Judicial review and executive responsibility in land governance
India does not merely suffer from outdated land records. It suffers from a deeper structural confusion between the roles of the judiciary and the executive in determining land title. For decades, civil litigation has quietly evolved into a parallel mechanism for manufacturing ownership. A school of thought, rightly or wrongly, is of the view that courts, meant to adjudicate disputes between parties, have seemingly veered into the realm of land settlement. As per its logic, this palpable institutional drift is neither
sustainable nor constitutionally sound. Land titling is fundamentally an executive responsibility.
A civil court decree determines who has the better claim between contesting parties. It does not invite objections from all stakeholders. And crucially, it does not bind the world at large. It does not confer title erga omnes (against the world). Nor does it cleanse historical defects in ownership. Yet, in practice, decrees are routinely treated as if they confer definitive ownership. They are used to mutate revenue records, secure loans, transact property, and extinguish competing claims. What is meant to be inter se adjudication becomes, in effect, a substitute for comprehensive settlement.
This distortion thrives in the vacuum created by weak or outdated survey-and-settlement mechanisms. Where the State does not conclusively settle ownership, litigation rushes in. Over time, precedents accumulate. Judicial pronouncements pile upon one another. Gradually, a fiction-that title flows from decrees rather than from a legally mandated settlement process-ostensibly takes root. The consequences are systemic. Across states, collusive title suits have emerged as a quiet menace. Two parties approach court. One claims ownership; the other offers token resistance or none at all. A decree follows. That decree becomes the basis for altering land records. Third parties are never heard. Local communities remain unaware. Public authorities may fail to contest effectively. Government lands have frequently slipped away through such decrees. The judiciary can only decide what is placed before it. It cannot examine the integrity of the entire spatial and textual record of a locality while resolving a private dispute. But when decrees are treated as instruments of title, their consequences extend far beyond the courtroom. The greatest sufferer is, quite often, the State itself. Governments spend years attempting to reclaim land lost through poorly defended or strategically orchestrated suits. Taxpayer resources are
consumed in appeals and fresh rounds of litigation.
Civil courts are not designed to function as cadastral authorities. They do not maintain geo-referenced maps. They do not reconcile ground measurements with textual records at scale. They do not conduct mass public notifications inviting objections from all affected stakeholders. They are institutions of adjudication, not of territorial verification. When they are made to shoulder responsibilities that belong to land administration, aberrations become inevitable.
Land title, if it is to be meaningful, must be settled comprehensively rather than incidentally. Historically and globally, conclusive land titling has always been achieved through executive action comprising survey, demarcation, public notice, objections, adjudication, and final publication. That process binds the world because the world is invited to participate. It reconciles spatial and textual data. It records government land explicitly. It provides an opportunity for challenge within a defined time frame. And once taken to its logical end, it guarantees a semblance of certainty, if not absolute finality.
This definition of the executive role is not meant to dilute judicial oversight. It is to restore executive responsibility while preserving constitutional balance. Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution entrust the higher judiciary with the power of judicial review-one of the Constitution’s basic features. Recognising land settlement as an executive function does not take away this authority. Courts must remain vigilant against arbitrariness, mala fide action, procedural impropriety, and constitutional violations in settlement processes. Executive authority without judicial supervision could be dangerous.
But judicial review ought not to be judicial substitution. There is a crucial difference between examining whether a statutory settlement followed due process on the one hand, and re-adjudicating parcel by parcel factual determinations (that institutionally belong to land administration authorities) on the other. When writ jurisdiction is invoked to correct systemic flaws like absence of notice, denial of hearing, manipulation of records, exclusion of stakeholders, etc., it actually strengthens governance. It improves end-to-end institutional processes. It compels transparency and accountability.
However, when judicial intervention becomes routine at the micro level by reopening boundary determinations, reassessing possession disputes, or entertaining fresh title claims over land already settled through a comprehensive statutory process, the objective of conclusiveness erodes. Experience shows that what was meant to be final becomes perpetually provisional. Judicial precedents, layered one upon another, have effectively pushed courts into a quasi-settlement role. This has resulted in a feeling of judicial overburden, not by intent but by accretion. India’s land governance would benefit enormously if judicial reviews were strategically directed towards systemic integrity: ensuring transparent publication of draft records, protecting public and common lands, mandating integration of spatial and textual data, enforcing time-bound disposal of objections, and preventing collusive manipulation of settlement exercises. Such supervision would enhance institutional credibility without fragmenting finality.
States, for their part, must undertake modern, technology-enabled survey and settlement operations that protect the sanctity of both spatial and textual revenue data. Cadastral maps must be geo-referenced and aligned with ground realities. Records of Rights must be verified through transparent processes. Mutation histories must be reconciled. Public lands must be clearly demarcated and digitally secured. Each state may customise operational design to local realities, but transparency, public participation, time-bound objections, and statutory finality must remain non-negotiable.
Today’s technology removes excuses for inertia. Drone surveys, satellite imagery, unique parcel identification numbers, tamper-evident digital record systems, biometric verification, and secure authentication frameworks can significantly strengthen land governance. A state-certified, digitally authenticated title linked seamlessly with registration systems would reduce incentives for collusive litigation and better protect public assets.
At stake is not merely administrative efficiency. It is the credibility of property rights in India. Infrastructure projects stall because titles are uncertain. Financial institutions hesitate because ownership remains litigable. Urban planning suffers because maps and records do not align. Rural land remains trapped in disputes that outlive litigants. Ownership without certainty is not ownership. It becomes a de facto game of dice.
India requires a clearer definition of roles in land governance. Land titling must be recognised clearly as an executive function. Survey and settlement must confer conclusive title. Collusive and repetitive title suits must not be permitted to undermine public processes. Judicial control should ensure legality and systemic integrity. Land disputes should not lead to factual re-adjudication across generations. Courts should resolve disputes. The State must settle ownership. Until that boundary is firmly drawn, uncertainty will remain the most powerful claimant to Indian land.
Vivek Kumar Singh is presently Chairman, RERA Bihar. As Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar he had ushered in comprehensive digitisation of Land Records; views are personal
