A background note can be accessed here: IMF: Cadasters, Asset Tangibility, and Growth
In India’s context, where land records and property rights vary widely across states, what specific institutional or legal frictions most blunt this channel, and how should reforms prioritise addressing these frictions to unlock productive investment?
The IMF paper emphasises that stronger cadastral systems enhance asset tangibility and investment, drawing on Global North scholarship – most notably Hernando de Soto – that links formal property rights to the expansion of the formal sector. In India, however, the constraint extends beyond “weak records”. The core issue lies in plural tenure regimes and multiple parallel records that dilute the credibility of land documentation.
Across digitisation and titling initiatives, more than 95 percent of existing digital records, both textual and spatial, capture only a narrow layer of formal ownership. Many remain outdated or misaligned with ground realities, while tenure arrangements such as tenancy, women’s land relations, forest rights, and commons access are rarely recorded. This invisibility sustains disputes on the ground and in courts, limiting collateralisation and investor confidence.
Three frictions are particularly consequential. First, the presumptive titling framework and the limited ability of the Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme (DILRMP) to produce updated, ground-verified records leave titles legally contestable. Second, informal transactions, mutation processes, registration systems, and spatial records remain weakly synchronised, heightening transaction risk. Third, dispute resolution relies heavily on slow, dual court systems – revenue and civil courts.
Reform priorities should include synchronised titling linked to registration and encumbrances, decentralised and time-bound dispute settlement mechanisms, and systematic recording of secondary and gendered rights within the tenure continuum. Without recognising India’s diverse land relations, including tenancy, commons, and forest rights, digitisation risks producing visible but legally fragile assets that fail to catalyse investment.
Evidence points to stronger cadasters having a pronounced effect in industries where asset tangibility matters most. For India, how should industrial policy and infrastructure planning differentiate between sectors where cadastral reform will yield high marginal growth impacts versus those less sensitive to asset tangibility constraints?
The IMF’s evidence that stronger cadasters disproportionately benefit sectors reliant on tangible assets has clear implications for India’s industrial policy. Land-intensive and capital-heavy sectors – such as manufacturing clusters, logistics networks, renewable energy installations, urban real estate, and emerging carbon markets – are particularly sensitive to tenure risk. Where land records are incomplete or contested, projects frequently encounter litigation, delays, and capital lock-ups. Recent infrastructure and climate-related investments show that weak land governance can also create reputational risks for firms operating under ESG and Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) expectations, where responsible land engagement is increasingly scrutinised.
Industrial and infrastructure planning should therefore sequence cadastral strengthening geographically and sectorally. Growth corridors, industrial parks, renewable-energy zones, and logistics hubs require spatially verified, dispute-cleared cadastres integrated with registration, encumbrance systems, and local consent processes to reduce project risk.
However, not all sectors depend on full asset fungibility. Labour-absorbing segments such as smallholder agriculture, agro-processing, and informal services depend more on secure use rights and predictable tenure arrangements than on strictly individualised titles. In these contexts, reforms that recognise tenancy, record use rights, and protect commons can produce stronger livelihood and welfare gains.
A differentiated approach is therefore essential: precision cadastres for capital-intensive, tradable sectors, and tenure-continuum approaches for livelihood-oriented sectors. Global frameworks such as the Fit-for-Purpose Land Administration model and the UN Framework for Effective Land Administration offer useful guidance, provided they are adapted to India’s institutional and social realities.
While cadastral improvements can spur growth through better investment signals, they may also shift asset ownership patterns and affect land-dependent livelihoods. What frameworks or guardrails should policymakers embed to balance growth-oriented cadastral reforms with equity and social stability considerations, particularly in rural and peri-urban India?
Cadastral reform is often treated as a technical modernisation exercise, but in India it reshapes access, power, and land values. Past experience with digitisation and titling initiatives shows that formalisation can consolidate ownership while leaving tenants, women, forest dwellers, and slum residents only partially recognised. When cadastral modernisation advances without adequate social safeguards, the risks of exclusion and elite capture increase, potentially generating new disputes and undermining investment certainty.
To balance growth with equity and stability, policymakers should embed several governance guardrails. First, reforms should adopt a tenure-continuum framework that recognises ownership, use rights, and commons stewardship rather than relying on a binary “titled versus untitled” model. Second, land records must incorporate gender-disaggregated and community-verified information on secondary rights, including tenancy, inheritance, and customary access arrangements. Third, participatory adjudication processes and mechanisms for free, prior, and informed consent should guide land aggregation in peri-urban expansion, infrastructure development, and climate-linked projects.
In rural and peri-urban India, where commons constitute a substantial share of land and support millions of livelihoods, recognising community stewardship is not a barrier to growth. Rather, It strengthens climate resilience, reduces conflict, and enhances long-term investment credibility. Moving from a purely technology-driven land administration model to a governance-centred approach can build legitimacy, citizen trust, and more stable foundations for productive investment.
