Land titles warrant respect for mutations, not new labels

India’s land dispute crisis is often described as a problem of imprecise records, administrative inefficiency and pending cases. Yet these explanations only address the symptoms. The deeper problem lies in how India understands land title itself. For decades, policy discussions have revolved around achieving “conclusive” land titling, as though ownership can be permanently fixed through a single legal exercise. This ambition, however well-intentioned, rests on a flawed premise. Land title is not static. It evolves continuously with every lawful transaction. Trying to make it conclusive is, in effect, a conceptual mistake.

The terminologies dominating the debate - “conclusive title” and “presumptive title”- are themselves misleading. These expressions, borrowed from foreign jurisdictions, fail to reflect Indian administrative realities. Instead of chasing linguistic perfection, India must recognise what already exists in practice: a dual structure consisting of a foundational title and a derived or current title, supported by two interconnected layers of Record of Rights.

The first layer arises from survey and settlement operations. Historically, cadastral surveys, boundary verification, public notices, and objection hearings have been designed to establish a legally authenticated baseline of ownership. Settlement proceedings has brought order to fragmented claims. They have produced an archival Record of Rights that carries institutional legitimacy because they emerge from a structured public process. These exercises were designed to resolve accumulated uncertainty and provide a stable baseline for governance.  To take it home further, some states enunciated clear-cut laws mandating an annually updated record of rights.

Yet settlement never creates permanent ownership. The moment land is sold, inherited, or partitioned, the original record, though historically accurate, becomes factually outdated. Its true value lies in providing a starting point-a foundational title-from which future transactions derive legitimacy. Calling such title “conclusive” misunderstands its role. Settlement stabilises land relations; it does not freeze them.

If settlement records represent the past, mutation records represent the present. Here lies one of the most persistent misconceptions in Indian land

law. Courts frequently observe that mutation entries are meant only for fiscal purposes and do not confer title. Mutation is also quite often dismissed as mere evidence of possession, as though it reflects nothing more than physical occupation. Borne out of a strata of judicial precedents, these pronouncements undermining mutation have successively failed to appreciate the quasi-judicial genesis and process of mutation.

In practice, mutation cases are based on specific Acts and rules. Revenue authorities do not alter records casually; they do so after issuing notices, hearing parties, perusing records and passing orders only after an application for mutation is received. When a mutation is approved, the State formally recognises that ownership has changed. Governments do not collect land revenue from arbitrary occupants. Unlike electricity or water charges, which may be recovered from users irrespective of ownership, land revenue is assessed only against persons recognised as legitimate holders in official records. The State is bound to demand rent from those it considers bona fide landholders, not from encroachers or trespassers. Revenue authorities do not alter records casually; they do so after administrative scrutiny. When a mutation is approved, the State formally acknowledges that the recognised holder of land has changed.

Mutation, therefore, reflects legal possession grounded in recognised ownership. It is attained through a legally mandated best-claim principle, i.e., among competing claims for legal ownership of land, the claim validated and recorded through a quasi-judicial process enjoys presumptive legitimacy, unless further displaced through due process. The updated transactional or mutated Record of Rights, thus decided, is in practice, India’s closest functional definition of current title for all practical purposes.

India, thus, already operates with two parallel but complementary systems: an archival Record of Rights created through settlement and a transactional Record of Rights continuously updated through mutation. States that have digitised these layers demonstrate that the model works when allowed to function coherently. The real problem is not the absence of records but the absence of doctrinal clarity about their legal status.

Recognising a derived title based on updated revenue records would also help distinguish lawful possession from encroachment. When mutation records are given appropriate legal respect, they create a clear evidentiary line between bona fide holders and illegal occupants. Today’s ambiguity encourages litigation precisely because lawful possession is not institutionally trusted. Citizens approach civil courts merely to confirm what revenue records already acknowledge, turning litigation into a preventive strategy rather than a corrective mechanism. Authentic State-notified foundational titles combined with legally respected derived titles can provide stability without constructing an entirely new titling regime.

At present, India effectively operates a system of case-based titling, where ownership ultimately depends on judicial declarations obtained after prolonged litigation. Civil courts, designed to resolve disputes between parties, have inadvertently become substitute land settlement authorities. This institutional mismatch explains why title suits frequently extend across generations. Ironically, the titular status of the plots which do not part of any civil suit, concluded or pending, hangs perpetually in the balance, for want of a judicial stamp1

A shift toward recognising foundational and derived titles would restore propriety and balance, vis-à-vis land titles through a continuously updated record-of-rights that establishes an authoritative snapshot of lawful holdings at a particular point in time. Administrative systems may establish and maintain titles, while courts would be free to intervene where genuine disputes arise. This would reduce litigation, improve market confidence, and restore public faith in land governance.

 The renewed push toward nationwide conclusive titling risks overlooking this reality. Draft reform proposals attempt to survey and title all forms of immovable property without even clearly defining land itself, instead relying on expansive notions of immovable assets. Such an approach faces enormous practical barriers. Urban properties, informal subdivisions, layered tenure arrangements,

and historically evolved holdings cannot be exhaustively surveyed and permanently fixed in a single exercise. The danger is that such an endeavour becomes an expedition chasing a mirage, seeking absolute certainty where only interim reality is possible. India does not lack authentic, digitised land records; it lacks alignment between legal doctrine and administrative practice.

Land title certainty does not require theoretical perfection. It requires legal honesty. Land titles change with times. Land records evolve with it. State-authenticated derived and mutated records deserve institutional respect. Replacing the misleading binaries of conclusive and presumptive title with the more grounded concepts of foundational and derived title would align Indian land law with lived reality.

The path to reform lies not in inventing new abstractions but in recognising the strength of systems already operating across the states, and giving them the legal clarity they have long lacked.

Vivek Kumar Singh, ex-IAS, 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