The Andhra Pradesh government has mandated compulsory registration of all land in the state and is currently undertaking resurveys across all its districts. The efforts are part of the government’s move to implement the Andhra Pradesh Land Titling Act, which seeks to facilitate permanent title for immovable properties and a new system for more efficient dispute resolution. The Act and its implementation have been received with widespread criticism from the opposition Telugu Desam Party (TDP), advocates, and other activists. In fact, the Act is likely to become a key election topic, with the TDP promising to revoke it if it comes to power in the upcoming Assembly polls.
Opponents of the Act say that instead of bringing about efficient resolution of existing disputes, such compulsory registration and resurveys will lead to newer disputes. Other issues raised include the lack of qualification of the officers who are to conduct the surveys and chair the appellate tribunals. The Act’s provision that appeals against the tribunal cannot be filed in lower courts, but only in the High Court saw strong opposition from advocates practising in the state. On January 3, hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanding the repeal of the Act, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that civil courts can hear land dispute cases until further orders.
According to AP Revenue Minister Dharmana Prasad Rao, current revenue records are based on the survey conducted by the colonial government, which aimed to maximise land revenue. The state government began the resurvey of lands in the state in 2021 under Jagananna Saswatha Bhu Hakku Bhu Raksha Scheme, even before the Bill was passed. The government has also allocated nearly Rs 1000 crore to implement latest technologies such as drones, aircraft, and rovers for surveying. According to the state government, Phase 3 of the survey is currently underway in 2000 villages, and as of December 21, 2023, final revenue records for 1229 have been completed.
The NITI Aayog prepared a Model Model Bill on Conclusive Land Titling in 2021. Andhra Pradesh is the first state in the country to implement the Act. An understanding of the procedures laid out by the Act is important in the discussion of the issues that it will give rise to.
Registration procedure laid out by the Act
The Appellate Authority prescribed in the Act comprises a chairperson and three members. It frames regulations and appoints any number of Title Registration Officers (TRO) and one or two Land Titling Appellate Officers in each district. The Authority also notifies the final Register of Titles. The chairperson will be the Special Chief Secretary or someone of Principal Secretary rank in the government, while the three members have to be of Joint Secretary rank.
The TRO is tasked with creating a preliminary record for each immovable property within the designated area utilising existing information from various records as prescribed. Subsequently, the TRO is required to publish a notification, along with the tentative record of titles. Individuals can raise objections to this. The parties involved are summoned periodically for the resolution of claims.
In accordance with the procedure, the TRO makes entries including the disputed ones in the three digital registers, namely, Register of Titles, Register of Disputes, and Register of Charges and Covenant. Entries in the Register of Titles become permanent after two years from the date of notification, unless modified by an order from the Land Titling Appellate Officer or another competent authority. All these records are acceptable as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.
Within 15 days of the TRO's order, any objection may be raised to the Land Titling Appellate Officers, who then begin proceedings with the parties concerned. Following an enquiry, an order for the registration of the title in the Register of Titles is issued.
During the course of enquiry, the individual is to furnish any additional information requested by the officers within the specified period. Wilful concealment of such information could lead to imprisonment for a term up to six months or a fine up to Rs 50,000, or both.
Major objections to the Act
The Act has become a contentious issue with advocates from across the state demanding its repeal, while activists are divided on their opinions about it.
Property owners are likely to face several issues during and after the implementation of the Act, said Kuppali Muralidhar, a senior lawyer from the Visakhapatnam Bar Association. “The individual may not be present when the officer arrives to issue the order following the survey. In cases of ancestral property, what can be done if the person holding the property chooses to conceal from the officer the fact that the property is disputed? How do other legal heirs know that the property is disputed?” He also added that it would be challenging to deal with forged documents during the enquiry as officers may act under pressure from dominant parties and lead to corruption.
Citing this and several other issues, the All India Lawyers Union (AILU) state president Sunkara Rajendra Prasad filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday, December 28, appealing to scrap the Act. A similar PIL was filed by the Kurnool Bar Association also. The PIL expressed concern over the safety of public properties and argued that some of the Act’s provisions only allow for additional litigation to be filed against properties that are free from disputes.It also sought interim directions to the civil courts to not reject already existing property dispute cases.
“The Act prescribes that those who own any kind of immovable property must register it with the Title Registration Officer to obtain a permanent title, irrespective of whether the property ownership is disputed. Compulsory registration will cause more disputes for asset owners belonging to Dalit, Adivasi, and Backward Classes. It is also a breach of their right to privacy. When ownership is uncontested, it would be a burden for the people to register their properties again and it would lead to more disputes,” UG Srinivasulu, an advocate and president of Andhra Pradesh Human Rights Forum (HRF) told TNM.
Srinivasulu also questioned why the government did not consult opposition parties and the civil society while drafting the law.
The Act stated, “No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in respect of any matter, in which any Title Registration Officer and Land Titling Appellate Officer appointed under this Act, are empowered by or under this Act to determine.” This means that appeals to the decisions of the officers will need to be filed in the High Court. It is feared that this will affect the jobs of several advocates practising in the lower courts.
However, the jobs of advocates is not the only thing on the line, says Srinivasulu. “It is true that advocates are worried about the profession. But that is not all. People who are unhappy with the appellate authority have to go to the High court, which involves logistical challenges. A small-scale farmer may not be able to go to the High Court always due to financial issues.”
Even though the government has clarified that they can appear on behalf of individuals, advocates argue that the officers authorised to provide land titles as per the new Act are not trained in the legal aspects of the existing revenue laws to do so. Bar associations throughout the state are boycotting proceedings in protest.
Kuppali Muralidhar, said, “It is unclear how officers who have different sets of job skills can make judgements. They have not been trained.”
The solution, according to Srinivasulu, lies in establishing more civil courts. “The government should establish more civil courts and make sure that the legal process moves quickly if it really wants to safeguard citizens' immovable property. Dealing with revenue matters requires a great deal of legal knowledge. How can 26 tribunals clear thousands of disputes? Even the delays in civil courts are mostly due to problems that occur at local revenue offices,” he said.
Another major objection to the Act is that its proceedings are guided by the principles of natural justice and not the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). However, Ajay Kumar PS, an Adivasi and farmer rights activist, said that the Act itself is not wrong, even though there will be practical challenges. “People are not aware of the CPC, so a lawyer is hired. The new Act makes the process less formal, with officers employed to solve disputes. In revenue matters, discussion with parties and field inquiry is more important. If the lower level officers give titles without proper enquiry, one can complain to the Collector. No institution is pure, but in this case accessibility has increased. An individual can visit the officer multiple times.”
However, such provisions already exist, said Ajay Kumar, adding, “There are already provisions in place that explain such a system. Land disputes in tribal areas can be resolved at the revenue offices for grievance redressal. It has been in practice since the British era, when it was recognised that people needed money to access the courts because they were located outside of their communities.”
While commending the accessibility that the new Act aims to ensure, Ajay Kumar cautioned that the lack of human resource can lead to errors at every stage of surveying. “Revenue officers have other responsibilities too. They would be burdened with the additional surveying work.”
Ajay also questioned the need for taking up the land survey in a hurried manner before elections. “Human errors are caused by scant resources and tight deadlines,” he pointed out.
One activist told TNM that the surveyor's notice produced upon completing the survey of his land listed more land than he actually owned. “The government move to resurvey the land is appreciable because it is a herculean task. Using technology for faster survey is causing errors in the properties which are undisputed too,” he said.