1st Meeting - Ministry of Urban Development

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
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 inprinciple
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 nonagricultural
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

e 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.
23. 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 19 th and 20 th 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 1 st Week: Survey methodologies and GIS techniques for the ground
verifications.
(c) Nov 1 st week: Process mapping.
(d) Dec 1 st week: Presentation and discussion on enabling technology.
(e) Based on the discussion a final meeting to discuss and agree upon the
guidelines for implementation.

1. Mr. Navin Kumar, Secretary, MoUD.
List of Participants
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,
Annexure
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. T Koshy, ED, NDML
17. Mr. Rajesh Mathur, ESRI
18. Mr. Ashok Rao, NCRCL

N 11025/61/2009 UCD
Government of India
Ministry of Urban Development
UCD/LSG SECTION
202C, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi - 11, Dated, 19 August 2010
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Project Partnership for Land Title Implementation for Urban Management (Project
PLATINUM) - Minutes of the 1st Meeting of the Working Group
The undersigned is directed to forward herewith minutes of the 1st Meeting of the Working
Group of Project Platinum held under the chairmanship of Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development
on 28.7.2010 at 11:00 AM at New Delhi for kind information.
Encl: As above
To
All the Members of the above working group as per list attached
Copy for kind information to:-
1. Sr. PPS to Secretary (UD), MOUD
2. PS. to JS(UD), MOUD
3. PS to DIrector (LSG), MOUD
(R.Sathyanarayanan)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
Telefax: 23061072

LIST
1. Shri Navin Kumar, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Chairperson
2. Additional Secretary, Legislative Department. Ministry of Law, Member
3. Additional Secretary, Department of Land Resources, Member
4. Shri Ashutosh Dikshit, Joint Secretary, Tax Policy and legislation – 1, Ministry of
Finance, Member
5. Shri S.P. Sonkar, Advisor, Planning commission, Member
6. Shri PK Srivastava, Joint Secretary JNNURM, Ministry of Urban Development, Member
7. Shri SK Singh, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation,
Member
8. Shri V Jayaraman, Director, National Remote Sensing Agency, Member
9. Shri Manu Kumar Srivastava, Secretary, Urban Development Department, Maharashtra
, Member
10. Shri G.K.Bore Gowda Secretary, Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation, Karnataka,
Member
11. Shri Atul Sharma, Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer,Rajasthan , Member
12. Shri Iqbal Khan, Rajasthan Administrative Service, Govt. of Rajasthan, Member
13. Shri Vinod Agarwal, Chairman & MD, AP Industrial Development Copn. Ltd,
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Member
14. Shri TR Raghunandan, IAS(Retd), Subject matter expert
15. Shri T Koshy, NSDL Database Management Limited (NDML), Subject matter expert
16. Shri Rajesh Mathur, ESRI India, Subject matter expert
17. Shri RS Murali, NCR Consultants Limited (NCRCL), Subject matter expert
18. Shri A.K. Mehta, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Convenor of the
National Working Group
19. Ms. Swati Ramanathan Chairperson, India Urban Space Foundation, Co-Convenor of
the National Working Group