Digitisation vs Discretion: Are Revenue Authorities Losing Control over Urban Land Governance?

Introduction

India’s land governance system has transformed rapidly through digitisation. Online mutation portals, e-registration systems, GIS-linked land records, and automated approvals are now widely used to improve transparency, reduce transaction costs, and curb discretionary abuse. Under the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme (DILRMP), States have integrated textual records, cadastral maps, and registration databases. Urban local bodies increasingly process mutations, Non-Agricultural (NA) conversions, and development permissions through digital platforms with minimal human interface.

This shift raises an important structural question: are revenue authorities gradually losing effective control over urban land governance? While discretion has often been associated with delay and opacity, it also enabled contextual decision-making and dispute resolution. Replacing discretion with automated workflows creates concerns about accountability, error correction, and the management of legacy land issues.

Traditional Role of Revenue Authorities

Revenue authorities historically played a central role in land governance, overseeing ownership, use, and transfer. Their responsibilities included NA permissions, land-use conversion, mutation dispute resolution, and maintenance of Records of Rights. They also regulated subdivision and fragmentation, particularly in areas shifting from rural to urban use.

These functions required administrative discretion. Officers assessed possession claims, inheritance disputes, historical land use, and planning compliance. Though discretion sometimes led to inconsistency, it allowed authorities to manage informal land transitions common in peri-urban regions. Revenue authorities also linked planning laws, municipal regulations, and property ownership, acting as gatekeepers before development rights could be exercised.

The Push Towards Digitisation

Digitisation has been driven by efficiency, transparency, and ease of doing business. Standardised, rule-based procedures aim to reduce delays and corruption. Reliable digital land systems are also seen as essential for attracting real estate and infrastructure investment.

Through DILRMP, States have digitised land records, mutation registers, registration data, and cadastral maps. Many now report near-complete digitisation of urban records, supported by integration between registration and revenue databases.

Urban Expansion and the Diminishing Role of Revenue Authorities

Rapid urbanisation has blurred the boundary between agricultural and non-agricultural land. Expanding municipal limits have absorbed areas once governed by agricultural land laws. Legislative reforms, including repeal or dilution of certain land-use controls, signal a broader shift from revenue-centric regulation to planning-led governance.

Digitisation strengthens this transition. While digital platforms efficiently process standard transactions, they struggle with competing title claims, inheritance disputes, informal partitions, and historical record errors. Automated mutation systems rely on uploaded documents and preset rules, leaving little scope for scrutiny. When disputes arise, applications are often rejected or stalled, forcing parties toward judicial remedies. Discretion has declined without a replacement adjudicatory mechanism.

Implications for Stakeholders

For developers and investors, digitisation improves speed but introduces risk. Clean digital records may create a false sense of title certainty where legacy defects persist. Limited administrative remedies have increased reliance on civil litigation and independent legal due diligence. Financial institutions continue to require title opinions despite clear digital entries.

Homebuyers benefit from easier access to records but face challenges correcting discrepancies. Even minor errors often require court intervention, widening the gap between digital clarity and legal certainty.

Conclusion

India stands at a critical juncture in urban land governance. Digitisation has enhanced efficiency and transparency but weakened the regulatory role of revenue authorities without creating adequate substitutes. Revenue administration risks becoming clerical rather than regulatory. The future lies in systems where technological efficiency coexists with limited, transparent, and accountable human judgment to ensure legal coherence and justice.