THERE has been a lot of talks recently about computerisation of the land record system and its benefits. Access to capital would increase as a computerised system would facilitate disbursement of loans to farmers who use land as collateral.

It would also reduce the burden on courts by decreasing the number of land disputes.

But there is a catch that lies in the very nature of the land registration system. The records-of-rights of land registers fiscal titles; the person shown on the records is the person who is responsible for paying land revenue or property tax and is assumed to be the owner, unless proved otherwise. The title to land, therefore, is only incidental.

This system is rooted in the history of the subcontinent; it was started by Sher Shah Suri and implemented on a large scale by the British. The system is based on the logic of revenue extraction and was adapted around collection of revenue. Tax on agricultural land, the primary source of government revenues, required identification of those responsible for paying it.

The record, updated to reflect changes of ownership was, and continues to be maintained by one central agency in the provincial government, the Board of Revenue. It was for this reason that, over time, a presumption of truth has become attached to this record and it has become the principal source/document deciding the title of agricultural land. These records constitute the principal documentation of titles on agricultural land, even though land revenue has declined in significance; and there are problems in the accuracy and completeness of these records.

In urban areas, however, there is no single agency keeping a conclusive record of rights of properties. A number of entities have been created over time to administer urban land; each has evolved its own procedures to record ownership and adapted its own practices of recording changes in the system.

This is quite different from the system in place in rural areas, where only the Board of Revenue maintains the record of rights in agricultural land. The law does not consider the provision of a certificate from the government guaranteeing that the person mentioned in the records-of-rights is the true owner. In other words, if the records are proved wrong later, the state cannot be taken to court and legal proceedings cannot be filed against it, except under public interest legislation.

The records-of-rights in land and other legal provisions suggest a structure, at least in theory, of records in which all transactions are noted. Entries made with respect to transactions are not viewed as conclusive evidence, though these may be viewed, in the courts of the land, as having a presumptive status; the records are taken at face value. The entries can be challenged in courts since there is no guarantee of title envisaged in the law.

The Transfer of Property Act also does not consider that the state should guarantee title to property. Any document of title provided by the vendor to the vendee do not certify title; they are private documents relating to a transaction between private parties confirming only one transaction in an entire chain of transactions. By entering the transaction in the official records, the registrar only confirms the validity and accuracy of the document; he does not give any assurance of title to the transferor of the property.

Keeping this in mind, it becomes obvious that mere computerisation of land records is not the answer to all the problems. In my opinion, the first step towards improving the system is to provide a guarantee of title, which is in no way related to computerisation of land records. Laws regarding land ownership and transfers need to be reviewed. “Who owns what”- should not be recorded on the basis of collecting tax revenue but rather on providing safe and secure title to the common man.

I am not implying that changing the system is a small measure. One of its outcomes would be to take power away from the Patwaris.

That alone is a huge step and will be resisted from vested interests. In an age where costs are rising fast, a fair and efficient system needs to be developed. Now efficiency is where computerisation would make its contribution.

But putting in place a land registration system, which provides a state guarantee of title, rather than using the records of the Board of Revenue, would be the first step forward. That basic flaw needs to be taken care off before we even try to make the system function fairly and efficiently.