Is land digitisation enough?

**Aarish Alam

Indian Judiciary is clogged with pending 5 crore cases (as per 2023 data) with an estimated 60% of them being property-related. Over 2.5 million hectares of land in India are impacted by conflicts, endangering investments valued at over ₹3.45 trillion and affecting an estimated 10.5 million people. In Indian courts, land disputes make up the majority of cases. As per studies, 25% of all cases decided by the Supreme Court involved land disputes, of which 30% had to do with acquisition. From the time a land acquisition dispute lawsuit is initiated until the Supreme Court resolves it, the typical pendency is 20 years.

The fact that land administration in India is complex and fragmented exacerbates the Indian courts’ difficulty in dealing with property matters, burgeoning the need for innovative measures for backlog reduction. The complexity of the law leads to a backlog of cases and inefficiencies, and these issues are further worsened by informal transactions and title frauds. 

In India, the primary method of establishing land ownership is through the attainment of a registered sale deed, which is the official documented record of the property transfer between buyer and seller. Although property tax receipts, survey documents and the record of rights are also used to confirm ownership, they do not automatically give the government title to the property; instead, it is the liability of buyer to check the property’s ownership history during the transaction. As a result, land ownership in India is established by such sale deeds, is presumptuous and is subject to contentions.

These ownership challenges are compounded by the fragmented system of land administration, which struggles with the maintenance of consistent and reliable records. State-specific systems differ because of local and historical laws and traditions. Land records can be broadly divided into three categories: transaction records (registered sale deeds), spatial records (maps and boundary surveys), and property data (tax and rental documentation).

Usually, three departments (The Revenue Department, The Survey & Settlement Department, and The Registration Department) share responsibility for keeping these records up to date, however as these organisations function in silos, modifications made to one set of records frequently render the others out of date, requiring individuals to personally visit several government offices to get even basic information this ultimately jeopardises the development of infrastructure and market efficiency. Presumptive ownership based on sale deeds and fragmented record-keeping by several departments results in frequent and protracted land disputes. Ownership verification is made more difficult by inconsistent records and fraud, such as Benami transactions, which leads to arduous legal disputes. In order to decrease disputes and speed up resolutions, the Digital India Land Record Modernization Programme (DILRMP) and the Unique Land Parcel Identification Number (ULPIN) seek to digitise and integrate land records. Although complete implementation is still under progress, these approaches have the potential to simplify legal procedures and lessen the court burden.

Leveraging GIS Mapping and Advanced Technology in ULPIN and Digitisation Systems

Under DILMRP, to create a uniform and clear identification system, each individual land parcel is given a unique alphanumeric code known as the ULPIN. It serves as a crucial instrument for managing properties, administering land, and conducting real estate transactions. In order to improve transparency, efficiency, and accuracy in land-related activities, ULPIN was created to simplify the process of identifying and recording property parcels. Using ULPIN for land accounting and proper land statistics will aid in the development of land banks. Through it, the Integrated Land Information Management System (ILIMS) would be established. In addition to the plot’s dimensions and longitudinal and latitudinal information, ULPIN may also contain ownership details. Real estate transactions would be made easier, property taxation problems would be resolved, and disaster preparation and response would be enhanced. In addition to reducing border conflicts, it would make it possible to determine the eligibility of beneficiaries of schemes that are based on the amount of land owned.

It utilises  Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping and cutting-edge technology to address the issue of erroneous records and establish a clear, open and effective framework for recording land entitlements. When geographic and attribute data are combined in GIS, it becomes possible to create digital cadastral maps that, with precision, display the land boundaries and their ownership details. The procedure begins with comprehensive surveys using the Global Positioning System (GPS) and Differential GPS (DGPS), ensuring accurate geographic coordinates. Significant progress has been made, with 68% of cadastral maps completed and 95% of rural land records being made digital by 2024.

Furthermore, drone technology is also being utilised to create high-resolution maps for the Survey of Villages and Mapping with Improvised Technology in Village Areas (SVAMITVA) program in rural areas. India’s rural land survey and settlement have been lacking for decades, with many states neglecting to map or record the Abadi (inhabited) portions of their villages. Property owners in these locations were essentially prevented from obtaining institutional credit to improve their homes or utilise their property as a financial asset for loans and other financial aid due to the absence of formal legal records. For more than 70 years, the lack of such paperwork remained a major obstacle to rural India’s economic development.  The traditional hand-drawn cadastral maps did not include scale or elevation data and had frequent errors relating to the same. The implementation of satellite imagery together with drone surveys generates exact three-dimensional maps that replace traditional drawing methods. Current disputes linked to boundary conflicts can be settled by combining pre-existing records with up-to-date geographic information system data. The implementation plan of the budget reveals further details of the project, a separate program for Modernisation of Urban Land Records –  National Geospatial Knowledge-based Land Survey of Urban Habitations (NAKSHA), a cadastral mapping solution to incorporate these maps and produce ULPINs that adhere to international standards like those set forth by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC). 

The state of Gujarat greatly increased record accuracy between 2009 and 2018 by resurveying land parcels using DGPS, Electronic Total Stations (ETS), and GIS . In order to guarantee tamper-proof records and smooth data integration, DILRMP also integrates cutting-edge technologies including blockchain, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. These technologies streamline land administration procedures by enabling real-time changes and departmental interfaces, including revenue and registration.

Nevertheless, serious doubts remain regarding the precision of digital land records. There are still differences between digital records and the reality on the ground, even if GIS and advances in surveying have increased precision. GIS mapping adds more verification procedures to land data, increasing its dependability. GIS offers a clear visual depiction of land parcels by combining attribute information with geographical data. 

The Guatemala vs. Belize case, in which GIS mapping was used in highlighting ecological zones, population demographics, and land and marine boundaries, which were central to the dispute. This demonstrates the capability of GIS to assist territorial disputes even internationally. GIS made it clear “what’s at stake,” lowering ambiguity and promoting confidence between parties by providing transparent quintessential data to dispute.

 An impact assessment in Himachal Pradesh found ownership and possession discrepancies of 34% and 6% in rural Shimla and Baddi, respectively. While encumbrance records were inaccurate for less than half (54 of 102 parcels) of properties, and ownership concordance relative to the land record office was high (101 of 102 parcels) in Maharashtra, the area discrepancies relative to GPS or ETS were flagged in more than half of the properties surveyed. 

These discrepancies, frequently are the result of unrecorded transactions or successions, pose a significant risk to accuracy and dislocation, and argue for the importance of real-time updates and robust integration with registration systems to mitigate the levels of encumbrance. Despite these challenges, ULPIN and collective digitisation processes represent far more than manual record keeping, and provide a marked opportunity for building trust in the operation of land markets. While digitised records will not eliminate discrepancies, a holistic single source of truth for land information will be conducive to accessibility and transparency while reducing conflict risk.

Government Initiatives for Digitising Record Keeping and Fighting Land Conflicts

Land conflicts in India have long threatened social stability and progress, and often derive from outdated, inaccurate, or fraudulent records. To that end, the Indian government has been rolling out various schemes to digitise land records to create a state-of-the-art, transparent, and efficient land management system. The central government’s intervention is partly because of land being a state subject under Entry 18 and 45 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. This makes land management and its governance of a decentralised nature. The backbone of the various schemes is the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme (DILRMP), which was initially conceived in 2008 as the National Land Records Modernisation Programme (NLRMP) and redesigned in 2016.

The SVAMITVA plan, which began in 2020, supports DILRMP by giving importance to rural areas. SVAMITVA recognises property ownership by producing detailed maps and giving property cards to locals using drones. With opening of opportunities for rural people to be able to use their land as security for loans and with tax collection and planning help for gram panchayats, this initiative is expected to reduce land disputes. For instance, the property cards provided by SVAMITVA have helped reduce ambiguities in regards to who owns certain land in communities. As of January 2025, more than 50,000 villages in 10 States have received 65 lakh SVAMITVA property cards.

Another initiative by the Department of Land Resources, National Generic Document Registration System (NGDRS), simplifies the online registration process for real estate transactions. By integrating registration with land records and guaranteeing that ownership information changes instantly through its platform, NGDRS seeks to increase security in real estate transactions by reducing the likelihood of discrepancies that could lead to disputes. Additionally, by requiring digital lease agreements, the Model Tenancy Act of 2021 supports India’s land digitisation initiatives. It mandates that landlords and tenants use a digital platform to submit written tenancy agreements to the Rent Authority, which must cover both residential and commercial properties. Every agreement is assigned a unique identification number, and within seven business days, information on the rent, length of the tenancy, and security deposits must be made available on a public website. The drive for a unified, digital land management system is strengthened by this digital mandate, which increases openness, lowers disputes, and is consistent with larger programs like ULPIN and DILRMP.

As evidenced by impact studies conducted in Himachal Pradesh and Maharashtra, several hindrances such as language hurdles and incomplete documents and records still exist despite these developments. However, successful implementation is demonstrated by states like Gujarat, which used DGPS and GIS for resurveys, offering a template for others. These programs can further lessen land disputes, improve the security of land tenure, and promote economic development by keeping up their investments in technology and state-level collaboration. Ultimately, these developments will surely foster trust in real estate transactions by upholding the constitutional requirement to safeguard property rights under Article 300A. 

Challenges to Overcome, Pitfalls of ULPIN and the Need for Conclusive Land Titling in India

ULPIN increases openness, decreases reliance on middlemen, and streamlines ownership and border verification by serving as a single, official source of land information. However, ULPIN yet functions under India’s presumptive land titling system, which does not ensure ownership. This creates significant gaps that make it difficult for ULPIN to reduce legal conflicts in the absence of conclusive titling.

In order to establish ownership, India’s presumptive titling system looks at past transaction records, including sale deeds, property tax receipts, and survey documents, as well as possession. In contrast to a conclusive system, buyers are responsible for tracing the entire transaction history to verify clear ownership because the state does not guarantee title validity. This method is fundamentally problematic because conflicts are often caused by inconsistencies, unrecorded transactions, or faked documents.

It does not change the existing titling’s presumptive nature of acquisition of ownership. State-guaranteed ownership of a land parcel is not conferred by its unique identity, which is linked to its physical location. For instance, judges must still decide the matter based on the facts at hand if a digitised ULPIN record has errors or contradicts real possession, eventually leading to drawn-out litigation and defeating the whole purpose of digitisation. Therefore, even though ULPIN improves record management, the disagreements ingrained in the presumption system cannot be eliminated.

The complete digitisation of India’s land administration system is fraught with difficulties. More than 100 colonial-era state-specific rules lead to disjointed documentation that makes it more difficult to integrate with national programs like ULPIN. The Indian Succession Act of 1925 requires physical wills, and courts cannot accept digital copies as independent evidence. Legal reforms in such areas are necessary to embrace testamentary procedures using digital technology. Overcoming the drawbacks requires the shift to a conclusive land titling system in which ownership is guaranteed by the state. Such a method would provide definite records, reducing uncertainty and litigation, as suggested by NITI Aayog’s Model Bill on Conclusive Land Titling. 

The effectiveness of conclusive titling is demonstrated by Australia, which guarantees safe transactions and has low dispute rates. For instance, rather than using the “registration of sale deed” concept, Australia’s Torrens title system uses the “title by registration” approach, which grants the high indefeasibility of a registered ownership. The approach eliminates the requirement to demonstrate a chain of title, which is the process of tracking property title through a number of records over time. A compensation plan typically backs the system for individuals who lose their title as a result of private fraud or errors in the State’s operations.

Comparison of Presumptive and Conclusive Land Titling Systems

However, uniform adoption is difficult in India because of land’s status as a state subject under Entry 18 of the Seventh Schedule, which forces the state and centre to harmonise their legal systems, possibly delaying the initiatives. ULPIN’s potential is still limited in the absence of this shift since disagreements will still necessitate judicial intervention, which would compromise effective land administration.

Conclusion and Future Steps

A necessary step towards updating India’s land record system has been taken with the implementation of ULPIN and DILRMP’s digitisation initiatives, as ULPIN increases transparency, reduces fraud, and streamlines access to land information through digitisation and allocating unique IDs.  Globally, nations like Georgia have addressed comparable issues by digitising their land using blockchain technology, setting a benchmark. India needs to take steps in a similar direction if it intends to clear the backlog anytime soon. 

ULPIN’s ability to decrease legal conflicts is limited by its inability to provide conclusive titling, as the presumed system depends on transaction records, which creates room for disputes that courts must settle, frequently over several years. By establishing unambiguous records and removing title concerns, conclusive titling, in which the state guarantees titles and corrects errors, would significantly reduce litigation and draw in investment.

NITI Aayog’s 2020 Model Bill on Conclusive Land Titling is promising, however, land’s state-subject status under the constitution may cause hindrance in its uniform adoption. Administrative and financial barriers are slowing the country’s progress; accurate records, new surveys, and strong dispute resolution are necessary for success. ULPIN offers a foundation in these areas, but legal support in consonance with proposed programs is necessary for full success.

In conclusion, digitisation and ULPIN are important steps towards contemporary land governance, but they are insufficient in the absence of definitive titling. To reduce judicial disputes, comprehensive reforms are necessary, including capacity building and integration of revenue courts with land records. India can only achieve the goal of a transparent, effective land market by securing land ownership, lowering litigation, and promoting economic growth through providing land title guarantees.

**Aarish Alam is a third-year law student at the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala, with a keen interest in Criminal Law, Technology Law, and Intellectual Property Rights. Aarish is passionate about understanding the integration of legal frameworks with ever-advancing technology and establishing safeguards for misuse of legal machinery.

**Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily align with the views of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.