• PLATINUM
  • ToR
  • Working Group Members
• PARTNERS
• DOCUMENTS
  • Minutes
  • Presentations
• EVENTS
  • National Conference
• LINKS & RESOURCES

MINUTES OF 4th MEETING OF THE PROJECT PLATINUM NATIONAL WORKING GROUP FOR
CREATION OF THE NATIONAL GUIDELINES ON GUARANTEED LAND TITLE IN URBAN AREAS
10:30 AM, 26. 11.2010, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI

1. The 4th meeting of the Project PLATINUM Working Group was held on 26 November 2010 at the Conference Hall of the Ministry of Urban Development Government of India, (MoUD) under the chairpersonship of Shri Navin Kumar, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, The list of participants is annexed.

2. Ms. Swati Ramanathan started the proceedings by introducing the delegates from Peru: Mr Cesar Berrios, General Manager of the World Bank program PCDPI in Peru; Mr Gonzalo Blanco, General Manager, COFOPORI, Government of Peru; and Mr Peter Rabley, President, International Land Systems, USA.

3. Secretary (UD) welcomed the delegates and introduced them to the context in which the 4th Working Group meeting has been convened. He spoke about the various reforms prescribed under the JNNURM. He said that in respect of reform of "Introduction of Property Title Certification System in ULBs" there hasn’t been much progress due to the lack of experience and capacity in state governments. He highlighted that Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan are the only major states which have made some progress on this reform

4. The meeting’s first presentation was from officials from Government of Peru, Mr Cesar Berrios and Mr Gonzalo Blanco. They presentation covered issues related to formalization of real property rights that took place in Peru.

5. Mr Cesar began by giving a brief background about the reasons and rationale for the need of such a reform and stated that it became necessary due to excessive pressures on the urban areas resulting from migration. This in turn was causing overcrowding, and squatting as a result of which the demands for urban services was not being met adequately. He mentioned that in Peru the issue of titles was not given priority and the frequent changes in administration at local and national level adversely affected the decision making process for a long time. It had been very difficult for the urban poor to get titles due to the huge time and cost involved and COFOPRI was established as a solution to provide for titles as well as assets to urban poor through formalization of their property rights.

6. Mr Gonzalo then explained the legal framework of COFOPRI. He talked about the neglect of the rural population that had migrated to urban areas till the time the urban population became 60% in Peru. There was difficulty in addressing this problem due to the complex political composition in Peru government. Eventually a legal and institutional solution to this problem was initiated in 1996 through COFOPRI

7. He said that the institutional changes entailed placing a sector of urban population under state protection and incorporating informal property rights into the formal economy. The Urban Property Registry with nationwide scope was the most essential part of the reform and it was created with the purpose of registering the deeds originating from the formalization of property carried out by COFOPRI. This public registry had simplified procedures for registration and publication of registry information and used modern technology and also aimed at creating a geo-referenced cadastral system. He highlighted the importance of registry since individual level data has to be maintained and such data should have both the physical reality as well as the ownership details of the property. He also said that it’s better to formalize first and then create the cadastre as in doing vice versa, there is a greater chance of committing errors and by formalizing, cadastres will be eventually created over time

8. He said initially it’s only a basic cadastre and then by correcting the errors, complete integrated cadastre is created. He said that municipalities weren’t capable institutionally to undertake this reform. Mr Cesar added that municipalities don’t have enough technological expertise to undertake surveys and create cadasters

9. Ms Swati pointed that this type of mapping is essential for the work that HUPA and Karnataka Directorate of Municipal Administration, are doing for slum mapping. She also highlighted the difference that as compared to what PLATINUM is proposing, Peru did the surveys later but formalization first and hence established the rights first. Mr Gonzalo said that this initial process of establishing rights was called diagnostics. The process followed hence was: diagnose the informality; then integral formalization; and finally individual formalization. Within diagnostics phase, information was gathered widely from various government offices and landholders and then diagnostic cards as well as maps were created

10. Ms. Swati Ramanathan also talked about SUNARP that it is the registration department similar to the Stamps & Registration dept. in India and COFOPRI is mostly about the formalization whereas SUNARP is about registration and has to work closely with COFOPRI so as to not have conflicting records. However during the first phase of diagnostics, no registration is done with the SUNARP and is done only in later stages

11. Mr Gonzalo explained in detail the process of formalization and its outcomes and said that it is a continuous process that aims to bring urban informal population closer to central government, integrate them into the formal economy and facilitate provision of certain basic urban services such as water and electricity to such human settlements, provide possibility to access to credit and foremost, allow the legal right to those who deserve it. In terms of the numbers, he said that in 2006, about 2 million lots were still left in Peru to be diagnosed and formalized. Since 1996, about 1.5 million were already diagnosed though they not all were formalized. Knowing such a number allows and helps in planning and budgeting better and ahead in time. COFOPRI hopes to diagnose 1.2 to 1.3 million more lots and formalize about 0.8 million of them by 2011

12. Mr Peter Rabley of International Land Systems gave a presentation on solutions for land administration. He touched upon the framework that ties land policy, land legislations, land administration and management and land governance. He highlighted the importance of spatial data and then moved on to describe the principles of land systems. He emphasized that land Information is not well-integrated into the overall information workflow of the rest of the government which causes data redundancy, inefficiency, inaccuracy, and higher cost thus increasing the workload. There is a need to integrate existing land systems to meet the demand, increase public access, transparency and enhance revenue generation. For solutions, he said that modernizing institutions, and legislations, using spatial referencing, increased awareness and use of technology and better data management were a few among many.

13. He emphasised that technology is one of the solutions but is not the silver bullet and it cannot on its own resolve all the problems. Technology with innovation will be required which can address the complexities that are involved in land issues and it has to be fit for purpose and shouldn’t be over ambitious. He mentioned some of the key technological methods being used. He also gave an insight into the world perspectives including China and ex-Soviet Union. He said that by innovating with better survey and mapping methods costs can be brought down. With increased volumes economies of scale can be achieved that bring down the cost and this is possible through better and innovative use of technology.

14. Presenting on the lessons learned, he said that spatial data is key to property rights and it can be used for many other development needs and it has to be collected just once and then used many times over. He said that there can be various modes of spatial data tools and gathering approaches and scales and accuracies can be adapted to fit for purpose. Governance is key for better maintenance and partnerships with private sector will be very helpful to develop and sustain spatial data.

15. He also added that strong political will is the key to success for reform and institutional cooperation to take place. He said that incentives will always overpower disincentives and emphasized that legal and procedural reform along with development of human resources needs to complement institutional reforms such as single executive agencies for the reform.

16. He said that land needs to be given a focus that is similar to other infrastructure needs such as roads.

17. Shri T Koshy also made a presentation on technology infrastructure. He drew from his experience on issuing titles not for lands but for share certificates which had similar challenges. He said that two strong pillars for a GLT system are: the legal framework including process, procedures and institutions; and technology which is the facilitator for efficiently carrying out the processes. He talked about the difficulties in present procedures of land systems such audit trails, paper records etc that can be simplified with the help of technology. He talked of two kinds of master databases one that will identify properties and the other that will identify ownership and these databases will have uniquely identifiable data attributes for property location, ownership etc. A component to track the transactions would also be needed. He also talked about various other components such documents and work flow management, various linkages with other departments and their technological infrastructure, and the benefits for starting GLT system. He also shed brief light on institutional structure needed to manage this kind of technology infrastructure.

18. Shri Atul Sharma from his experience said that one of the biggest challenges for the purpose of titling would be make the verification of ownership and other land transactions and charges fool proof as even after a property being registered for 30-40 years, its ownership is challenged and it can come under litigation.

19. There was considerable discussion on the use of Unique Property Identification number (UPIN) and the benefits and rationale for having UPIN as the link between transactions and land parcel details. UPIN thus could be efficiently used by the registration department to fetch the details of any land transactions and automated registration should provide for changes in title through registration as well. It was emphasised that registration should not become a policing action or a planning tool and hence rationalization in the registration fees and its other attributes is needed. The process of making updation and registration needs to be made easy and should be embraced widely by the public. Issues of taxation of land holding and not just mere land transaction were also highlighted.

20. The meeting ended with thanks for the international guests, Shri A.K. Mehta, JS(UD) said that the inputs from the days meeting will be of great help in designing the institutional and legal framework for India.

Annexure

List of Participants

1. Shri Navin Kumar, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Chairperson
2. Shri A.K. Mehta, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development
3. Shri SK Singh, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation,
4. Mr. Peter Rabley, President, International Land Systems, Inc (USA)
5. Mr.Cesar Augusto Berrios Ordonez, General Manager, World Bank, Peru
6. Mr.Gonzalo Jose Blanco Oyola, General Manager, Cofopri, Peru
7. Ms. E.P. Nivedita, Director, MOUD
8. Ms.Swati Ramanathan Chairperson, India Urban Space Foundation,
9. Shri N Venugopalan, Director , JNNURM, Ministry of Urban Development,
10. Shri Atul Sharma, Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer,Rajasthan ,
11. Shri Iqbal Khan, Rajasthan Administrative Service, Govt. of Rajasthan,
12. Shri Vinod Kumar Agrawal, Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh,
13. Shri Anjum Parwez, Commissioner, Municipal Admn, Govt. of Karnataka,
14. Dr.V.Raghavaswamy, Group Director, National Remote Sensing Agency,
15. Shri TR Raghunandan, IAS(Retd),
16. Shri T Koshy, NSDL Database Management Limited (NDML),
17. Shri Rajesh Mathur, ESRI India,
18. Shri Shubhagato Dasgupta, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi
19. Shri Tarun Sharma, IUSF

MINUTES OF
3rd MEETING OF THE PROJECT PLATINUM NATIONAL WORKING GROUP
FOR
CREATION OF THE NATIONAL GUIDELINES ON GUARANTEED LAND TITLE IN URBAN AREAS
10:30 AM, 26.10.2010, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI

1. The 3rd meeting of the Working group established under Project PLATINUM was held on 26 October 2010 at the Conference Hall of the Ministry of Urban Development Government of India, (MoUD) under the chairpersonship of Mr. AK Mehta, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, The list of participants is annexed.

2. Mr. AK Mehta started the proceedings of the meeting by highlighting the importance of the theme of the meeting i.e. Survey and GIS.

3. Ms. Swati Ramanathan informed about the sub-working group members who had met in Bangalore on 22nd September and discussed the survey, mapping and GIS methodology and noted the contribution of subject matter experts Mr. Anjum Parwez of DMA Karnaraka, Mr. Rajesh Mathur and Mr. Prem Nath Singh of ESRI and Mr. KV Rudresha from the Survey & Settlement department of Karnataka. She also mentioned about the inputs from Dr.C. Chandramouli, RGI, Mr. Kshirsagar of TCPO and Ms Meena Nagaraj of Municipal Reforms Cell, Bangalore. She also mentioned the extensive discussions with the international surveyor’s organization FIG were also very helpful.

4. Mr. Tarun Sharma gave a brief presentation about the Survey, Mapping and GIS methodology document. The presentation covered issues of the need for an exclusive urban survey and settlement department in the country. It was stated that the legal sanction and mandate for such a body to be created has already been provided under Section 12 (3) of the framework law. This body should be provided with the required operational capacity and resources, both financial and human so that it could undertake its task of creating the urban survey records. Use of most appropriate technology and survey instruments for building urban maps for the purpose of land titles was emphasised.

5. Ms Swati Ramanathan suggested that this should be done by providing for a DoTRUSST, Department of Urban Survey and Settlement through Technology (DOTRUSST). She added that the state governments may have the discretion to house this department either under the survey and settlement department or under the Urban Development Department. DoTRUSST should be provided with adequate skilled human resources as well as technology and instruments to operate efficiently. The creation of such a department will have enormous public value as the records thus created by the department will be legal documents proving unambiguous titles and rights to land, will give huge relief from the legal hassles, create efficient land sale and mortgage markets and also will help in efficient city planning. Thus the defined objective of the survey guidelines for states is to create an urban survey and settlement department for purpose of land title. They would also provide authorizing environment for its functioning, and remove any operational constraints that exist, define the goal and scope of its operations for urban cadastral surveys and management and provide guidance for methods, technology and standards.

6. Elaborating on the contents of the guidelines, Mr. Tarun Sharma further said that they cover the technology and methods to be adopted for survey and mapping of land parcels for creating an urban cadastral system operable in a GIS environment. Survey would be done using ground methods with the provision of ground control and using Total Stations and DGPS. As a result, the location of land parcels would be geo-referenced and measurements would be accurate and GIS software would be used for managing, analyzing and mapping geo-referenced data. He said that the Whole to part principle of surveying would be followed by initial provision of Survey control network at three levels and parcel details would be filled by ground survey to identify the coordinates of Plot Boundary points, measuring distance between them and their mapping. Unique ids would be given to land parcels based on scientific numbering.

7. Mr. AK Mehta raised the question about the accuracy levels needed for the control network and whether everyone was fine with the standards of accuracy levels of the primary, secondary and tertiary control network. To this Mr. Raghavaswamy from NRSC replied the accuracy levels for the land title system should be discussed. He said that the accuracy levels of the control network is not what would be used for the purpose of titling however the control network would serve as the input for geo referencing of the land parcels. He said that for different government schemes, they have created different maps: maps with 50 cms accuracy and 25cms accuracy at 1:1000 scales through aerial imagery; and through DGPS and Total stations, maps and records for 6 metros at 1:1000 scale and 25 cms accuracy. Mr. Mehta said that his concern was that for the urban land titling, we should be fully certain about the kind of accuracy levels that are required and hence there should be a consensus on that so that all the states are comfortable with it. He said that these numbers could be sent to experts for comments. Mr. Premnath Singh said that the accuracy levels for Ground Control Points need not be discussed as they will be just the inputs for the final accuracy levels that are needed for cadastral surveys

8. Mr. Kshirsagar said that accuracy would depend on the level of scale and scale will depend on the source and that could be Total station, Aerial images or satellite images. Mr. Raghavaswamy said that with Total Stations, scales up to 1:500 can be achieved and accuracy of about 1.25 cm can be achieved

9. Mr. Sharma further elaborated on the guidelines and standards that have been researched and guided by informed discussions with experts. He highlighted the need of scientific numbering to be followed to give unique identification number to land parcels and that land parcels should form the basic spatial layer of the database. He elaborated that one of the recommendations from the guidelines based on the international standards is that DoTRUSST should move to a coordinated cadastre system for all towns and cities in a given timeframe. He mentioned again the accuracy levels that have to be achieved for the GCPs (1cm for Primary Control Points, 2cm for Secondary Control Points, and 3 cms for Tertiary Control Points) and for plot corner boundary points (+/- 10 cms). Adding more on the specific standards, he said that shape and geodatabase format should be used and WGS 84 datum and UTM projection system. The standard scales that would be used for town maps at 1:10,000 and parcel maps at 1:500

10. Mr. Mehta asked for the opinion over the standard scales that would be used for titling and Mr. Kshirsagar said that the parcel scale of 1:500 were correct and needed for the purpose of land titles.

11. Ms Swati raised the point that if agencies are investing so many resources in surveys, than they should serve all the four critical purposes of urban planning, urban governance, creating information for citizens and land titles. For purpose of land titles, the requirement of maps was the most detailed and hence a lot of thinking would be required and it would synergise with the other three purposes. Few more important points she raised were that these surveys will be essentially done and records maintained when the area gets notified as per the law and that for purpose of land titles, the surveys would be done only for parcels and not for buildings

12. Mr. Anjum Parwez said that accuracy levels are critical as in urban areas disputes happen over smallest measure of property and that such an accuracy cannot be achieved without the use of Total stations. Satellite mapping and aerial images can at best help to assist in ensuring that no property is missed while mapping. Mr. Ashutosh Dixit suggested that the committee should look at the international standards of accuracy that are followed for urban cadastres. He also highlighted the fact that so far the maps being prepared have not been focused on land titles but only on urban planning and this needs to be done. 25cms of accuracy can be workable for planning but for titling, it has to be highest level of accuracy which could be achieved only through Total Stations. Mr. Raghavaswamy added that even for slums mapping, Total Stations have been recommended in the discussions with HUPA.

13. Mr. AK Singh through his presentation on the need of updated and accurate maps of each administrative unit required for Census purposes. He elaborated on the new initiative of the Census to prepare detailed digital geo-referenced database of the Capital Cities (33) in the country showing each building /house, road networks, lanes, by-lanes and important landmarks features for each ward of the Capital City to ensure that entire area is covered without any omissions and overlapping. The maps have been prepared by obtaining high resolution satellite imagery from Survey of India and followed by a field survey for collection of information from each house. Mr. Raghavaswamy brought attention to the Survey of India’s bifurcated map policies for civilian as well as defence applications namely the defence series maps and open source maps. He further said that open source series has GIS compatible shape files or operable in ArcGIS software. They are available in 1:50,000 scale and details upto village level are available with details of village boundaries. Mr. AK Singh said that SOI has taken the village boundaries from the Census department and they in turn have taken it from state authorities (revenue department).

14. Further elaborating on the work being done by Census, Mr. AK Singh said that each building is drawn as the polygon and only the built area and not the entire plot is captured. He informed the committee that as on 30th September 2010, out of 2073 wards in 33 Capital Cities, field verification of 2035 wards had been completed and 38 wards were in progress. The field survey is likely to be completed by 30th October 2010. Finalization of digital maps and linking of attribute data is likely to be completed by December 2010 for use in 2nd Phase Population Enumeration 2011. The Census Enumeration Block maps for wards have been prepared mapped to the scale and on scales of 1:2000 or 1:4000. The maps for 33 cities are on scale of 1:2000. As for the base maps of these administrative units, he said that most of the town maps showing ward boundary that have been procured are old and taken from municipalities and the extent and boundary of towns has usually changed. The number of wards also has changed in many cases.

15. Mr. Singh showed the example of Imphal city for which satellite image was blown up to scale of 1:2000 at .67 cm resolution for picking up parcels of the buildings and the road network was captured very clearly. By digitization of these images, the parcels have been generated. He said that experience of capturing the building footprints with satellite imagery was good in cities like Kolkata but when it comes to hill cities such Aizawl, it is a very formidable task. For such places, secondary sources would be required for mapping purposes. Mr. Singh showed one more map being prepared under DSSDI (Delhi State Spatial Data Infrastructure) project. He suggested that these maps prepared by NIC were not precise as would be required for the purposes of land title.

16. As for the problem being faced in hilly terrains, Mr. Raghavaswamy said that it could be countered by photo chromatic methods or aerial imagery could be a viable option

17. Mr. Mehta suggested that discussion on map policy and sharing should be discussed on a separate forum though the important points should definitely be taken note of. The committee should however move on with its agenda and these discussions should happen on a separate forum.

18. Mr. Kshirsagar talked of the Dept of Town Planning exercise of mapping and said that work is being done by SOI in partnership with NRSA. The state nodal agencies have been collecting attribute data from respective towns and DTCPO is collecting it from these SNA and then passing it to SOI. These maps are still in the draft stage.

19. Mr. Anjum Parwez talked of the Aasthi project being undertaken by the Directorate of Municipal Administration, Dept of Urban Development, Karnataka which is a GIS based property tax system. The process has involved field Survey of all the properties in the ULB and preparation of ward maps with individual properties marked on the map with roads etc. Each property is being given a unique property ID number and ward maps are being digitized and integrated with field survey data.

20. Mr. Parvez elaborated that the major data needed for the project is the details of the property which has been obtained in MIS format, property’s location on the map, its boundaries and then GIS and MIS has been linked. Initially the city boundary is identified and marked and a digital city map of the entire city is created. The base map is created from any of the available map either from Survey of India or satellite image. Ms Swati asked if the maps and road networks are geo-referenced and Mr. Parwez replied that since the objective was property tax collection and hence only the measurements were more important and geo-referencing was not required. He continued that base map is sent to the ULB and ULB does the ground physical survey to draw the missing roads by hand on the base map. The handmade sketch also is not georeferenced.

21. Elaborating the methodology, Mr. Parwez mentioned that a city center is identified which is the intersection of a base line (east-west) and a meridian (North South). Then a field survey of all the properties in the ULBs is done along with the preparation of ward maps with individual properties marked on the map with roads etc. Each property is given a unique property ID number and digitization of ward maps is integrated with field survey data. Property numbers are administered at the block level. The major roads and block boundary roads are numbered first and then the remaining properties within a block are numbered. For properties, the numbers start from 1 and continue till all properties within a block are exhausted. Numbering starts from the city center (reference point) and increases as distance from the city center increases and nears the city boundary. With the ground survey, first hand sketches of the properties and their parcel boundaries street by street are created. Measurement of site and measurement of the building (area by floor, type of material used etc) are captured in Form C which is the MIS information. These hand sketches form the parcel footprints. After the blocks have been surveyed, SOI generates the property ids that capture the location of the block, street and the door number. In the process, all the old property numbers are completely being removed. In the maps and MIS, the information is captured both for the plots and the built up area.

22. Talking about the methodology, he told the committee that initially Total Station surveys were not pursued for property tax purposes due to time constraints and it was decided by the DMA to use them in a later stage. The next phase based on satellite imagery is now being undertaken in 55 cities in Karnataka through Town Country Planning organization and the images will be rectified by CAD design and Total Station surveys and the area and measurements through CAD would be very accurate. He added that so far the measurement and other information is captured in the MIS through exhaustive field surveys and it need not come from spatial maps and all the spatial information is not geo-referenced. Thus the MIS is very accurate. The inaccuracy in measurement is of the order of 4 to 5%. The advantage however, of using Total Station surveys for land title is that two way information about the ownership, exact measurements can be collected along with the spatial information and thus both GIS and MIS databases can be created.

23. Mr. Parwez responding to a question of Mr. Mehta about base maps obtained from satellite images, said that a geo referenced spatial GIS base map based on satellite images will already have the parcel polygons and they need not be created again and then only the block maps of those polygons can be taken to the field for verifying the measurements through tape measurements. In the surveys being done in Hassan and Karwar, the polygons are being identified and created from remote methods (satellite and aerial images respectively). He also added that if the sketch of plot/property has to be given to the owner, then the CAD drawing would be needed. Mr. Surendra from TCPO added that tape measurements would need to be used since there are dense buildings in the cities and measuring angles would be difficult. Mr. Tarun added that this point has been taken into consideration in the guidelines and thus wherever the boundary points cannot be physically accessed, the coordinates of such points would be taken from distance measurements using tapes.

24. Ms Swati asked that for the purposes of only land title and not from the perspective of revenue generation, parcel level surveys would be enough and the committee was of the same opinion. Even when there are multiple owners of a parcel of land, individual land titles for the respective share of the land parcel will be given and thus the survey to the level of parcel footprint would serve the purpose.

25. Adding to the discussion that started over the existence of multitude of maps, Mr. Premnath Singh highlighted the case of Bangalore that for the purpose of Revised Accelerated Power Reform Project of Ministry of Power, they had mapped Bangalore on their own despite the maps being available with NIC (two sets of maps, one being used by BDA and another created under utility mapping for 6 metros), Census and DMA.

26. Mr. Surendra from TCPO made a presentation on the National Urban Information System Scheme which had started in March 2006 by MoUD and TCPO to develop database and base maps for spatial, economic and environmental planning at various levels. In the first phase of the scheme, 137 towns were covered with an expenditure of Rs 66.28 crores. Main objective of the scheme was to develop attribute & spatial data base for various levels of urban planning using satellite or aerial images. It also aimed to develop standards for database, methodology, equipment, software, data exchange format etc. for urban information systems.

27. He further elaborated on the Urban Spatial Information System (USIS) component of the scheme which includes hardware and software specifications; base Map and GIS Data Base at 1:10,000 Scale & 1:2000 Scale; Utility mapping at 1:1000 Scale and others. The money allocated for data generation, mapping, software and hardware has been allocated to State level nodal agencies and urban local bodies. Base map have been prepared at 1:10000 scale from satellite images and at 1:2000 scale from Total Stations and Aerial photos. Utility mapping has also been done using Ground Penetrating Radar technology at 1:1000 scales. He showed the sample maps and geo referenced spatial layers generated for both 1:10000 and 1:2000 scales.

28. Taking the discussion to the changes made to the framework law after the meeting of 6th September, Mr. Raghu highlighted that there are few more changes that have been done and the rationale for them have been provided in the annexure that was provided through emails and has also been provided in the printed documents made available to the committee members.

29. Towards the end, Mr Premnath Singh made a quick presentation on the Kanpur Nagar Nigams Municipal GIS project for property taxation system.

30. The broad understanding and action points from the meeting were:

• Maps on accurate land parcel and property information would be combined with accurate spatial geo-referenced base maps which will have correct plot and road alignment. The GIS part of spatial location of plots as well as the number of plots and properties then can be accurately captured

• The base map would be taken from satellite image; the effort of creating parcel polygons should thus be saved

• For the purpose of titling, Total Station surveys will be used and they will help to capture two way information: the ownership, exact measurements etc: and accurate geo-referenced spatial information. Consequently both the GIS and MIS databases would be created with reasonable accuracy

• The scale of maps that would be achieved for land title would be 1:500. For improving the quality and accuracy of the GIS maps, the Total Station measurements along with tape measurements should be used.

Annexure

List of Participants

1. Shri A.K. Mehta, Joint Secretary (UD), Ministry of Urban Development
2. Ms. Swati Ramanathan Chairperson, India Urban Space Foundation,
3. Shri NK Nampoothiry Additional Secretary, Legislative Department. M/o of Law
4. Shri Ashutosh Dikshit, Joint Secretary, TPL-1 Ministry of Finance,
5. Dr.V.Raghavaswamy, Group Director, National Remote Sensing Agency
6. Shri Iqbal Khan, Rajasthan Administrative Service, Govt. of Rajasthan,
7. Shri TR Raghunandan, IAS(Retd),
8. Shri T Koshy, NSDL Database Management Limited (NDML),
9. Dr.A.Ravindra, IAS (Retd)
10. Shri Anjum Parwez, Commissioner, Muncipal Admn, Karnataka
11. Mr J Premnath Singh, ESRI.
12. Dr. AP Singh, DRG, O/o Registrar General of India
13. Shri J.B. Kshirsagar, Chief Planner, TCPO
14. Shri S. Surendra, Town & Country Planner, TCPO
15. Shri Monis Khan, Assistant Planner, TCPO
16. Dr. Achala, Research Officer, TCPO
17. Ms. G. Kalpana, Commissioner, Survey, Karnataka

MINUTES OF
SECOND MEETING OF THE PROJECT PLATINUM NATIONAL WORKING GROUP
FOR
CREATION OF THE NATIONAL GUIDELINES ON GUARANTEED LAND TITLE IN URBAN AREAS

12:00 PM, 06.09.2010, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI

1. The second meeting of the Working group established under Project PLATINUM was held on 06 Sept 2010 at the Conference Hall of the Ministry of Urban Development Government of India, (MoUD) under the chairpersonship of Mr.A.K. Mehta, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, The list of participants is annexed.

2. Mr. Mehta welcomed the participants and briefly gave a recap of the deliberations held in the 1st meeting of the working group.

3. Ms. Swati Ramanathan, Chairperson-IUSF stated that in accordance with the decision of the previous meeting, IUSF had reviewed the DoLR draft bill and has suggested changes to it, based upon an examination of the provisions of the Rajasthan Ordinance and the Andhra Pradesh Draft bill with a view to making it more applicable to both urban and rural areas. She presented the broad changes/revisions, as follows:

(a) Detailed analysis, addition, deletion and modification of definitions

(b) Reorganisation of the provisions of the bill according to the logical flow of processes involved

(c) Sections/parts which were not essential for issue of land title deleted and new provisions added, drawn from the Rajasthan and the Andhra Pradesh drafts.

(d) Modifications made relating to some key strategic aspects of implementation, such as making the registration of title optional and providing for separate notifications for urban and rural areas.

4. Mr. Raghunandan, subject matter expert working with IUSF, elaborated the details of the changes suggested in the draft law. He said that while making the recommended changes, a distinction has been made between what ought to be contained in the act and what in the rules. IUSF’s recommended changes have been mainly to address the concerns of urban areas. However, wherever required, IUSF did go a step further to suggest changes that would lead to smooth passage and implementation of the law.

5. Mr. Anjum Parwez, Director, Municipal Administration, Karnataka, stated that there is an overlap between the recommendations of the 13th Central Finance Commission on property tax levy and the proposed bill, which proposes to fix the guidance value of land. He sought to know whether two parallel authorities could be established to deal with these issues.

6. Mr. Mehta said that the proposed draft act has more to do with setting down the principles than the actual processes that would be taken up, separately.

7. Regarding re-sequencing and omissions, Mr. Raghunandan added that the chapter on land valuation has been proposed to be omitted. He also stated that the chapter on Survey, Settlement and Land Information System has been brought ahead of the chapter on Title Registry, in order to conform to the logical flow of processes.

8. Mr. Raghunandan drew attention to the amendment suggested in Section 1, that the application of the act be separately notified for urban and rural areas and parts thereof. It also has been provided that the notification issued shall comprise wholly of either urban or rural areas. He said that the rationale for this approach was to enable the implementation of urban land title to be put on a fastrack even within a common legislative framework. He stated that this was advisable as the titling process in rural areas is fraught with many impediments which will also impede the urban land titling process.

9. Mr. Mehta added that the rationale of this change is that the issue of land management is far more urgent in urban areas. Many issues relating to rural land title will not have relevance for urban areas. He further added that delinking of the two can be done in two ways

a. By having a separate act for urban areas

b. Have a separate trigger for GLT in urban and rural areas, within a common legislation, while keeping the two processes mutually exclusive during implementation

10. Mr. Mehta clarified to Mr. Parwez that there will not be two separate appellate authorities; but that the current proposal would mean that each notification ought to be either wholly of an urban or a rural area. The purpose of this approach is to address concerns of urban land management separately. He pointed out that issues still being addressed in rural areas, such as land reforms. are very different than the priorities of urban areas.

11. Mr. Ashutosh Dikshit from Ministry of Finance suggested that the jurisdiction of the appellate authority can be specifically notified to avoid any confusion.

12. Mr. Raghunandan emphasized that there would be only one authority. The effect of the notification is that the entire process under the proposed act is applicable solely to an urban or rural area as may be specified. Once an area, say one ward, is notified, the footprint of the entire institutional structure under the act would be applicable to it. An alternative approach might result in downward implementation problems. For instance, if an entire district is notified, it might cover areas that are covered by the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, where there might be a system of community ownership of lands, intermingled with other rural and urban areas. This mosaic of land ownership and tenure systems, if covered under a single notification, would lead to differential implementation even within the same notified area, which can cause complications. He also drew attention to the fact that there are already some misgivings being expressed regarding the problems. that might arise in implementing the act in rural areas and this might slow down the implementation in urban areas. Providing for separate notifications is in order to avoid such problems. in implementation.

13. Mr. PK Srivastava, JS (JnNURM) said that such issues are also prevalent in urban areas and there are complex ownership issues of land for urban as well as rural. Mr. Raghunandan replied that if due to the above mentioned roadblock, the Act doesn’t get passed, then it won’t be possible to implement the act and start the process of land titles in urban areas cannot progress. Thus the change being suggested to separate urban and rural explicitly in Section (1) is entirely strategic as it allows to pick and choose the areas where the act can be implemented on a fast-track mode.

14. Mr. Anjum Parwez said that major urban growth has been happening on the periphery of cities, even though these have not been defined yet as urban areas. The records of such areas are still with gram panchayats. Thus if the act is to manage urban lands alone, then these semi urbanized areas will be neglected. Already there has been lot of illegal formation of layouts and buildings in such areas by the authorization of gram panchayats

15. Mr. Mehta clarified that all that is being suggested is that the State government be given a choice to notify urban or rural areas exclusively, for land survey, thus triggering the process of implementation of a guaranteed property titling system.

16. Mr. VK Agrawal, Excise and Prohibition Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, said that the provision in the original draft DoLR law that “Government may notify different dates for different areas”, enables the issue of separate notifications for urban and rural areas and there is no need to explicitly state this in the law, as suggested.

17. Ms. Veena Kothavale from Ministry of Law stated that the law can be made applicable to all areas and then exclude the areas where it is not desirable to apply.

18. Mr. Raghunandan said that the change is being made because when the law will go to the legislature, the changed wording will make it much more explicit that exclusive notifications can be issued for urban areas. This would enable securing an easy passage for the bill to be passed. Other than this strategic nature of the amendment, the older wording would equally serve the purpose of enabling notifications to be issued exclusively for urban areas. Thus in legal terms, the change is just a matter of semantics.

19. Mr. Raghunandan also said that the definition of Urban area as added in the modified law clearly specifies the footprint of urban areas and hence takes care of the peri-urban areas as well.

20. Ms. Swati said that the issue of peri-urbanization was also a key problem faced in Rajasthan as lot of growth happened in these areas. The footprint of the development authority as well as that of the municipal corporation should come under urban title and land management. This implies that whatever land is designated as available for urban land use even though presently it hasn’t changed to urban land, should come under the purview of the survey process for urban areas.

21. Mr. Parwez reiterated that the jurisdiction of the gram panchayats covering peri-urban areas is bound to cause conflicts. Mr. Raghunandan replied that such areas would also be covered under urban improvement trust or development authorities and therefore can be construed as urban areas for the purpose of issuing of notification.

22. Mr. Chiranjeet Singh from DoLR raised the point as to how Cantonment areas will be treated. To this Mr. Raghunandan said that such areas would be included in the draft within the definition of urban areas.

23. Ms. Veena said that in Section (1) itself, an application clause can be added which mentions that at the first instance, it shall apply to a particular area. Mr. Raghunandan explained that the intention of DoLR’s model law is that it shall be a union act which when enacted by the Parliament, shall become a union law for the Union Territories without legislatures i.e. Daman and Diu, Chandigarh, and Andamans. Such a law is also intended to serve as the framework law for the states and remaining UTs.

24. Ms. Swati stressed that the proposed bill is useful from the urban development perspective and must be pushed, as it is also prescribed under JnNURM

25. Mr. VK Agrawal said that it would not be right to say that there is lesser demand for land title reform in the rural areas. The urgency is equal in both areas. Mr. Mehta responded that there has been a great concern about GLT in MoUD at various levels and the fact is for urban areas to grow, land has to be leveraged and this requires a robust land management system.

26. Mr. PK Srivastava said that the law has to be free of complex phrases and should be as simple as possible and for strategic reasons, legal language of the act should not be tampered with. To this Mr. Raghunandan responded that the DoLR draft is quite confusing, as it does not follow a sequence and processes go back and forth. An effort has been made to re-sequence provisions in order to make the structure more logical. Mr. Agrawal also said that the draft is very confusing and in its present format, is very unlikely for it to be passed.

27. Dr Ravindra, Adviser (Urban Affairs) to Chief Minister of Karnataka, said that having a central law for all the states will have many implications and care must be taken to ensure flexibility. Mr. Raghunandan said that the law envisages the creation of functional divisions within the authority and there is flexibility to keep the survey and the survey and settlement department outside the authority. Guaranteed land title is available through a titling division, which will be directly under the LTA. Ms. Swati said that the modalities of survey and settlement are completely a separate issue and the next WG meeting would be on the survey methodologies and processes only. IUSF believes that since currently, State survey and settlement departments do not undertake much surveying activity in urban areas, there can be a separate department undertaking this for urban areas under the present survey & settlement authority.

28. Mr. Raghunandan said that thus given the scope of work of the Land Titling Authority, there wouldn’t be a separate registration division. The changes needed in the process of registration have been provided through part II of the schedule of the draft act (Amendment to the Registration Act, 1908). Thus if and when a particular area is notified and if a person wants to transact, then at the point of transaction, he must go and get a guaranteed title. In initial draft of DoLR, there was a separate division for evaluation of lands which has been removed in the IUSF draft. The option of making the titling compulsory after 5 years (in DoLR draft) has also been removed.

29. Mr. Ravindra said that the valuation of land is also necessary. Mr. Mehta and Mr. Raghunandan contended that having a land valuation division detracts from the focus of the law on land titles.

30. Mr. Mehta said that rapid economic development in cities requires robust land records and hence there is a need to get urban GLT on the fast track. Mr. Parwez said that when the urban and rural landscape is changing so rapidly, one should not limit the law, because every time a rural areas become urban, a separate notification to that effect would be needed t cover such areas under GLT. He said that pushing urban area reforms. ahead because it’s a JnNURM conditionality is not desirable as one needs to develop a complete system with rural and urban woven together. Ms. Swati replied that the social tensions that concern land issues are far more serious in rural areas. By tagging Urban areas onto rural areas for the purpose of a common notification, reform is likely to be held back for decades. Urban areas can’t wait for so long. Mr. Mehta said that the current draft act aims. to address the broad principles and not too much on the process detail.

31. Mr. Raghunandan said that if the law gets passed as a central act with the strategic changes suggested, then the Union government could take up Chandigarh as a pilot for GLT, It would be easier to implement a GLT regime in Chandigarh as it is a well planned city and the history of titles doesn’t go back too far back in time. Thus there is a strong reason for getting this draft enacted as a union act, so that it can be applicable to the Union territories without legislatures and can show the way through implementation pilots.

32. Mr. Dikshit sought to know whether if the act gets enacted at the centre, would MoUD be the nodal ministry. Mr. Mehta replied that MoUD’s intention is to work with DoLR.

33. Mr. Mehta urged the committee to take a final decision on the suggested change in Section 1(3) of the draft, providing for notifications to be issued for applying the provisions of the act to wholly urban or rural areas.

34. Mr. Raghunandan proposed that the second provision in Section 1(3) as proposed in the IUSF draft could be deleted, to read as follows:
(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Government may notify:
Provided that the Government may notify different dates for urban and rural areas or parts thereof
The provision deleted would be “Provided further that a notification so issues shall comprise wholly of either urban or rural areas.” The participants agreed to this change.

35. Mr. Raghunandan proposed another change to the draft, namely, that in Section 4 – “Functions of Authority” items 5 and 6 dealing with property valuation will be deleted.

36. Regarding whether the title is mandatory, Mr. Raghunandan said that as long as individuals do not transact on properties within the notified area, there is no compulsion for property owners to obtain titles under the act. He elaborated on how the titling process would play out once a particular ward is notified. First, the entire area is surveyed and every property given a unique property identification number. Once completed, the survey will be notified and interested persons invited to claim titles through relevant document. If there are no disputes, then within a period of 67 days, provisional title is given, which after three years becomes conclusive. Mr. Dikshit sought to know whether this implies that relevant changes will have to be made to the State statutes concerning registration. Mr. Raghunandan replied that amendments are required to the Indian Registration Act.

37. Mr. Agrawal and Mr. Mehta acknowledged the need within the framework for giving expression to the mirror system. Once a land enters the GLT system, it will stay under that regime only and hence every subsequent transaction ought to be under GLT regime. Ms. Swati said that the draft will provide for both curtain and mirror principles. Once the GLT system is in place, only title would be admissible as evidence of ownership and for future transactions

38. Mr. Agrawal sought to know how subsequent registrations would take place within a notified area, once title is obtained. He said that this is relevant because the Registration Act provides only for registration of documents and not titles. Transfer of Property Act, provides for transaction of a property through a contract and the act of registration specifies what is recorded in a deed. He said that it is essential that all subsequent sales and transactions in a notified area happen through titles and this requires the registration system in entire India has to be changed. Mr. Raghunandan and Ms. Swati responded that this has been captured in Section 29 of the draft bill, which bars reverting to the deed system. Further, in Chapter VII, compulsory intimations related to land transactions in a notified area to the Authority is provided for. Section 66 also provides for the removal of doubts in case of inconsistencies with any other Act and this Act. Mr. Raghunandan pointed out that Part II of the Schedule speaks of an amendment to the Registration Act, 1908, to add a section that the Act shall not apply to registration of such immovable properties in areas notified under Section sub section 3 of Section 1 of the Land Titling Act, 2010.

39. Mr. Agrawal said that in the Andhra Pradesh draft law, all properties are proposed to be surveyed and entered into the record of titles and the completion of these process notified. From then onwards, the manner in which land transactions would take place is prescribed and registration act will not apply. Instead, the entire process of registration is mentioned within the land title act. He added that there is lot of information related to property titling which is not in public domain and the act provides for compulsory intimation to the authority and that all the transactions (such as mortgage, creation of lien or charge) shall be effective only when certification of recording has been obtained from the Registration Officer. He emphasized that for an incremental system of acquisition of title, it is essential that to state out the procedures to be followed after first registration. Merely saying that Registration Act will not apply (through the Schedule) wouldn’t suffice since the Registration deals not only with sales and purchases. Ms. Swati agreed that in order to address this concern, the subsequent registration process for properties that have obtained titles could be made explicit. Mr. Raghunandan suggested that from Section 5 (12) onwards, which deals with the powers through the Registration Act will be consolidated into a separate Chapter in order to address the issue raised by Mr. Agrawal.

40. Mr. Agrawal asked if the GLT is proposed to be perpetually incremental and Raghunandan said that this has been proposed, in order to ease the transition and as it is likely to receive more support. Mr. Koshy of NSDL shared the experience of share certificate dematerialization and said that earlier, after the first transaction, the register did not retain the title of the buyer and the seller continued to be stated as the owner of the certificate. Thus the conclusion of a share transfer and title transfer was asynchronous. After dematerialization was introduced, any subsequent transfer of share certificate had to accompany transfer of title as well. This system was kept perpetually incremental and it was mandated that if transaction has to be through stock exchange, then it has to electronic. Rather than making compulsory for all, there were incentives created so that people would transact their shares electronically. Ms. Swati and Mr. Koshy reflected that since the dematerialization started, about 60 to 80% conversion has taken a place.

41. Ms. Swati stressed that incremental land title is likely to receive more political buy-in. Mr. Agrawal said that still the modified act has the nature of being compulsory. Mr. Raghunandan replied that it this is partly so. While obtaining a title is a condition precedent for a transaction, there is no compulsion that title should be mandatorily obtained, regardless of whether the land is to be transacted.

42. Mr. Raghunandan stated that the chapter on Survey has been brought forward as Chapter III. He pointed out that the existing survey and settlement system can be within the Authority or continue as previously with their own system. He mentioned that in Section 12, subsection (3) has been added a clause to establish a separate sub office for urban areas within the Survey, Settlement and Land Information System Division within the Authority. Mr. Charanjit Singh mentioned that this might not be needed as it is already there in subsection (1) of this section. Mr. Raghunandan said that this is also a strategic change due to the emphasis needed to be given to the urban areas and especially when the mandate of the WG committee is to work on urban land titles. He said that there were a lot of detailed sections for surveying in the Rajasthan Act that have not been added to this draft as they are best suited to be included under the rules and also since there is a separate ToR for determining the modalities of the survey which is proposed to be discussed in the next working group meeting.

43. Mr. Parvez suggested that other than these two options, another option can be given which can be adopted by the local bodies separately for rural and urban areas. Sharing his experience from Karnataka where he had been given powers under the municipalities act to conduct surveys, he said that cadastral surveys have been completed for all the cities in Karnataka. Mr. Agrawal said that under Andhra Pradesh Boundaries and Survey act, the surveys become conclusive after three years of notification of the record publication to which Mr. Parwez said this power lies with the Municipalities. Ms. Swati said that the surveys done in Karnataka however were not done with GPS units which would have taken all the four corners and hence the quality of maps was not good. Mr. Parwez replied that this kind of geo referencing is being done in 55 cities that are presently being surveyed in Karnataka and as a next step to achieve minimal correction; ground level sketching to the scale is being taken up with both, building and plot footprint.

44. Mr. Agrawal suggested that perhaps surveys shouldn’t be dealt with in this committee as all states have their relevant survey laws. Ms. Swati and Mr. Raghunandan stated that the recommendations of the WG will serve as guidelines for states to implement the survey and this is needed especially when GIS and survey methodologies technology have advanced so much.

45. It was decided that a few subject matter experts and practitioners from the survey domain will meet to discuss survey methodologies.
At the conclusion of the meeting, it was suggested that the next meeting would be held on 18th October at YASHADA, Pune.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MINUTES OF
1ST MEETING OF THE PROJECT PLATINUM NATIONAL WORKING GROUP
FOR
CREATION OF THE NATIONAL GUIDELINES ON GUARANTEED LAND TITLE IN URBAN AREAS
11:00 AM, 28.07.2010, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI

1. The first meeting of the Working group established under Project Platinum was held on 28 July 2010 at the Conference Hall of the Ministry of Urban Development Government of India, (MoUD) under the chairpersonship of Mr. Navin Kumar, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, The list of participants is annexed.

2. Secretary welcomed the participants. Director (LSG) stated that implementation of guaranteed land title which was one of the reforms under the JNNURM has not been implemented by most of the states. With a view to facilitate implementation, the MoUD had constituted a Committee headed by Shri Arun Mehta, Joint Secretary, MoUD following which an advisory was issued to the state government. Subsequently, the IUSF came forward with a proposal to set up a Working Group in collaboration with the MoUD. Consequently, MoUD and IUSF signed a MoU under which this Working Group (WG) was set up, to suggest detailed modalities for the design and implementation of a Guaranteed Land Titling (GLT) system for urban areas.

3. Ms. Swati Ramanathan, co-convenor of the WG, welcomed the participants. Setting the context for Project PLATINUM through a presentation, she stressed that ownership issues concerning land have been stumbling blocks for urban governance, planning, and provision of infrastructure services and pointed out that that Project PLATINUM is a reflection of the high priority set by the GoI upon providing support to states for actual implementation of such a system. She commenced with a presentation of a case study of the acquisition of land by a company involved in providing affordable housing in Bangalore, which brought out the uncertainties that are confronted in tracing and proving ownership, caused due to complexities in land transactions and gaps in record maintenance. Stressing once more the need for a GLT system, she made the following specific points:

(a) Given the implications that it has for economic investment and growth, social justice, infrastructure & housing projects, governance & planning for urban areas, the country is at an inflection point where it needs reforms in the direction of GLT, to keep pace with increasing urbanization.

(b) The matter is now being articulated by the GOI and a few States are piloting reforms in this direction.

(c) However, given the recent experience in Rajasthan and Karnataka there are hurdles in embracing such a system at the state level. Even if there is in-principle acceptance, the political and administrative systems have to align to successfully conceive of and implement it.

(d) The operational details need to be fleshed out include process changes, institutional structures and enabling technologies that combine into a final implementable solution.

(e) For a systemic solution, land related transactions have to be mapped in great detail from the point when the owner applies for GLT, to the steps for verifying ownership, conduct of surveys, leading to the provision of a GLT.

(f) The technological backbone of a system providing for these was designed by NSDL and NCRCL while working in Rajasthan. The documentation of Ground Rules shared with the WG is also an output drawn from the Rajasthan experience.

(g) In this context, the broad mandate of Project PLATINUM as follows:

(i)Develop National Guidelines for implementation of an urban GLT system, for States,

(ii) Develop a framework law and rules for urban and potential urban areas (which will include amendments to central laws);

(iii)Determine survey methodologies and techniques for identifying present boundaries and ownerships;

(iv)Design the use of technology to manage upscaling of a GLT system

(v)Determine incentive systems that States can adopt for persuading people to go in for a GLT system

(vi)Assist one state in implementing a GLT system in a chosen city

(vii) Create online and offline platforms for States to share experiences and lessons learnt.

(h) The best of what has been done so far could be incorporated into a framework law and rules, which would provide a framework and incentives for transition into a system that provides conclusive ownership of land, with undisputed boundaries and simplify transactions on land. The critical considerations for the framework law would be:

(i) The institutional structure for GLT implementation, including dispute resolution, regulation and convergence of urban and rural systems

(ii) Whether the GLT system should be optional or mandatory.

(iii) What and how much ought to be the incentives for implementing GLT.

(iv) Transitional modalities,

(v) The economics of an indemnity fund and the cost faced by citizens to transit to a GLT system.

Gist of the discussions:

1. Mr AK Mehta, Joint Secretary (MOUD) stated that a decision is needed on whether GLT is to be triggered by individual applications for it, or whether all land records are to be surveyed and a register maintained by the government, from which individual applicants can obtain the title when required. In response, Ms. Swati Ramanathan stated that the system would be an optional one, where GLT would be triggered by individual applications. However, once an application is received, then onus is on the Government to verify the applicants’ claim of ownership and that the boundaries are legitimate before granting a GLT.

2. Mr. SK Singh, Joint Secretary, M/o HUPA opined that it would be the State’s responsibility to provide conclusive land title. For this reason, separate approaches for GLT in urban and rural areas are not required, as also because urban expansion will take place into rural areas in the future, particularly for housing for the poor. He also said that India’s land record system is robust, even though it has not been updated and has not taken advantage of modern technology.

3. Mr. T. Koshy Executive Director NSDL, said that government could either take up a massive exercise of verifying all titles or it could prioritize the verification of lands that come up for transactions, so that people can obtain GLT as and when they need them.

4. Mr Atul Sharma Div Com of Ajmer Division, stated that during the verification process, recording encumbrances such as whether the land is mortgaged or proposed to be acquired has to be verified.

5. Mr Navin Kumar, Secretary MoUD stated that irrespective of whether GLT is mandatory or optional, once an extent of land has a clean title, all subsequent transactions on that land would be unambiguous. He opined that they best way might be to provide GLT on applications. Over a period of time, all land can be guaranteed. In this process, there is a need for all these processes of due diligence to be digitised and standardized.

6. Shri N.K.Nampoothiry Additional Secretary, Ministry of Law, enquired as who would decide the land title. Ms. Swati Ramanathan and Mr. AK Mehta replied that it could be verified from a title register. Mr AK Mehta said that MoUD had conceptualized that the existing record of rights would be first modified and a period of 3 to 5 years given to settle any ambiguities. Following this, undisputed properties would be transferred to the new title register. Furthermore, Ms. Swati Ramanathan stated, a provisional title will be issued initially, based upon documentary proof, for which the evidential bar has to be very high. She also stated that deterrents would be in place to ensure that claimants with malafide intents are discouraged. Over time when the counterclaims are examined, provisional title will be transformed to conclusive title.

7. Mr. Ashutosh Dikshit, Joint Secretary, CBDT, M/o Finance sought to know whether the new legislation would apply to all lands or just non-agricultural lands. This would have a bearing on the legislative competence of the centre to legislate upon this issue. Secetary MoUD responded that the issue of legislative competence can be considered once the processes for each step in GLT system have been identified.

8. Responding to the points made so far, Mr.TR Raghunandan, IUSF stated that whether the GLT ought to be optional or mandatory would depend upon whether it is perceived as a public or private good. On the one hand if it is considered as a public good, then the government would need to provide for a mandatory system and pay for it from public funds. On the other hand, citizens who seek GLT will be adding value to their own land and improve its marketability. He felt that an optional system would be tactically a better option, as putting in place a mandatory GLT system will involve huge time and financial cost. Responding to Mr. Nampoothiry’s question on the authority to grant title, he said that it would be done by a Land Title Certification Authority which would first give a provisional title and then a final conclusive title. The Department of Land Resources (DoLR) model act also has provision of such an authority. Responding to Mr Dikshit’s point on legislative competence he said that the objective is to formulate a framework law as a model for States and not for the Centre to legislate on its own.

9. Secretary MoUD stated that the best should be extracted from the ongoing experiences of States and taken note by the WG. The system envisaged should ensure that rural and urban GLT processes are harmoniously converged in the future.

10. Mr. A.K. Mehta mentioned that the Committee chaired by him had recommended a State guaranteed mandatory GLT system, institutional integration of rural and urban systems and an independent Land Title Authority. The committee also listed State and Central laws requiring amendments, including the Indian Registration Act 1908 and the Transfer of Property Act 1982.

11. Mr. VK Agrawal, CMD, APIDC said that five points needed to be addressed, namely, first, the exact scope of a guaranteed title, second the existing laws, third, the various process options, fourth, the choice based on convenience and operational costs and last, the conceptualisation of the law required. He felt that if the DoLR draft bill fits the Urban context, then the WG needs to only suggest the modifications required to make it applicable to urban areas. In response, Ms. Swati Ramanathan felt that urban challenges are very different and therefore, rural and urban systems should go in parallel and converge at a later stage. Mr. Raghunandan mentioned that GLT for urban lands need to be brought on a fast-track given the high value of lands, more transactions and the relatively smaller parcels of land. This could be done through a universal law, but then other aspects have to be considered. DoLR’s draft bill proposes a mandatory system, which can be costly. The State indemnifying against errors in GLT should not become a huge financial burden. In several cities, the concepts of city surveys don’t apply to and hence land surveys for urban areas don’t exist. Thus a new law for urban areas would be beneficial for such cities which would embark upon such processes for the first time. Mr VK Agrawal responded that in States where city surveys are not done, survey laws from other States could be modified to cover urban lands as well. He also said that the Framework law need not go into survey methodologies as different states have different methodologies and the matter is best left to them.

12. Mr. T.Koshy gave an analogous example of the share market and said that what we need is an enabling law and a pre-verification process of title for such a system to be functional.

13. Mr. Nampoothiry pointed out that legislative competence for a GLT system lies with States and it is important to know whether any state has itself sought to the centre for enacting such a law. He also saw no difference between urban and rural land in respect of administrative and legislative aspects. He said that the issue of what happens to title in case of unexpected deaths and subsequent inheritance also needs to be addressed. Citing Guyana’s example, he said that title is decided by judicial courts and not by deeds.

14. Mr. Dikshit said that a financial simulation exercise should be carried out on the costs and benefits of compulsory GLT as against an optional system, based on assumptions regarding the number of disputes, value of land etc. directed at ascertaining the costs involved.

15. Mr. Mehta said that moving to a GLT system is a reform conditionality under the JnNURM and the idea of a framework law and guidelines is based on a collaborative approach between the Centre, States and ULBs. There is a need to pilot the GLT approach in a city, following which more clarity will emerge.

16. Mr. VK Agrawal stated that rights of rights over land maintenance of land records and land surveys are state subjects under the Seventh Schedule. There is nothing related to land in the Union list. Transfer of property and registration are concurrent subjects. He then made a presentation highlighting the legal changes needed for a guaranteed land title in terms of what amendments or new statutes need to be made. He stated that fundamentally, a GLT system must provide for (a) a public record of titles (b) that entries in the record must be correct or true and (c) that they must be guaranteed. There are three systems possible, namely, the Curtain, Mirror and Insurance system. Under the Curtain system, once Land Title is determined, a curtain is drawn over it and everything that has happened in the past is hidden. Under the Mirror system, whatever is the situation on the ground should be truly and faithfully registered. In an insurance system, the land titled should be insured against inaccuracies. GLT will also require that the registration system changes from a system of registration of deeds to one of registration of titles. There are four sources of transfer of title, namely, conferment from the crown, transfer, succession and adverse possession. Even a decree of title obtained through law gives only a right to the decree holder against the disputing party and not against the world at large. Regarding the transition to a GLT system, we need to make several downstream amendments. The Central registration act does not entail that State Registration Departments ensures the transfer of title; so it must be amended. The Indian Evidence act only gives presumptive value to revenue records and this needs to be amended. Whenever properties are to be registered, they must come with a title. Regarding the incremental approach, he felt that since only 2 % of properties are transferred every year, the transitional time taken for moving to a 100% GLT system would be very long. Moreover an incremental approach will also tend to drive those with disputed title underground – they will prefer to transfer lands through the informal route (power or attorney etc.) so as to avoid a GLT system. He suggested that we need to move into a system of public record of titles, where transfer of title by is by contract. This will require amendments to the Transfer of Property Act.

17. Mr. VK Agrawal cited the pilot taken up in Nizamabad District of Andhra Pradesh, where the modalities of undertaking comprehensive surveys were attempted. 9 lakh properties across 8000 sq km of rural land were comprehensively surveyed and survey records given to property owners. field work was done by even matriculates after one months’ training. The surveys were outsourced and most were within acceptable limits of accuracy. The cost of this pilot with survey and systemic titling was around Rs. 34 crores. Mr Agrawal estimated that it would cost around Rs. 1600 crore for Andhra Pradesh and for India, around Rs. 20,000 crore. This pilot has been extended to 5 more districts. A draft law has now been prepared. The modalities under it are to undertake a resurvey; decide upon the title; provide for the unification of agencies dealing with title and modification of the registration processes. Mr. Raghunandan sought to know what were the difficulties faced in surveying urban areas. Mr. VK Agrawal clarified that urban surveys were not attempted in the pilot. He pointed out that the methodology for surveys and the levels of resolutions required to capture details are different for rural and urban areas. Cost and time effective techniques needed to be devised and adopted for urban areas. Aerial surveys and satellite imagery can only be used as a guide and ground surveys have to be done for measurements. Regarding the accuracy of surveys, he stated that when objections were called for, they were raised only in respect of 1.2% of the properties. Of these, only 0.4 percent was found to be valid. Ms. Swati Ramanathan pointed out that in Rajasthan there was a huge disparity between aerial images and the reality on the ground. Mr. VK Agrawal responded that resurveys are essential, as boundaries change. The accuracy of measurement processes and measurement tools are very critical to survey the area and extent of boundaries. Mr. Nampoothiri asked how unique ids would be given in case of subdivisions of already existing property. Mr VK Agrawal responded by saying that new unique ids will be issued. Mr Koshy reflected whether there would be serious implications if no GLT is given for a particular land for which no transaction takes place for a long time. To this Mr. Agrawal replied that since bringing land under titles insulates it from future disputes it’s better to put in a universal GLT system in place as soon as possible.

18. The Representative of the National Remote Sensing Agency, Mr. V Raghavaswamy stated that the standard of accuracy required for urban areas is 5 cms and in rural areas 20 cms. The best satellite imagery available in the past was 51 cms. For the NUIS, which covers 24 towns, aerial photography was undertaken from an altitude of 4000 feet. Now large format digital camera systems are available, which gives an accuracy of 5 percent. So far, 50 percent of the ground measurement has been completed. However, photography is only for providing base maps and ground surveys are essential.

Next steps:

19. Ms. Swati Ramanathan said that the proposed framework law should ensure that urban and rural challenges are both addressed adequately. She highlighted that conceptualisation and implementation of a GLT system requires approval from political leaders of all hues, bureaucracy and the public at large. Given the wide ranging implications of such a switch-over and based upon her experience in Rajasthan, she believed that an option GLT system is feasible, and not a mandatory system. She recalled that the effort of convincing the political and departmental leadership in Rajasthan for going in for a GLT system took four years and there was acceptance only when it was positioned as an optional approach.

20. Mr. Raghunandan said that since urban areas differ substantially from rural areas in terms of the challenges to identifying and measuring properties, there is a justification for more detailing of the processes required for urban areas even when the law can be a universal one.

21. Mr. Rajesh Mathur that along with satellite imagery which gives only the property footprint, door to door survey has to be done always.

22. Mr. VK Agrawal said that even in Andhra, since it will take time to undertake such a process, it was decided that in the initial five years GLT will be optional and then made mandatory. He pointed out that the DoLR also were inclined to first go in for optional GLT, which would then be converted to a mandatory titling system after a specified period. He believed that the incremental system can tend to be long drawn out. He also stated that the revenue administration is used to a system of periodic comprehensive surveys under the law and therefore, this favours opting for a comprehensive system. While conceding that there will be delays in selling the more radical idea of mandatory GLT, he said that in his experience, the effort involved would not be very much more than that of selling the idea of optional GLT.

23. Ms. Swati Ramanathan emphasised the point that the key principles that have to be embedded are an optional system with institutional separation for urban and rural that can be converged later. The administrative and political scalability for implementation has to be the key consideration. After configuring an optional GLT system, MoUD can provide the required support to States, including GIS technology.

24. Mr Iqbal Khan shared his experience of Rajasthan where the framework was built in the law and initially it was started only in Jaipur and given the complexities involved, it was decided to separate rural and urban.

24. Mr Charanjeet Singh pointed out that in the consultations that department of land resources has had with state representatives on 19th and 20th of July, it was ascertained that most States preferred an incremental system.

25. Concluding the discussion, Mr. AK. Mehta stated that one framework law, which contains the fundamentals and key principles of a GLT system, could serve the purpose of both urban and rural areas. He suggested that the DoLR draft, which is already in the public domain, could be used as a base plate on which urban concerns could be built up. Mr. Agrawal felt that we need to first look at the contents of the draft bill and not necessarily at the detailed articulation of the provisions. Ms. Swati Ramanathan agreed that the WG would articulate its points in the form of amendments if any suggested to the DoLR draft.

26. It was decided that since different agencies are seized of the matter, the WG should not duplicate any effort. Thus the DoLR draft would be used as the basic draft, to which amendments relevant for the Urban areas would be suggested. IUSP would propose the first draft of the amendments and circulate these to all WG members well before the next meeting, so that they can make detailed observations and comments on these suggestions.

27. The issue of developing guidelines for survey and other methodologies, including the documentation of best practices will be discussed at a later stage.

Agreed Schedule of WG meetings

(a) 3 Sept 2010: Presentation of draft framework laws and rules anchored by IUSP.

(b) Oct 1st Week: Survey methodologies and GIS techniques for the ground verifications.

(c) Nov 1st week: Process mapping.

(d) Dec 1st week: Presentation and discussion on enabling technology.

(e) Based on the discussion a final meeting to discuss and agree upon the guidelines for implementation.

Annexure

List of Participants

1. Mr. Navin Kumar, Secretary, MoUD.

2. Mr. N K Nampoothiry, Additional Secretary, Deptt. of Legislative Affairs, M/o Law

3. Mr. L.P. Sonkar, Sr. Advisor, Planning Commission,

4. Mr. A.K. Mehta, Jt. Secretary, MOUD, Convenor of the Project PLATINUM WG

5. Mr. P.K. Srivastava, Jt. Secy, JNNURM, MoUD, \

6. Mr. S.K. Singh, Jt. Secy, HUPA,

7. Ms. E.P. Nivedita, Director (LSG), MOUD

8. Mr. Ashutosh Dikshir, Jt. Secy, Tax Policy and legislation – 1, CBDT, Ministry of Finance,

9. Mr. Charanjit Singh, Director, Department of Land Resources,

10. Dr. V.Raghavaswamy, Group Director, (Urban )National Remote Sensing Agency,

11. Mr. V.K. Agrawal, Chairman & MD, AP Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd, AP,

12. Mr. Atul Sharma, Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer,

13. Mr. Iqbal Khan, Pvt. Secy. to Minister Medical and Health, Rajasthan,

14. Ms. Swati Ramanathan, Chairperson, India Urban Space Foundation, Co-Convenor of the Project PLATINUM WG.

Subject matter experts brought in by IUSF, in Law, Technology, GIS, Systems Processes, Surveying

15. Mr. TR Raghunandan, consultant, IUSP

16. Mr Tarun Sharma, Project Associate, IUSF

17. Mr. T Koshy, ED, NDML

18. Mr. Rajesh Mathur, ESRI

19. Mr. Ashok Rao, NCRCL