In this ‘Leading Questions’ section, Asha Kiran Sharma discusses how absolute land ownership in India is a myth, highlighting title risks, regulatory complexities, and their implications for real estate transactions.

Question: Land ownership in India is often perceived as absolute. In your experience, how accurate is this belief?

Answer: I’ve hardly seen land ownership in India that is truly “absolute” in the way people imagine it.

Most people believe that once they have a registered sale deed, the story ends there. In reality, that’s often just the beginning. Ownership here is built in layers, past documents, revenue records, possession, and sometimes even the local understanding of the land.

Over the years, I’ve come across properties that appear perfectly clean on paper but still carry hidden risks. So, while the idea of absolute ownership is reassuring, the reality is far more complex.

Question: Why do land transactions continue to be so legally challenging despite regulatory progress?

Answe: Because land in India doesn’t operate within a single, unified system, it operates across multiple layers.

Even today, land is governed through parallel frameworks: revenue records, registration documents, survey maps, planning approvals, and local authority permissions. These are maintained by different departments, often functioning independently of each other.

The real challenge is not the absence of regulation, but the lack of alignment. Information recorded in one system does not always correspond with another, and there is no single source of truth.

As a result, every transaction becomes an exercise in reconciliation, verifying, cross-checking, and bridging gaps between records that are supposed to describe the same property but often don’t.

That is why, despite regulatory progress and digitisation, land transactions continue to feel complex in practice.

Question: Has RERA has brought more discipline into the ecosystem?

Developers today are far more conscious about disclosures, timelines, and regulatory compliance. Buyers and investors, in turn, are asking better questions and they are more informed and more cautious.

A large part of this shift comes from RERA's increased transparency mandates. Project details, approvals, and timelines are now required to be disclosed, which has reduced the earlier information gap.

But RERA operates at a particular stage of the transaction. It regulates the development and sale of projects, but it does not cure or guarantee the underlying land title.

So, while the framework has improved transparency and accountability, it hasn’t reduced the importance of getting the fundamentals right at the land level.

In practice, RERA makes the process more visible. It doesn’t make the title risk disappear.

Question: Do you think digitisation of land records is solving the problem or just reshaping it?

Answer: It’s doing both.

Digitisation has made access significantly easier; you can retrieve records in minutes that earlier took days. That’s a meaningful improvement, especially in terms of transparency and efficiency.

But digitisation doesn’t correct the underlying record. If there were inconsistencies, gaps, or outdated entries in the original data, those simply get carried forward in digital form.

So, the system becomes faster, but not necessarily more reliable.

Which is why the real work still lies in interpretation, reading records together, identifying mismatches, and cross-verifying them across sources.

Digitisation helps you access the information.  It doesn’t replace the need to understand it.

Question: What structural reforms would truly transform land transactions in India?

Answer: If I had to pick one, it would be a system where title is guaranteed, not assumed.

Today, we spend a significant amount of time establishing ownership by tracing past transactions and records. That’s because our current system is based on presumptive title - where documents evidence a transaction, but don’t conclusively establish ownership.

A conclusive title system would change that completely. It would shift the burden away from individuals having to prove ownership, with the State standing behind the title and taking responsibility for its accuracy.

Alongside that, better integration between departments and greater consistency in processes would make a meaningful difference. Today, information is fragmented across multiple authorities, and aligning them is often where most of the effort goes.

Until those structural changes happen, land transactions will continue to rely heavily on interpretation and, more importantly, experience.

Closing Note: Land ownership in India continues to evolve alongside regulatory reforms, technological advancements, and growing investor participation. Yet, as this conversation highlights, the realities of land transactions remain layered and complex. While frameworks such as RERA and the digitisation of records have improved transparency and accountability, the need for careful due diligence and a deeper understanding of title and regulatory structures remains critical. As the real estate landscape continues to mature, navigating these complexities with clarity and foresight will remain central to ensuring legally sound and sustainable land transactions.

Asha Kiran Sharma is a Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva.