1st Meeting - Ministry of Urban Development
1st Meeting - Ministry of Urban Development
1st Meeting - Ministry of Urban Development
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
MINUTES OF<br />
1ST MEETING OF THE PROJECT PLATINUM NATIONAL WORKING GROUP<br />
FOR<br />
CREATION OF THE NATIONAL GUIDELINES ON GUARANTEED<br />
LAND TITLE IN URBAN AREAS<br />
11:00 AM, 28.07.2010, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI<br />
The first meeting <strong>of</strong> the Working group established under Project<br />
Platinum was held on 28 July 2010 at the Conference Hall <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Ministry</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Urban</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Government <strong>of</strong> India, (MoUD) under the chairpersonship<br />
<strong>of</strong> Mr. Navin Kumar, Secretary, <strong>Ministry</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Urban</strong> <strong>Development</strong>, The list <strong>of</strong><br />
participants is annexed.<br />
2. Secretary welcomed the participants. Director (LSG) stated that<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> guaranteed land title which was one <strong>of</strong> the reforms under<br />
the JNNURM has not been implemented by most <strong>of</strong> the states. With a view to<br />
facilitate implementation, the MoUD had constituted a Committee headed by<br />
Shri Arun Mehta, Joint Secretary, MoUD following which an advisory was<br />
issued to the state government. Subsequently, the IUSF came forward with a<br />
proposal to set up a Working Group in collaboration with the MoUD.<br />
Consequently, MoUD and IUSF signed a MoU under which this Working<br />
Group (WG) was set up, to suggest detailed modalities for the design and<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> a Guaranteed Land Titling (GLT) system for urban areas.<br />
3. Ms. Swati Ramanathan, co-convenor <strong>of</strong> the WG, welcomed the participants.<br />
Setting the context for Project PLATINUM through a presentation, she<br />
stressed that ownership issues concerning land have been stumbling blocks for<br />
urban governance, planning, and provision <strong>of</strong> infrastructure services and<br />
pointed out that that Project PLATINUM is a reflection <strong>of</strong> the high priority set<br />
by the GoI upon providing support to states for actual implementation <strong>of</strong> such<br />
a system. She commenced with a presentation <strong>of</strong> a case study <strong>of</strong> the acquisition<br />
<strong>of</strong> land by a company involved in providing affordable housing in Bangalore,<br />
which brought out the uncertainties that are confronted in tracing and proving<br />
ownership, caused due to complexities in land transactions and gaps in record<br />
maintenance. Stressing once more the need for a GLT system, she made the<br />
following specific points:<br />
(a) Given the implications that it has for economic investment and growth,<br />
social justice, infrastructure & housing projects, governance & planning for
urban areas, the country is at an inflection point where it needs reforms in<br />
the direction <strong>of</strong> GLT, to keep pace with increasing urbanization.<br />
(b) The matter is now being articulated by the GOI and a few States are<br />
piloting reforms in this direction.<br />
(c) However, given the recent experience in Rajasthan and Karnataka there are<br />
hurdles in embracing such a system at the state level. Even if there is inprinciple<br />
acceptance, the political and administrative systems have to align<br />
to successfully conceive <strong>of</strong> and implement it.<br />
(d) The operational details need to be fleshed out include process changes,<br />
institutional structures and enabling technologies that combine into a final<br />
implementable solution.<br />
(e) For a systemic solution, land related transactions have to be mapped in<br />
great detail from the point when the owner applies for GLT, to the steps for<br />
verifying ownership, conduct <strong>of</strong> surveys, leading to the provision <strong>of</strong> a GLT.<br />
(f) The technological backbone <strong>of</strong> a system providing for these was designed<br />
by NSDL and NCRCL while working in Rajasthan. The documentation <strong>of</strong><br />
Ground Rules shared with the WG is also an output drawn from the<br />
Rajasthan experience.<br />
(g) In this context, the broad mandate <strong>of</strong> Project PLATINUM as follows:<br />
(i)Develop National Guidelines for implementation <strong>of</strong> an urban GLT<br />
system, for States,<br />
(ii) Develop a framework law and rules for urban and potential urban areas<br />
(which will include amendments to central laws);<br />
(iii)Determine survey methodologies and techniques for identifying present<br />
boundaries and ownerships;<br />
(iv)Design the use <strong>of</strong> technology to manage upscaling <strong>of</strong> a GLT system<br />
(v)Determine incentive systems that States can adopt for persuading people<br />
to go in for a GLT system<br />
(vi)Assist one state in implementing a GLT system in a chosen city
(vii) Create online and <strong>of</strong>fline platforms for States to share experiences and<br />
lessons learnt.<br />
(h) The best <strong>of</strong> what has been done so far could be incorporated into a<br />
framework law and rules, which would provide a framework and incentives for<br />
transition into a system that provides conclusive ownership <strong>of</strong> land, with<br />
undisputed boundaries and simplify transactions on land. The critical<br />
considerations for the framework law would be:<br />
(i) The institutional structure for GLT implementation, including dispute<br />
resolution, regulation and convergence <strong>of</strong> urban and rural systems<br />
(ii) Whether the GLT system should be optional or mandatory.<br />
(iii) What and how much ought to be the incentives for implementing GLT.<br />
(iv) Transitional modalities,<br />
(v) The economics <strong>of</strong> an indemnity fund and the cost faced by citizens to<br />
transit to a GLT system.<br />
Gist <strong>of</strong> the discussions:<br />
1. Mr AK Mehta, Joint Secretary (MOUD) stated that a decision is needed<br />
on whether GLT is to be triggered by individual applications for it, or<br />
whether all land records are to be surveyed and a register maintained by the<br />
government, from which individual applicants can obtain the title when<br />
required. In response, Ms. Swati Ramanathan stated that the system<br />
would be an optional one, where GLT would be triggered by individual<br />
applications. However, once an application is received, then onus is on the<br />
Government to verify the applicants’ claim <strong>of</strong> ownership and that the<br />
boundaries are legitimate before granting a GLT.<br />
2. Mr. SK Singh, Joint Secretary, M/o HUPA opined that it would be the<br />
State’s responsibility to provide conclusive land title. For this reason,<br />
separate approaches for GLT in urban and rural areas are not required, as<br />
also because urban expansion will take place into rural areas in the future,<br />
particularly for housing for the poor. He also said that India’s land record<br />
system is robust, even though it has not been updated and has not taken<br />
advantage <strong>of</strong> modern technology.
3. Mr. T. Koshy Executive Director NSDL, said that government could<br />
either take up a massive exercise <strong>of</strong> verifying all titles or it could prioritize<br />
the verification <strong>of</strong> lands that come up for transactions, so that people can<br />
obtain GLT as and when they need them.<br />
4. Mr Atul Sharma Div Com <strong>of</strong> Ajmer Division, stated that during the<br />
verification process, recording encumbrances such as whether the land is<br />
mortgaged or proposed to be acquired has to be verified.<br />
5. Mr Navin Kumar, Secretary MoUD stated that irrespective <strong>of</strong> whether<br />
GLT is mandatory or optional, once an extent <strong>of</strong> land has a clean title, all<br />
subsequent transactions on that land would be unambiguous. He opined that<br />
they best way might be to provide GLT on applications. Over a period <strong>of</strong><br />
time, all land can be guaranteed. In this process, there is a need for all these<br />
processes <strong>of</strong> due diligence to be digitised and standardized.<br />
6. Shri N.K.Nampoothiry Additional Secretary, <strong>Ministry</strong> <strong>of</strong> Law, enquired<br />
as who would decide the land title. Ms. Swati Ramanathan and Mr. AK<br />
Mehta replied that it could be verified from a title register. Mr AK Mehta<br />
said that MoUD had conceptualized that the existing record <strong>of</strong> rights would<br />
be first modified and a period <strong>of</strong> 3 to 5 years given to settle any<br />
ambiguities. Following this, undisputed properties would be transferred to<br />
the new title register. Furthermore, Ms. Swati Ramanathan stated, a<br />
provisional title will be issued initially, based upon documentary pro<strong>of</strong>, for<br />
which the evidential bar has to be very high. She also stated that deterrents<br />
would be in place to ensure that claimants with malafide intents are<br />
discouraged. Over time when the counterclaims are examined, provisional<br />
title will be transformed to conclusive title.<br />
7. Mr. Ashutosh Dikshit, Joint Secretary, CBDT, M/o Finance sought to<br />
know whether the new legislation would apply to all lands or just nonagricultural<br />
lands. This would have a bearing on the legislative competence<br />
<strong>of</strong> the centre to legislate upon this issue. Secetary MoUD responded that<br />
the issue <strong>of</strong> legislative competence can be considered once the processes for<br />
each step in GLT system have been identified.<br />
8. Responding to the points made so far, Mr.TR Raghunandan, IUSF stated<br />
that whether the GLT ought to be optional or mandatory would depend<br />
upon whether it is perceived as a public or private good. On the one hand if<br />
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<br />
other hand, citizens who seek GLT will be adding value to their own land<br />
and improve its marketability. He felt that an optional system would be<br />
tactically a better option, as putting in place a mandatory GLT system will<br />
involve huge time and financial cost. Responding to Mr. Nampoothiry’s<br />
question on the authority to grant title, he said that it would be done by a<br />
Land Title Certification Authority which would first give a provisional title<br />
and then a final conclusive title. The Department <strong>of</strong> Land Resources<br />
(DoLR) model act also has provision <strong>of</strong> such an authority. Responding to<br />
Mr Dikshit’s point on legislative competence he said that the objective is<br />
to formulate a framework law as a model for States and not for the Centre<br />
to legislate on its own.<br />
9. Secretary MoUD stated that the best should be extracted from the ongoing<br />
experiences <strong>of</strong> States and taken note by the WG. The system envisaged<br />
should ensure that rural and urban GLT processes are harmoniously<br />
converged in the future.<br />
10. Mr. A.K. Mehta mentioned that the Committee chaired by him had<br />
recommended a State guaranteed mandatory GLT system, institutional<br />
integration <strong>of</strong> rural and urban systems and an independent Land Title<br />
Authority. The committee also listed State and Central laws requiring<br />
amendments, including the Indian Registration Act 1908 and the Transfer<br />
<strong>of</strong> Property Act 1982.<br />
11. Mr. VK Agrawal, CMD, APIDC said that five points needed to be<br />
addressed, namely, first, the exact scope <strong>of</strong> a guaranteed title, second the<br />
existing laws, third, the various process options, fourth, the choice based on<br />
convenience and operational costs and last, the conceptualisation <strong>of</strong> the law<br />
required. He felt that if the DoLR draft bill fits the <strong>Urban</strong> context, then the<br />
WG needs to only suggest the modifications required to make it applicable<br />
to urban areas. In response, Ms. Swati Ramanathan felt that urban<br />
challenges are very different and therefore, rural and urban systems should<br />
go in parallel and converge at a later stage. Mr. Raghunandan mentioned<br />
that GLT for urban lands need to be brought on a fast-track given the high<br />
value <strong>of</strong> lands, more transactions and the relatively smaller parcels <strong>of</strong> land.<br />
This could be done through a universal law, but then other aspects have to<br />
be considered. DoLR’s draft bill proposes a mandatory system, which can<br />
be costly. The State indemnifying against errors in GLT should not become
a huge financial burden. In several cities, the concepts <strong>of</strong> city surveys don’t<br />
apply to and hence land surveys for urban areas don’t exist. Thus a new law<br />
for urban areas would be beneficial for such cities which would embark<br />
upon such processes for the first time. Mr VK Agrawal responded that in<br />
States where city surveys are not done, survey laws from other States could<br />
be modified to cover urban lands as well. He also said that the Framework<br />
law need not go into survey methodologies as different states have different<br />
methodologies and the matter is best left to them.<br />
12. Mr. T.Koshy gave an analogous example <strong>of</strong> the share market and said that<br />
what we need is an enabling law and a pre-verification process <strong>of</strong> title for<br />
such a system to be functional.<br />
13. Mr. Nampoothiry pointed out that legislative competence for a GLT<br />
system lies with States and it is important to know whether any state has<br />
itself sought to the centre for enacting such a law. He also saw no difference<br />
between urban and rural land in respect <strong>of</strong> administrative and legislative<br />
aspects. He said that the issue <strong>of</strong> what happens to title in case <strong>of</strong> unexpected<br />
deaths and subsequent inheritance also needs to be addressed. Citing<br />
Guyana’s example, he said that title is decided by judicial courts and not by<br />
deeds.<br />
14. Mr. Dikshit said that a financial simulation exercise should be carried out<br />
on the costs and benefits <strong>of</strong> compulsory GLT as against an optional system,<br />
based on assumptions regarding the number <strong>of</strong> disputes, value <strong>of</strong> land etc.<br />
directed at ascertaining the costs involved.<br />
15. Mr. Mehta said that moving to a GLT system is a reform conditionality<br />
under the JnNURM and the idea <strong>of</strong> a framework law and guidelines is<br />
based on a collaborative approach between the Centre, States and ULBs.<br />
There is a need to pilot the GLT approach in a city, following which more<br />
clarity will emerge.<br />
16. Mr. VK Agrawal stated that rights <strong>of</strong> rights over land maintenance <strong>of</strong> land<br />
records and land surveys are state subjects under the Seventh Schedule.<br />
There is nothing related to land in the Union list. Transfer <strong>of</strong> property and<br />
registration are concurrent subjects. He then made a presentation<br />
highlighting the legal changes needed for a guaranteed land title in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
what amendments or new statutes need to be made. He stated that<br />
fundamentally, a GLT system must provide for (a) a public record <strong>of</strong> titles<br />
(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,<br />
Mirror and Insurance system. Under the Curtain system, once Land Title is<br />
determined, a curtain is drawn over it and everything that has happened in<br />
the past is hidden. Under the Mirror system, whatever is the situation on the<br />
ground should be truly and faithfully registered. In an insurance system, the<br />
land titled should be insured against inaccuracies. GLT will also require<br />
that the registration system changes from a system <strong>of</strong> registration <strong>of</strong> deeds<br />
to one <strong>of</strong> registration <strong>of</strong> titles. There are four sources <strong>of</strong> transfer <strong>of</strong> title,<br />
namely, conferment from the crown, transfer, succession and adverse<br />
possession. Even a decree <strong>of</strong> title obtained through law gives only a right to<br />
the decree holder against the disputing party and not against the world at<br />
large. Regarding the transition to a GLT system, we need to make several<br />
downstream amendments. The Central registration act does not entail that<br />
State Registration Departments ensures the transfer <strong>of</strong> title; so it must be<br />
amended. The Indian Evidence act only gives presumptive value to revenue<br />
records and this needs to be amended. Whenever properties are to be<br />
registered, they must come with a title. Regarding the incremental<br />
approach, he felt that since only 2 % <strong>of</strong> properties are transferred every<br />
year, the transitional time taken for moving to a 100% GLT system would<br />
be very long. Moreover an incremental approach will also tend to drive<br />
those with disputed title underground – they will prefer to transfer lands<br />
through the informal route (power or attorney etc.) so as to avoid a GLT<br />
system. He suggested that we need to move into a system <strong>of</strong> public record<br />
<strong>of</strong> titles, where transfer <strong>of</strong> title by is by contract. This will require<br />
amendments to the Transfer <strong>of</strong> Property Act.<br />
17. Mr. VK Agrawal cited the pilot taken up in Nizamabad District <strong>of</strong> Andhra<br />
Pradesh, where the modalities <strong>of</strong> undertaking comprehensive surveys were<br />
attempted. 9 lakh properties across 8000 sq km <strong>of</strong> rural land were<br />
comprehensively surveyed and survey records given to property owners.<br />
field work was done by even matriculates after one months’ training. The<br />
surveys were outsourced and most were within acceptable limits <strong>of</strong><br />
accuracy. The cost <strong>of</strong> this pilot with survey and systemic titling was around<br />
Rs. 34 crores. Mr Agrawal estimated that it would cost around Rs. 1600<br />
crore for Andhra Pradesh and for India, around Rs. 20,000 crore. This pilot<br />
has been extended to 5 more districts. A draft law has now been prepared.<br />
The modalities under it are to undertake a resurvey; decide upon the title;<br />
provide for the unification <strong>of</strong> agencies dealing with title and modification <strong>of</strong><br />
the registration processes. Mr. Raghunandan sought to know what were<br />
the difficulties faced in surveying urban areas. Mr. VK Agrawal clarified<br />
that urban surveys were not attempted in the pilot. He pointed out that the
methodology for surveys and the levels <strong>of</strong> resolutions required to capture<br />
details are different for rural and urban areas. Cost and time effective<br />
techniques needed to be devised and adopted for urban areas. Aerial<br />
surveys and satellite imagery can only be used as a guide and ground<br />
surveys have to be done for measurements. Regarding the accuracy <strong>of</strong><br />
surveys, he stated that when objections were called for, they were raised<br />
only in respect <strong>of</strong> 1.2% <strong>of</strong> the properties. Of these, only 0.4 percent was<br />
found to be valid. Ms. Swati Ramanathan pointed out that in Rajasthan<br />
there was a huge disparity between aerial images and the reality on the<br />
ground. Mr. VK Agrawal responded that resurveys are essential, as<br />
boundaries change. The accuracy <strong>of</strong> measurement processes and<br />
measurement tools are very critical to survey the area and extent <strong>of</strong><br />
boundaries. Mr. Nampoothiri asked how unique ids would be given in<br />
case <strong>of</strong> subdivisions <strong>of</strong> already existing property. Mr VK Agrawal<br />
responded by saying that new unique ids will be issued. Mr Koshy<br />
reflected whether there would be serious implications if no GLT is given<br />
for a particular land for which no transaction takes place for a long time. To<br />
this Mr. Agrawal replied that since bringing land under titles insulates it<br />
from future disputes it’s better to put in a universal GLT system in place as<br />
soon as possible.<br />
18. The Representative <strong>of</strong> the National Remote Sensing Agency, Mr. V<br />
Raghavaswamy stated that the standard <strong>of</strong> accuracy required for urban<br />
areas is 5 cms and in rural areas 20 cms. The best satellite imagery available<br />
in the past was 51 cms. For the NUIS, which covers 24 towns, aerial<br />
photography was undertaken from an altitude <strong>of</strong> 4000 feet. Now large<br />
format digital camera systems are available, which gives an accuracy <strong>of</strong> 5<br />
percent. So far, 50 percent <strong>of</strong> the ground measurement has been completed.<br />
However, photography is only for providing base maps and ground surveys<br />
are essential.<br />
Next steps:<br />
19. Ms. Swati Ramanathan said that the proposed framework law should<br />
ensure that urban and rural challenges are both addressed adequately. She<br />
highlighted that conceptualisation and implementation <strong>of</strong> a GLT system<br />
requires approval from political leaders <strong>of</strong> all hues, bureaucracy and the<br />
public at large. Given the wide ranging implications <strong>of</strong> such a switch-over
and based upon her experience in Rajasthan, she believed that an option<br />
GLT system is feasible, and not a mandatory system. She recalled that the<br />
effort <strong>of</strong> convincing the political and departmental leadership in Rajasthan<br />
for going in for a GLT system took four years and there was acceptance<br />
only when it was positioned as an optional approach.<br />
20. Mr. Raghunandan said that since urban areas differ substantially from<br />
rural areas in terms <strong>of</strong> the challenges to identifying and measuring<br />
properties, there is a justification for more detailing <strong>of</strong> the processes<br />
required for urban areas even when the law can be a universal one.<br />
21. Mr. Rajesh Mathur that along with satellite imagery which gives only the<br />
property footprint, door to door survey has to be done always.<br />
22. Mr. VK Agrawal said that even in Andhra, since it will take time to<br />
undertake such a process, it was decided that in the initial five years GLT<br />
will be optional and then made mandatory. He pointed out that the DoLR<br />
also were inclined to first go in for optional GLT, which would then be<br />
converted to a mandatory titling system after a specified period. He<br />
believed that the incremental system can tend to be long drawn out. He also<br />
stated that the revenue administration is used to a system <strong>of</strong> periodic<br />
comprehensive surveys under the law and therefore, this favours opting for<br />
a comprehensive system. While conceding that there will be delays in<br />
selling the more radical idea <strong>of</strong> mandatory GLT, he said that in his<br />
experience, the effort involved would not be very much more than that <strong>of</strong><br />
selling the idea <strong>of</strong> optional GLT.<br />
23. Ms. Swati Ramanathan emphasised the point that the key principles that<br />
have to be embedded are an optional system with institutional separation for<br />
urban and rural that can be converged later. The administrative and political<br />
scalability for implementation has to be the key consideration. After<br />
configuring an optional GLT system, MoUD can provide the required<br />
support to States, including GIS technology.<br />
23. Mr Iqbal Khan shared his experience <strong>of</strong> Rajasthan where the framework<br />
was built in the law and initially it was started only in Jaipur and given the<br />
complexities involved, it was decided to separate rural and urban.
24. Mr Charanjeet Singh pointed out that in the consultations that department<br />
<strong>of</strong> land resources has had with state representatives on 19 th and 20 th <strong>of</strong> July,<br />
it was ascertained that most States preferred an incremental system.<br />
25. Concluding the discussion, Mr. AK. Mehta stated that one framework law,<br />
which contains the fundamentals and key principles <strong>of</strong> a GLT system, could<br />
serve the purpose <strong>of</strong> both urban and rural areas. He suggested that the<br />
DoLR draft, which is already in the public domain, could be used as a base<br />
plate on which urban concerns could be built up. Mr. Agrawal felt that we<br />
need to first look at the contents <strong>of</strong> the draft bill and not necessarily at the<br />
detailed articulation <strong>of</strong> the provisions. Ms. Swati Ramanathan agreed that<br />
the WG would articulate its points in the form <strong>of</strong> amendments if any<br />
suggested to the DoLR draft.<br />
26. It was decided that since different agencies are seized <strong>of</strong> the matter, the WG<br />
should not duplicate any effort. Thus the DoLR draft would be used as the<br />
basic draft, to which amendments relevant for the <strong>Urban</strong> areas would be<br />
suggested. IUSP would propose the first draft <strong>of</strong> the amendments and<br />
circulate these to all WG members well before the next meeting, so that<br />
they can make detailed observations and comments on these suggestions.<br />
27. The issue <strong>of</strong> developing guidelines for survey and other methodologies,<br />
including the documentation <strong>of</strong> best practices will be discussed at a later<br />
stage.<br />
Agreed Schedule <strong>of</strong> WG meetings<br />
(a) 3 Sept 2010: Presentation <strong>of</strong> draft framework laws and rules anchored<br />
by IUSP.<br />
(b) Oct 1 st Week: Survey methodologies and GIS techniques for the ground<br />
verifications.<br />
(c) Nov 1 st week: Process mapping.<br />
(d) Dec 1 st week: Presentation and discussion on enabling technology.<br />
(e) Based on the discussion a final meeting to discuss and agree upon the<br />
guidelines for implementation.
1. Mr. Navin Kumar, Secretary, MoUD.<br />
List <strong>of</strong> Participants<br />
2. Mr. N K Nampoothiry, Additional Secretary, Deptt. <strong>of</strong> Legislative Affairs, M/o Law<br />
3. Mr. L.P. Sonkar, Sr. Advisor, Planning Commission,<br />
4. Mr. A.K. Mehta, Jt. Secretary, MOUD, Convenor <strong>of</strong> the Project PLATINUM WG<br />
5. Mr. P.K. Srivastava, Jt. Secy, JNNURM, MoUD, \<br />
6. Mr. S.K. Singh, Jt. Secy, HUPA,<br />
7. Ms. E.P. Nivedita, Director (LSG), MOUD<br />
8. Mr. Ashutosh Dikshir, Jt. Secy, Tax Policy and legislation – 1, CBDT, <strong>Ministry</strong> <strong>of</strong> Finance,<br />
9. Mr. Charanjit Singh, Director, Department <strong>of</strong> Land Resources,<br />
10. Dr. V.Raghavaswamy, Group Director, (<strong>Urban</strong> )National Remote Sensing Agency,<br />
11. Mr. V.K. Agrawal, Chairman & MD, AP Industrial <strong>Development</strong> Corpn. Ltd, AP,<br />
12. Mr. Atul Sharma, Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer,<br />
13. Mr. Iqbal Khan, Pvt. Secy. to Minister Medical and Health, Rajasthan,<br />
Annexure<br />
14. Ms. Swati Ramanathan, Chairperson, India <strong>Urban</strong> Space Foundation, Co-Convenor <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Project PLATINUM WG.<br />
Subject matter experts brought in by IUSF, in Law, Technology, GIS, Systems Processes,<br />
Surveying<br />
15. Mr. TR Raghunandan, consultant, IUSP<br />
16. Mr. T Koshy, ED, NDML<br />
17. Mr. Rajesh Mathur, ESRI<br />
18. Mr. Ashok Rao, NCRCL
N 11025/61/2009 UCD<br />
Government <strong>of</strong> India<br />
<strong>Ministry</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Urban</strong> <strong>Development</strong><br />
UCD/LSG SECTION<br />
202C, Nirman Bhawan<br />
New Delhi - 11, Dated, 19 August 2010<br />
OFFICE MEMORANDUM<br />
Subject: Project Partnership for Land Title Implementation for <strong>Urban</strong> Management (Project<br />
PLATINUM) - Minutes <strong>of</strong> the <strong>1st</strong> <strong>Meeting</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Working Group<br />
The undersigned is directed to forward herewith minutes <strong>of</strong> the <strong>1st</strong> <strong>Meeting</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Working<br />
Group <strong>of</strong> Project Platinum held under the chairmanship <strong>of</strong> Secretary, <strong>Ministry</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Urban</strong> <strong>Development</strong><br />
on 28.7.2010 at 11:00 AM at New Delhi for kind information.<br />
Encl: As above<br />
To<br />
All the Members <strong>of</strong> the above working group as per list attached<br />
Copy for kind information to:-<br />
1. Sr. PPS to Secretary (UD), MOUD<br />
2. PS. to JS(UD), MOUD<br />
3. PS to DIrector (LSG), MOUD<br />
(R.Sathyanarayanan)<br />
Under Secretary to the Govt. <strong>of</strong> India<br />
Telefax: 23061072
LIST<br />
1. Shri Navin Kumar, Secretary, <strong>Ministry</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Urban</strong> <strong>Development</strong>, Chairperson<br />
2. Additional Secretary, Legislative Department. <strong>Ministry</strong> <strong>of</strong> Law, Member<br />
3. Additional Secretary, Department <strong>of</strong> Land Resources, Member<br />
4. Shri Ashutosh Dikshit, Joint Secretary, Tax Policy and legislation – 1, <strong>Ministry</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
Finance, Member<br />
5. Shri S.P. Sonkar, Advisor, Planning commission, Member<br />
6. Shri PK Srivastava, Joint Secretary JNNURM, <strong>Ministry</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Urban</strong> <strong>Development</strong>, Member<br />
7. Shri SK Singh, Joint Secretary, <strong>Ministry</strong> <strong>of</strong> Housing & <strong>Urban</strong> Poverty Alleviation,<br />
Member<br />
8. Shri V Jayaraman, Director, National Remote Sensing Agency, Member<br />
9. Shri Manu Kumar Srivastava, Secretary, <strong>Urban</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Department, Maharashtra<br />
, Member<br />
10. Shri G.K.Bore Gowda Secretary, Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation, Karnataka,<br />
Member<br />
11. Shri Atul Sharma, Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer,Rajasthan , Member<br />
12. Shri Iqbal Khan, Rajasthan Administrative Service, Govt. <strong>of</strong> Rajasthan, Member<br />
13. Shri Vinod Agarwal, Chairman & MD, AP Industrial <strong>Development</strong> Copn. Ltd,<br />
Government <strong>of</strong> Andhra Pradesh, Member<br />
14. Shri TR Raghunandan, IAS(Retd), Subject matter expert<br />
15. Shri T Koshy, NSDL Database Management Limited (NDML), Subject matter expert<br />
16. Shri Rajesh Mathur, ESRI India, Subject matter expert<br />
17. Shri RS Murali, NCR Consultants Limited (NCRCL), Subject matter expert<br />
18. Shri A.K. Mehta, Joint Secretary, <strong>Ministry</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Urban</strong> <strong>Development</strong>, Convenor <strong>of</strong> the<br />
National Working Group<br />
19. Ms. Swati Ramanathan Chairperson, India <strong>Urban</strong> Space Foundation, Co-Convenor <strong>of</strong><br />
the National Working Group