measurement showed a
high degree of variation. While this brought out the fact that spatial records may not be very accurate, it
also flagged the point that resurvey could result in large scale disputes unless appropriate protocols were
evolved in advance to deal with the variations. An important preliminary step could perhaps be to reconcile
the existing textual and spatial record in order to reduce the ambit of differences. This requires an
emphasis on digitizing the spatial record in all states.
5. In the case of encumbrances pertaining to a property (in terms of restrictions or conditions affecting the
property), it was seen that only mortgages are entered in the record and even in this case, in most states
real time updating of the record would require certain statutory and procedural improvement to ensure
that data base linkages like registration can be used. Important encumbrances that cause dispute and
conflict in relation to land include on-going litigation or land acquisition proceedings as well as land use or
customary restrictions attached to land. In most states, there are no existing instructions or mechanisms
for recording many of these encumbrances in the RoRs. Appropriate data base linkages can mitigate this
gap. Innovations in this regard need to be brought under the ambit of the DI-LRMP.

56
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Possible Steps to Hasten Achieving DI-LRMP Objectives

The objective of this chapter was to bring out the level of computerisation of the land and associated records and
by looking at the findings of an impact assessment of the DI-LRMP, to reflect on the extent to which the objective
of a more accurate, comprehensive record updated in real time is being achieved. Finally, it was to include
suggestions on ways in which the shortcomings pointed out, could be addressed. The preceding sections of this
chapter have highlighted the following areas where action is required:

1. Progress on computerisation of land records, under the DI-LRMP and its predecessor programmes, has
been patchy. While considerable progress has been reported with respect to computerisation of textual
records, other components lag behind. Even in the case of textual records, the facility of making available
digitally signed copies of the record on the web is still very limited.

2. The utilization of funds under DI-LRMP has been extremely poor and does not appear to be linked to the
reported achievements in computerizing various components of the record.

3. Apart from the need to speed up the existing work on computerizing various components of the land
record and registration process and integrating these data bases, there is a need to bring about appropriate
legal and procedural changes to enable linkage with other data bases that can aid in the process of creating
a more accurate, comprehensive record updated in real time.

4. The DI-LRMP MIS largely reflects the actual achievement of the states with respect to the outputs sought to
be achieved by the programme. However, some improvements would enable capturing better the
achievements in digitization of land and associated records such as securing information on the various
steps involved in registration. Some changes may also be necessary to secure information on the extent to
which the RoR reflects information from other associated data bases that can improve the record. It also
needs better reporting by the states and monitoring at the central level.

The IA study included bringing the findings of the study to the notice of relevant stakeholders, in order to elicit
suggestions on action that can enhance the prospects of a more accurate and comprehensive record updated in
real time and ensure the DI-LRMP is more focused in rendering assistance to meet this objective. To this end, these
findings were discussed with revenue department officials in focus group discussions (FGDs) and state level
consultations. Based on the recommendations that emerged in these consultations and the analysis of the
shortcomings brought out in the IA, the following suggestions are put forward as possible ways to hasten
achievement of the DI-LRMP objective of securing a more accurate, comprehensive record updated in real time.

1. At the state level, the recommendations included better trained staff and monitoring arrangements. They
pointed out the need to expedite on going computerization efforts in relation to the textual record, the
spatial record, the registration process and integration of these data bases. They also highlighted the need
to make the necessary statutory and procedural changes to enhance the possibility of real time updating of
RoRs through ‘instant mutation’ on the occurrence of registration. Most significant were the suggestions on
additional data bases to be linked to address the gaps that will remain even after the process of
computerization as envisaged currently is completed. These include links to the birth and death register to
take care of the bulk of succession related events as well as links to data bases related to various
encumbrances like court cases, land acquisition and land use restrictions introduced by development plans.
Use of satellite maps and creating linkages in this regard, can help improve the position on recording land
use change in real time. Encouraging voluntary partition of property and creating appropriate formats for
recording built up property and recording possession on various segments of such property can also aid in
the record better reflecting the actual possession on the ground.

57
 India: State of Land Report 2018

2. Suggestions to improve the design of the DI-LRMP so that it has a better link to state efforts and the
outcomes sought to be achieved, focused on increased flexibility for the states in making expenditure
decisions. They also sought a component that rewards performance by states with regard to creation of a
more comprehensive, accurate and updated record instead of only funding inputs.
3. On the data front, the IA has suggested that the states may be asked to report annually on the following
details in order to capture all the requisite efforts on computerization and linking relevant data bases that
are expected from the states. Most of this information is already received on the DI-LRMP MIS but some
additions will be necessary.
i. Number of tehsils/talukas or other administrative division for property record purposes and
revenue villages/estates in the entire state.
ii. Names of tehsils/talukas reported to have computerised/digitised the RoRs/CMs (separately) and
the number of revenue villages/RoRs in each of these tehsils/talukas.
iii. Names of tehsils/talukas where copies of the RoRs/CMs (separately) in a legally useable form can
be accessed from the web and the number of revenue villages/RoRs in each of these
tehsils/talukas.
iv. Names of tehsils/talukas where registration of property-related transactions is automatically done
in the computerised RoRs and the number of revenue villages/ RoRs in each of these
tehsils/talukas.
v. Names of tehsils/talukas where registration of property-related transactions result in instant
mutation in the computerised RoRs and the number of revenue villages/RoRs in each of these
tehsils/talukas.
vi. Names of tehsils/talukas where encumbrances in the form of mortgages can be immediately noted
in the computerised RoRs and number of revenue villages/RoRs in each of these tehsils/talukas.
vii. Names of tehsils/talukas where encumbrances in the form of revenue court cases can be
immediately noted in the computerised RoRs and the number of revenue villages/RoRs in each of
these tehsils/talukas.
viii. Names of tehsils/talukas where encumbrances in the form of civil court cases can be immediately
noted in the computerised RoRs and the number of revenue villages/RoRs in each of these
tehsils/talukas.
ix. Names of tehsils/talukas where encumbrances in the form of land acquisition proceedings can be
immediately noted in the computerised RoRs and number of revenue villages/RoRs in each of these
tehsils/talukas.
x. Names of tehsils/talukas where encumbrances in the form of statutory land use restrictions can be
immediately noted in the computerised RoRs and the number of revenue villages/RoRs in each of
these tehsils/talukas.
xi. Number of SROs in the state.
xii. Number of SROs in the state where registration of a sale deed requires and/or has a facility for
online:

a. entry of data with regard to the proposed registration;

b. availability of updated circle rates;
c. payment of stamp duty/registration fee;
d. verification of payment/scrutiny of requisite details and completion of registration process
with digital signature; and
e. immediate delivery of the registered document.

58
 India: State of Land Report 2018

References
IGIDR. 2017. Report on the Implementation o fthe Dl-LRMP in the State of Maharashtra. IGIDR, Mumbai: IGIDR.

NCAER. 2017a. A Pilot Impact Assessment of the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme: Himachal Pradesh.
NCAER, New Delhi: NCAER.

NCAER. 2017b. A Pilot Impact Assessment of the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme: Synthesis Report.
NCAER, New Delhi: NCAER.

NIFPF. 2017. DI-LRMP Implementation in Rajasthan. New Delhi: NIPFP.

59
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Annexure
Table A1: State wise Status of Land Record Digitization (year 2018)

6-50% digitization
0-5% digitization

No information
digitization

digitization

available
91-100%
51-90%
Dadra & Nagar Haveli,
Himachal Pradesh,
Lakshadweep,
Karnataka, Andaman
Puducherry, & Nicobar, Telangana,
Jharkhand, Kerala,
RoR computerization Arunachal Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Tripura, Madhya
Chandigargh,
(percentage of total Meghalaya, Mizoram, Uttarakhand, Tamil Pradesh,
Odisha, Manipur,
REs /villages) Nagaland, NCT Of Delhi Nadu, Daman & Diu, Maharashtra, West
Jammu & Kashmir
Bihar, Goa, Assam Bengal, Andhra
Pradesh, Rajasthan,
Gujarat, Uttar
Pradesh, Punjab,
Sikkim, Haryana
Bihar, Himachal Dadra & Nagar Haveli,
Pradesh, Odisha, Kerala , Andaman & Nicobar,
Mutation Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Goa, Chattisgarh, Telangana, Tripura,
computerized Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Madhya Gujarat,Tamilnadu, Maharastra,
(percentage of total Karnataka, Pradesh, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Sikkim, Puducherry, Andhra
villages) Lakshadweep, Manipur, Rajasthan, Assam Pradesh, West
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Chandigargh Bengal, Haryana,
Nagaland, NCT Of Delhi Daman & Diu,
Jharkhand, Chattisgarh,
Haryana, Punjab, Bihar,
Uttarakhand,
Maharastra, Arunachal
Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal,
Dadra & Nagar Haveli,
Digitially signed RoR Chandigargh, Daman & Madhya Himachal Pradesh,
Andaman & Nicobar,
(percentage of total Diu, Goa, Jammu & Pradesh,Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil
Telangana, Andhra
villages) Kashmir, Karnataka, Rajasthan Nadu, Tripura
Pradesh, Puducherry
Kerala, Lakshadweep,
Manipur, Meghalaya,
Mizoram, NCT Of Delhi,
Odisha, Sikkim,
Nagaland
Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Arunachal
Goa, Odisha, Pradesh,
Puducherry, Sikkim, Chandigargh,
Uttarakhand, Uttar Tripura, Assam, Jammu &
Digitized CMs
Maharastra, Daman & Pradesh, Rajasthan, Telangana, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Kashmir,
(percentage of total
Diu, Andaman & Nicobar, Andhra Pradesh Bihar, Madhya Karnataka,
CMs)
Gujarat Pradesh, Kerala, Lakshadweep,
Chattisgarh, Manipur,
Tamilnadu, Haryana, Meghalaya,
Punjab, West Benga Mizoram,

60
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Nagaland,
NCT Of Delhi
Dadra & Nagar Haveli,
Andhra Pradesh,
Jharkhand, Telangana,
Goa, Rajasthan,
Arunachal Pradesh,
Number of REs in Bihar, Chandigargh, Assam, Andaman &
which Cadastral Daman & Diu, Haryana, Nicobar, Himachal
Chattisgarh, Madhya
Maps linked to RoR Jammu & Kashmir, Pradesh, Gujarat, Odisha, Tripura
Pradesh, West Bengal
(percentage of total Karnataka, Kerala, Sikkim, Uttar
REs) Lakshadweep, Pradesh, Tamil Nadu
Maharastra, Manipur,
Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Nagaland, NCT Of
Delhi, Puducherry,
Punjab, Uttarakhand
Tamilnadu,
Chattisgarh, Arunachal
Pradesh, Assam,
Andhra Pradesh,
Chandigargh, Dadra &
Gujarat, Jharkhand,
Web based Nagar Haveli, Goa,
Daman & Diu, Kerala, Madhya
computerization of Himachal Pradesh,
Sikkim, Andaman & Pradesh, Puducherry,
registration process Jammu & Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Bihar
Nicobar, Meghalaya, Telangana, Tripura,
(percentage of total Karnataka,
Haryana West Bengal,
SROs) Lakshadweep,
Maharastra,
Manipur, Mizoram,
Rajasthan
Nagaland, NCT Of
Delhi, Odisha, Punjab,
Uttar Pradesh
Andaman & Nicobar, Andhra Pradesh,
Arunachal Pradesh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli,
Assam, Chandigargh, Gujarat, Himachal
Chattisgarh, Goa, Daman & Diu, Pradesh, Jharkhand,
Circle rate online , Uttarakhand, Haryana,
Jammu & Kashmir, Mizoram, Punjab, Kerala, Madhya
(percentage of total Tamil Nadu
Karnataka, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Nct Of Delhi,
SROs)
Lakshadweep, Pradesh Puducherry,
Manipur, Meghalaya, Telangana, West
Nagaland, Odisha, Bengal, Maharastra,
Sikkim Rajasthan, Bihar
, Tamil Nadu, Uttar
Pradesh, Arunachal
Pradesh, Assam,
Chandigargh,
Andhra Pradesh,
Chattisgarh, Daman &
Integration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli,
Diu, Goa, Jammu &
registration process Gujarat, Himachal
Kashmir, Karnataka, Andaman & Nicobar, West Bengal, Haryana,
with RoRs Pradesh, Jharkhand,
Lakshadweep, Madhya Punjab, Bihar Sikkim
(percentage of total Telangana, Tripura,
Pradesh, Manipur,
SROs) Kerala, Maharastra,
Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Rajasthan
Nagaland, NCT Of
Delhi, Odisha,
Puducherry,
Uttarakhand

Source: Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.

61
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Status of Land Record Digitisation under DIRLMP

Center for Land Governance, NRMC

As on sept 2017 (Only Maps)

62
India: State of Land Report 2018

63
India: State of Land Report 2018

64
India: State of Land Report 2018

65
India: State of Land Report 2018

66
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Chapter 6: Land Litigations

Daksh
Shruthi Naik

Introduction
Land and property form an integral part of society and play a pivotal role in one’s life, whether as part of a
business, a means of earning, or a place of shelter. On account of its importance in society, it is imperative to
ensure equitable access to land, and for that purpose, the efficient administration of a system of land governance.
The benefits of good governance in land administration is manifold - protection of tenure rights, poverty reduction,
food security, management of natural resources, and conflict prevention.60 The focus of this paper is to study one
of the problems that may arise out of ineffective land governance - land disputes. This paper seeks to highlight the
state of land and property disputes in India through an empirical study of data regarding the nature of land under
dispute, the types of land disputes, and the amount of time taken to resolve these disputes in the judicial system.

Nature of Land and Property Disputes

In 2015 DAKSH conducted an Access to Justice Survey, the first of its kind in India, to understand the experiences
and perceptions of litigants across the subordinate courts of India. A look at the nature of civil cases showed that
land and property matters dominate the field of civil litigation, with 66.2 per cent of the civil litigants being
engaged in land and property disputes.61 As of 13 February 2018, there are about 80 lakh civil cases pending across
the subordinate courts in India,62 if 66.2 per cent of these are related to land/property, this means that about 53
lakh pending cases in India concern land and property.

In order to understand how many people in India have justiciable disputes, and their experiences with dispute
resolution, DAKSH conducted the Access to Justice Survey 2017 (ATJ 2017).63 From the ATJ 2017 it was found that
approximately 7 per cent of the population have justiciable disputes, with female respondents constituting only 20
per cent of those with disputes. Further, the survey found that 29.3 per cent of respondents with a dispute, had a
dispute concerning land or property. Among those with a land or property dispute, we found that 85 per cent of
them were male respondents, and only 15 per cent of those with a land dispute were female.

60
Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment and the SDSN Thematic Group. 2014. ‘Why good governance of land and
tenure security need to be part of the Sustainable Development Goal Framework’ available at http://unsdsn.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/Good-governance-of-land-in-SDGs-Note.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2018).
61
Harish Narasappa, Kavya Murthy, et. al. 2016. ‘Access to Justice Survey: Introduction, Methodology, and Findings’, in Harish Narasappa and
Shruti Vidyasagar (eds.), State of the Indian Judiciary: A Report by DAKSH, pp. 137, 143. Bengaluru: DAKSH and EBC.
62
National Judicial Data Grid available at http://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/njdg_public/main.php (accessed on 10 January 2018).
63
Padmini Baruah, Shruthi Naik, et. al. 2017. ‘Paths to Justice: Surveying Judicial and Non-judicial Dispute Resolution in India’, in Shruti
Vidyasagar, Harish Narasappa et. al. (eds.), Approaches to Justice in India: A Report by DAKSH, p. 9-38. Bengaluru: DAKSH and EBC.

67
 India: State of Land Report 2018

The ATJ 2017 also sought to understand the nature of land under dispute:

Figure 1. Nature of land in dispute

Figure 1 above shows that a large majority of land disputes (71 per cent) are regarding agricultural land, and non-
agricultural land accounts for the second highest share (22 per cent) of land disputes. In this regard, it is interesting
to note the annual income of those with agricultural and non-agricultural land disputes:

Figure 2. Income of persons with disputes concerning agricultural and non-agricultural land

Agricultural Non-Agricultural

30%
24%
25% 22%
19% 19%
20% 17%

15% 11%
9%
7% 8%
10% 5% 6% 6%

5% 0% 0%
0%
No income Less than ₹50,000 ₹50,000 - ₹1,00,000 ₹1,00,001 - ₹3,00,001 - ₹5,00,001 - More than
₹3,00,000 ₹5,00,000 ₹10,00,000 ₹10,00,000

Figure 2 shows that the highest number of survey respondents (24 per cent) who had a dispute regarding
agricultural land, had an annual income of ₹50,000 to ₹1,00,000. Further, it can be seen that all respondents with
land disputes, with an annual income of more than ₹5,00,000, only had disputes concerning agricultural land. The
ATJ 2017 also sought to understand the nature of the land and property disputes, and found as follows:

68
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Figure 3. Nature of land disputes

Ownership 58%

Inheritance/partition 23%

Right of way 7%

Land acquisition/compensation 6%

Tenancy claims 5%

Land records 4%

Other 4%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

From Figure 3 it can be seen that a majority of the respondents (58 per cent) stated that their land/property
disputes were regarding ownership, and close to one-fourth of the respondents (23 per cent) stated that their
disputes were about inheritance or partition of property. In this regard, it is interesting to note the nature of
land/property disputes faced by male and female survey respondents:

Figure 4. Nature of land/property disputes based on gender

Tenancy claims 71% 24%

Property encroachment 76% 24%
Right of way 83% 17%
Other 84% 16%
Land records 84% 16%
Inheritance/partition 85% 15%
Land acquisition/compensation 85% 15%
Ownership 87% 13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Male Female

It can be seen from Figure 4 that women face more disputes regarding tenancy claims and property encroachment
than any other kind of land dispute. Further, it is pertinent to note that while disputes regarding ownership
constitute the highest number of land disputes (as seen in Figure 3), 87 per cent of those with a dispute regarding
land or property ownership, are men; only 13 per cent of those with a dispute regarding land or property
ownership were female.

69
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Nature of Land and Property Litigation

As the prominent kinds of land and property disputes are those concerning ownership, tenancy, and land
acquisition, this paper seeks to understand the state of litigation in these areas. In order to select a sample of cases
concerning ownership, tenancy and land acquisition, cases were identified as belonging to these categories based
on their case types and the legislations under which the cases had been filed. Due to the paucity of information in
the data from the High Courts regarding the legislations under which the cases are filed, the data analysis for this
section is based on cases before the subordinate courts across India. Based on information available in the DAKSH
database,64 the following samples of disposed cases have been analysed: (a) ownership/title cases - 6,459 cases; (b)
tenancy/rent cases - 9,578 cases; and (c) land acquisition - 13,944 cases.

Time Taken for Disposal

Figure 5. Time taken for disposal (in days)

Tenancy/Rent 1032

Land Acquisition 1186

Ownership/Title 1263

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time taken for disposal (in days)

As seen in Figure 5, all three areas of land litigation take over 1,000 days on average to be disposed in the
subordinate courts. While tenancy matters take the least amount of time for disposal at 2.8 years on average,
ownership disputes take 3.5 years on average to be disposed. A closer look at the distribution in terms of the
number of years taken to dispose these cases can be seen below:

Figure 6. Time taken for disposal (in years)

Tenancy/Rent 55% 27% 12% 5%

Ownership/Title 64% 18% 8% 10%

Land Acquisition 58% 22% 10% 9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0 to 2 years 2 to 5 years 5 to 10 years More than 10 years

64
DAKSH database, available at http://zynata.com:60099/base/src/index.html#/access/signin?portal=dakshlegal.in (last accessed on 14
February 2018).

70
 India: State of Land Report 2018

As seen in Figure 6, while more than 50 per cent of cases across the three categories take over two years to be
disposed, the noteable takeaway is that close to 20 per cent of the cases in all the categories have taken more than
5 years to be disposed. Further, 10 per cent of cases regarding ownership, and 9 per cent of land acquisition cases
have taken more than 10 years to be disposed.

While Figures 5 and 6 shed some light on the time taken for the disposal of land/property litigation in the
subordinate courts, it is imperative to remember that pendency (in days) tends to paint a different picture from the
time takes for disposal of cases. A pattern that has been observed is that the average pendency (in days) of cases is
higher than the average number of days taken to dispose such cases.65 While a possible explanation for this
phenomenon is that cases which have been pending for a long duration of time, continue to remain pending and
thereby increase the overall average pendency while newly instituted cases get disposed faster, this phenomenon
requires further research and understanding.

Further, one must bear in mind that the above figures represent the amount of time taken for cases to be disposed
in the subordinate judiciary alone. There is a possibility that cases go on appeal before the High Court and the
Supreme Court, thereby increasing the amount of time taken by these disputes to go through the judicial system.

Conclusion
While the paper provides an insight into the state of land/property disputes and litigation, there is a need for
further research to understand the causes of such disputes, the role that legal awareness can play (in specific,
awareness of the rights of women to land), and the impact that good land governance could have in facilitating the
prevention of disputes.

While there has been a lot of focused attention by researchers and policy analysists in the study of cases
concerning land acquisition, there is a need to look at the landscape of land/property litigation as a whole in order
to understand its effects. Some of the effects of litigation, such as the cost of litigation, and the time or effort spent
in resolving the disputes, have often been spoke of, however one of the effects of land/property litigation that
makes it a prime area of importance, is the loss of earning or productivity from the disputed land/property. With
most of India’s rural population depending on land as a means of livelihood, there is a need to ensure that
adequate attention is given to the field of land litigation, and ensuring that barriers in access to land do not act as
barriers to access a means of livelihood.

65
Arunav Kaul, Ahmed Pathan, et. al. 2017. ‘Deconstructing Delay: Analyses of Data from High Courts and Subordinate Courts’, in Shruti
Vidyasagar, Harish Narasappa et. al. (eds.), Approaches to Justice in India: A Report by DAKSH, p. 102. Bengaluru: DAKSH and EBC.

71
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Chapter 7: Land conflicts and Stalled

Investments in India

72
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Chapter 7: Land conflicts and Stalled Investments in India

Bharati Institute of Public Policy,
Indian School of Business, Hyderabad
Ashwini Chhatre, Ujjainee Sharma, Shreya Basu

Introduction
India’s ambitious development agenda involves facilitating investment for economic growth, infrastructure
development, and social progress. Yet, thousands of investment projects have been stalled to date, raising red flags
for the health of the country’s financial regulatory systems, public sector banks, and investment community. The
discussion on issues relating to stalled projects and the land related disputes is often mired in political
controversies and presumptive and normative positions. This is due to the fact that there is little hard data that
informs the debate. As a result the usual policy prescriptions are also uninformed by any hard analysis of the
situation.
While official reasons given for stalled projects remain opaque, deep contestation leading to conflict on public (and
private) lands must be better understood as a substantive risk to investments. The main source of data on stalled
projects in India is the CapEx database from the Center for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE). This database
“tracks the creation of new capacities from intentions through implementation and completion.” This study takes
the CapEx database as a starting point, and seeks to understand how important land-related issues are to the
stalling of projects. This study was funded by Rights and Resources Initiative and was initiated in collaboration with
Bharati Institute for Public Policy, Indian School of Business to examine the hard numbers related to stalled projects
and land disputes.
Based on the larger CMIE database, there are currently two data sources which provide some evidence of the
relationship between acquisitions of privately owned land and stalling of projects. The two sources are the analysis
in the Economic Survey of India, 2014-15 as well as the data obtained from The Ministry of Finance on stalled
projects through an RTI. The Economic Survey of India points out that in case of private sector; Land Acquisition
does not count in the first three top reasons for stalling of projects.
A simple analysis of the MOF’s answer to RTI query reveals the following:

• 66 out of 804 stalled projects attributed to land acquisition issues (Nayak, 2015 based on RTI data from
MOF) – less than 10%

• 41 (7%) out of 630 stalled private sector projects attributed to Land Acquisition

• Land acquisition issue remains relatively important for public sector (14% of stalled projects)

This data tells us that land acquisition is not a significant factor for stalling of projects, especially in the private
sector. Even in public sector the land acquisition seems to account to for problem with only 14% of projects.

Land acquisition, it seems, refers only to acquisition of privately owned lands and so the land acquisition data
doesn’t count projects stalled due to public lands related issues. However, preliminary analysis shows that the
number and value of projects stalled due to public land related conflicts is very significant (in both numbers and
value) but remains out of the frame. No database is available about such conflicts – the only indicative information
can be gleaned from media reports. We have tried to use the media reports as proxy data supplemented by
triangulation with CSOs and other sources of information. The preliminary analysis based on this information shows

73
 India: State of Land Report 2018

the significance of such conflicts- and tells us provisionally that in terms of value of affected development and
infrastructure projects, the public land conflict related projects are higher than those stalled due to private land
acquisition.

A look at the cases of conflicts, especially in areas where public lands play a critical role in local livelihoods – one
finds that major conflicts on land relate to public land; and even cases where private land is involved, public land
diversion also plays a critical role. It can be also be seen that the opposition in such cases is driven by social groups
who have little land and depend intensively on the common resources provided by public lands. An improved
understanding of the actual causes of stalled projects will not only help investors, financial institutions and
regulators make better decisions, but also inform public policies regarding communities’ property rights and
provide a path to more inclusive development.

This chapter takes the CapEx database as a starting point, and seeks to understand how important land-related
issues are to the stalling of projects.

Methodology
For the purpose of our study, we considered the 48,806 projects as of October 2016. There are three categories
listed in the database: a) Outstanding, b) Completed and c) Shelved/Stalled/Abandoned projects.
From the 48,806 projects, we looked at all the projects that had been stalled. We analyzed 80 stalled, high-
investment projects spread across 10 states, and looked into the factors that led to the stalling of these projects.
Finally from these 80 projects, we prepared detailed case studies (21) of all the projects embroiled in land conflicts.

2.1 Data re-classification: To better suit the purpose of our study, we re-classified and re-arranged the categories
of “Project Status” and “Reasons for stalling” of CMIE-CapEx for our data analysis.

RRI-ISB categories CMIE-CapEx categories

Announced • Announced
Completed • Completed
Stalled • Abandoned
• Announced and Stalled
• Implementation Stalled
• Shelved
• No Information
Ongoing/Under Implementation • Under Implementation

Table 1: Re-classified status of projects

74
 India: State of Land Report 2018

RRI-ISB categories CMIE-CapEx categories

Lack of official clearances (non-environmental and • Lack of clearances (non-environmental)
environmental) • Lack of environmental clearances
Land Acquisition Problems • Land Acquisition Problems
Reasons not available • Not Available
• No reason (Blank entries)

Other Reasons • Fuel/Feedstock/Raw material supply problem

• Lack of funds
• Lack of promoter interest
• Unfavourable market conditions
• Natural Calamity
• Others
Table 2: Re-classified categories of stalling of projects

3. Detailed Analysis of all the projects

3.1 Spatial distribution of projects

The projects were divided into four categories- announced, completed, under implementation and stalled
depending on what stage the project was at. Though there are various socio-economic, political, and environmental
reasons that lead to the stalling of projects, there are no specific geographical clusters associated with them. This
suggests that no particular region is any more or less likely to face delays or obstructions to projects.
3.2 Characteristics of projects
Of more than 40,000 projects have, 14 percent or 5,780 were stalled, 53% were completed and 33% were listed as
ongoing. The total investment tied in stalled projects was 42.6 lakh crores, which was 21% of all total investment in
industrial projects. According to their size and cost, we see the highest percentage of stalling occurs in the high
value projects. We divided projects based on their value and saw that 10% of projects had been stalled when the
value was <100 crores. In the second of projects whose value was > 100 crore and < 1 lakh crore, the number of
competed projects drastically reduced to only 37% while stalled projects increased to 17% and ongoing increased
to 46%. In the third category , projects whose value was > 1 lakh crore), the percentage of stalled projects remained
the same (17%) while completed and ongoing projects were 46% and 37% respectively.
3.3 Stalled projects
The 5780 stalled projects are fairly evenly distributed throughout India. There are several districts that have 10
stalled projects or more. Many of these projects have an investment of 10,000 crores (Rs. 100 billion) or more and
are spread across the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab, and Uttarakhand.
3.3.1 Reasons for stalling: 40% (2348 projects) of total stalled projects (5780) were stalled for ‘Other’ reasons and
47% (2709) were stalled for ‘Reasons not available’, which refers to any reason that is not included in the CMIE-
CapEx database or reasons for stalling that are unclear and have yet to be determined. 6.5% (378 projects) are
stalled due to ‘Land acquisition’ problems (figure 1) and and 6% (345 projects) due to ‘Lack of clearances-
environmental and non- environmental’ categories. The total investment tied in these stalled projects or the total
value at risk is 42.6 lakh crores. According to CapEx database, only 6.5% of all stalled projects are stalled because of
land acquisition problems accounting for 16.2% of the total value at risk. The projects stalled for reasons ‘not
available’ accounts for 24.6% of total investments, while projects stalled for ‘Other’ reasons accounts for 50% of all

75
 India: State of Land Report 2018

investments. The projects stalled due to lack of environmental and non-environmental clearances account for 9.2%
of the total value at risk. Once again, when we divide the stalled projects on the basis of different reasons, we do
not see any concentration of these projects in any geographical region.

Figure 1: Distribution of projects stalled due to land acquisition

3.4 Further analysis

For further investigation, a sample of projects was selected to understand the complexity behind the stalling of the
development projects based on the following criteria. After cleaning the data, a total of 80 projects that met the
above criteria were shortlisted.

76
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Figure 2: Distribution of 80 projects at the district level

77
 India: State of Land Report 2018

3.4.1. Sector-wise number and investment

Power sector projects were found to have the highest frequency, followed by cement, steel, and mining sectors
(Figure 3). In terms of investments, stalled power projects accounted for the highest value, about Rs.286.9
thousand crores, followed by the steel (97 thousand crores), mining (63.6 thousand crores), and cement (28.3
thousand crores) sectors (Figure 4).

286.9

300
47
50
Number of Projects

Thousand Crores
40

200
30
20

16 96.97

100
11
63.62
10

6
28.36
0

0
er

el

g
t
en

in

er

el

t
e
w

en
in
in
St
em

e
Po

in
St
M

em
Po
C

C
Figure 3: No. of projects across sectors Figure 4: Investment of projects across sectors

The state of Odisha leads both in terms of number of projects and investment at risk followed by Karnataka,
Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh (Figure 5).

Telangana 10.14 Telangana 3

Tamil nadu 20.62 Tamil nadu 4
Gujarat 37.08 Maharashtra 8
Chhattisgarh 38.29 Madhya Pradesh 8
Uttar Pradesh 40.73 Chhattisgarh 8
Madhya Pradesh 40.95 Karnataka 9
Andhra Pradesh 47.2 Andhra Pradesh 9
Maharashtra 57.25 Uttar Pradesh 10
Karnataka 71.36 Gujarat 10
Odisha 112.2 Odisha 11

0 50 100 0 5 10
Thousand Crores Number of Projects

Figure 5: No. of projects and investments across different states

3.5 Land disputes and stalled projects

Of these 80 projects, only 7 (7.5%) are listed in the CapEx database as being stalled due to land acquisition
problems. However, upon further investigation, it was found that 21 of these (26.25 percent) had significant land-
related conflicts (Figure 6).

78
 India: State of Land Report 2018

No. of Cases
0 5 10 15 20

CMIE-CapEx

RRI-ISB

Figure 6: Land dispute cases identified by CMIE-CapEx v/s RRI-ISB

The study included a more detailed investigation of 21 projects involved in disputes related to the possession and
acquiring of land. These disputes include both public and private land. Out of the 21 projects, 12 involved commons
or public land, 10 involved only private lands, and four involved both private and common lands (Figure 7).

Number of Cases
0 5 10 15

Public

Private

Both

Figure 7: Type of land categories involved in land disputes

3.5.1 Detailed explanation of the 21 case studies
We explored the 21 cases further; which included the 7 cases that had been listed as stalled due to ‘Land
Acquisition problems’ in the CapEx database. Additionally we also found 14 cases that had suffered delays due to
problems in acquiring land or land conflicts but this was not reflected in the CMIE data. We went through internet
databases, online newspapers, news reports, company websites and reports to compile these detailed case studies.

79
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Figure 8: State-wise distribution of 21 land dispute cases

3.5.2 Major reasons for land disputes and conflicts
The major reasons for these land disputes and resistance can be classified as: 1. loss of commons; 2. dissatisfaction
with compensation offered for the land; and 3. concern over the environmental impacts of the project. Figure 7
shows the distribution of these reasons.
3.5.2.1 The threat to commons emerged as a major reason for land disputes and conflicts. Communities are
dependent on commons for farming, fishing, livestock rearing, salt manufacturing, and grazing. The loss of these
lands or denial of access to them often leads to disputes. The 12 cases studied included protests against the loss of
commons, forest land, and coastal waters. These protests played a major role in the stalling of projects.
For example, the fishing communities of Srikakulam district in Andhra Pradesh have raised objections to the
implementation of five thermal power plants on the grounds that they will disrupt the marine ecology by increasing
the sea temperature and destroy local fisheries. Of the selected projects, four were stalled following such protests
in Srikakulum district (Bhadreshwar thermal power project, Sompeta thermal power project, Kakarapalli thermal
power project, and Srikakulam thermal power project). In Ratnagiri district, Maharashtra, similar protests took
place against Rajapur thermal power project and the project as stalled. Only one of these projects was listed as
stalled due to land acquisition in CapEx; all others’ reasons were attributed to a lack of environmental clearance,
fuel/feedstock/raw material supply problems, and others.
3.5.2.2 Dissatisfaction with compensation offered for valued lands: Another major reason for land disputes is that
many farmers and land owners do not want to part with their lands, which may have a high economic and resale

80
 India: State of Land Report 2018

value due to their productivity. Several cases of land-related disputes also stem from the dissatisfaction of farmers
and locals with the compensation offered. Examples of such cases are the Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor Project,
the Haligudi Steel Project in Karnataka, the Kachchh Cement Plant Project in Gujarat, and the Balpur Thermal Power
Project in Chhattisgarh.
POSCO, a multinational steel-making company headquartered in Pohang, South Korea, has similarly faced
opposition from the farmers of the Haligudi village who wanted higher compensation for their fertile land where
they grow cotton. POSCO eventually shelved the project due to the inordinate delay in acquiring land.
3.5.2.3 Environmental impact: Many of the land disputes related to stalled projects are linked to the perceived
environmental impacts of these projects. In many of our case studies, we found that there was widespread concern
about the environmental impacts of these projects, even if this was not the only reason for their opposition. In the
case of the coastal thermal power projects, there has been opposition on the grounds that there would be damage
to the marine ecology, and destruction of fish breeding grounds and wetlands. Lastly, many of these projects are on
forest lands that are central to the livelihoods of many local people. Admittedly, the desire to protect these forest
areas is tied in with the economic benefits that they derive from them. However, there appears to be a significant
amount of support mobilized around the issues of environmental degradation and destruction.

4. Key Observations from the study

4.1 Procedures and rules are not adhered to: One of the observations was that often, forest land or commons in
Schedule V Areas are being handed over to projects without consent as required by law. Legal procedures are often
not followed or are subverted when beginning projects. Examples include Vedanta’s mining activities in the
Niyamgiri hills, the Bhadradri power project in Telangana, and the Srikakulam power projects—all of which took off
before receiving mandatory environmental clearances.
4.2 Land is often times a distant cause for conflict: For example an aluminum project in Odisha illustrates how land
disputes can indirectly stall major investments projects.

The massive Smelter and Captive Power Project planned by RSB Metaltech in Kamakhyanaagar, Odisha, has been
stalled. The reason is listed as a ‘fuel/feedstock/raw material supply problem’ in the CapEx database. The
Kamakhyanagar smelter was supposed to get its raw material supply from the aluminum refinery located in
Rayagada district. However, the RSB alumina refinery in Rayagada ran into problems as the local communities
claimed that the company was illegally encroaching on public forest land. Massive protests and resistance from the
communities followed, holding up the refinery project and subsequently leading to a stalling of the main smelter
project in Kamakhyanagar.

It is important to note that while this project has been stalled due to land-related conflicts, this is not shown as
such in its entry in the CapEx database.

4.3 Delays in resolving cases relating to land conflicts. Of the 21 cases that were related to land conflicts, we found
that all of them had faced long periods of delays. These ranged anywhere from 5-20 years, and many are still
embroiled in these disputes. There are many different issues involved here. Firstly, delays occur because the
company is not able to get the permits, clearances and permissions on time. Secondly, protests and resistance from
local communities lead to delays. In other cases, delays can occur even after the company has secured the land for
the project. As part of the compensation for giving up their lands, farmers are promised a job in the new company.
However, if delays occur, then farmers are often left with no land or job, which cuts them off from any source of
livelihood.

81
 India: State of Land Report 2018

5. Moving forward/Policy recommendations

It is clear that analysts have underestimated the effects of land-related disputes and conflicts on stalled projects, as
well as their risk to investment. To get a better understanding of this problem, a larger and more representative
sample of stalled projects is needed. In the case of private land acquisition, which accounts for nearly 18 percent of
all stalled projects in the sample, the perception of unfair or low compensation drives many of the disputes. The
unwillingness of investors to adequately compensate landowners can lead to protracted conflicts that end up
costing far more in the long run due to project delays. The acquisition of private lands has at least elicited a public
policy debate. However, the case of customary lands, which are a bigger cause of disputes and stalling of
investments, has evoked little or no debate or policy response. Cadastral systems, which formalize ownership
through legal entitlement, hardly mention customary arrangements. Lack of such legal recognition neither
eliminates customary claims nor makes the lands “empty” to be assigned to new parties. When such lands are
treated as public lands, enabling the governments to assign them for a new purpose, conflicts erupt because such
assignments curtail access to food, water, energy, and other vital resources that are essential for the survival of
local communities with customary claims.
Neglect of customary claims of communities is even more problematic in forest land and Schedule V Areas.
Constitutional provisions such as the Forest Rights Act (2006) and the Panchayati Raj Extension to Scheduled Areas
(PESA) mandate that free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) is obtained from local communities in case of
diversion of forest lands and acquisition of any land (private or common) in the scheduled areas. However, there
has been very slow progress in implementing the Forest Rights Act,1 and in many cases, there is a deliberate
subversion of the Act’s provisions by local governments. Similarly, the constitutional guarantees to tribal
communities and provisions of PESA are often not enforced. The fate of communities outside these two categories
of customary lands is even worse, as they receive no formal legal protection.
Through this analysis, what is also made clear is the magnitude of the cost imposed by land conflicts and disputes
on the Indian economy and society. For example, 15 percent of all studied projects have been stalled primarily
because of disputes over common/public lands, with a total investment of Rs. 118,800 crores (Rs. 1188 billion) at
risk. It is clear that land conflicts pose a very significant risk to investments, and both investors and the government
need to address the issue of how to account for this risk through risk analysis tools, and how to mitigate it through
risk mitigation strategies.

References:
• http://orissadiary.com/CurrentNews.asp?id=50482
• http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/public-hearing-disrupted-for-rsb-project-
113042400560_1.html
• http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhubaneswar/Tribals-oppose-bauxite-mining-in-Rayagada-
district/articleshow/14817203.cms
• http://orissadiary.com/CurrentNews.asp?id=46025
• http://www.orissalinks.com/orissagrowth/archives/3564
• http://www.financialexpress.com/archive/rsb-group-to-set-up-rs-6800-cr-aluminium-complex-in-orissa/400691/
• http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-otherstates/activists-seek-issue-of-land-patta-for-
projectaffected/article2505832.ece
• 5http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/public-hearing-disrupted-for-rsb-project-
• http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/Srikakulam-cannot-sustain-five-thermal-
power-plants-expert/article15982025.ece
• http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/after-police-firing-srikakulam-power-plants-under-review-423900
• http://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/the-great-wetland-robbery-in-kakarapalli-33246
• http://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/the-great-wetland-robbery-in-kakarapalli-33246

82
 India: State of Land Report 2018

• http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/ap-reallocates-972-acres-to-ncc-for-agribased-economic-
zone/article7678281.ece
• http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/srikakulam-cannot-sustain-five-thermal-
power-plants-expert/article707150.ece
• http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/ap-reallocates-972-acres-to-ncc-for-agribased-economic-
zone/article7678281.ece
• http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/srikakulam-cannot-sustain-five-thermal-
power-plants-expert/article707150.ece
• http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/article2129175.ece
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Mumbai_Industrial_Corridor_Project
• http://scroll.in/article/746265/delhi-mumbai-industrial-corridor-is-running-into-multiple-mutinies-over-land-
acquisition
• http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-04-26/news/61542721_1_delhi-mumbai-industrial-corridor-
development-corporation-land-acquisition-act
• http://scroll.in/article/the-worlds-largest-infrastructure-project-is-being-built-in-india-stretching-from-delhi-to-
mumbai?id=746736
• http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2815/stories/20110729281503200.htm
• http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/posco-scraps-proposed-steel-plant-in-karnataka/article4920561.ece
• http://www.deccanherald.com/content/345125/posco-scraps-proposed-6-mt.html

• http://epaper.financialexpress.com/131416/Financial-Express-Mumbai/03-July-2013#page/17/2

• http://www.livemint.com/Companies/lB4cFHtAdtuEMkkjfjkBTM/Vedanta-puts-Lanjigarh-alumina-refinery-expansion-
on-hold.html
• http://www.livemint.com/Companies/hNRnGZeYbWv3N6UfGiMM3N/Vedanta-plans-to-expand-refinery-capacity-to-
6-mtpa.html
• http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-otherstates/activists-oppose-vedanta-refinery-expansion-
project-in-odisha/article6266146.ece
• http://www.businesstoday.in/sectors/energy/vedanta-refinery-gets-pollution-board-nod-for-
expansion/story/227784.html
• http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2016/04/vedanta-bauxite-mining-niyamgiri-odisha/
• http://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/NewsDetail/index/8/8930/Henry-Shue-And-The-Basic-Rights-Of-Dongria-Tribe-
Of-Niyamgiri-Hills
• http://www.orissapost.com/idco-allots-8066-acres-of-land-for-vedanta-hindalco-projects/
• http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/deal-sparks-hopes-for-vedanta-s-lanjigarh-plant-
117011400923_1.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadradri_Thermal_Power_Plant
• http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/ngt-breather-for-tsgenco-on-manuguru-thermal-
plant/article8837335.ece
• http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tribunal-stays-appraisal-of-bhadradri-thermal-power-
project/article8473700.ece

83
 India: State of Land Report 2018

Status of Forest Rights recognized vis a vis potential area under forest rights
Center for Land Governance, NRMC

As on October 2017

84
India: State of Land Report 2018

85
India: State of Land Report 2018

86