Abstract
Land conflicts are impediments to socio-economic development. Understanding drivers and types of land conflicts is vital for peaceful conflict resolution and enhancing the effectiveness of institutions and agencies dealing with such issues. This article tries to develop and apply a methodology for tracking and characterising drivers and the types of land conflicts in India. We have applied the methods to peer-reviewed articles and thesis in the English language on land conflicts in India. Our results shed light on the most evident drivers and types of land conflict in India while challenging and supporting common assumptions. The key finding of our study indicates land administration as being the primary driver of land conflicts in India, followed by political, socio-economic and sociocultural factors. The most important type of land conflict occurring in India involves boundary or territorial conflicts. Of late, several conflicts are reported over special economic zones, which are also related to poor land administration and erroneous planning processes by the government actors. However, the published study reporting land conflicts in India fails to identify the root cause of such conflicts. In order to ensure better land administration, there need to have reasonably accurate and up-to-date records, which studies have not been able to identify. Another primary reason of land conflicts, which the studies have failed to acknowledge, is the problems germane to the prevailing land tenure system in India.
Introduction
In a country like India, the land holds enormous social, economic, ecological and symbolic relevance, causing people to fight with each other over the rights and uses associated with it. Wehrmann (2005) defines land conflict as
a social fact in which at least two parties are involved, the roots of which lie in different interests over the property rights to land, the right to use the land, to manage the land, to generate an income from the land, to exclude others from the land, to transfer it, and the right to compensation for it.
Conflicts related to land can erupt at any time and place and have become widespread of late (Wehrmann, 2008). In recent years, India has witnessed an outbreak of protests in various parts of the country owing to the transparency deficit in land acquisitions for developmental activities, inadequate compensation, resettlement and rehabilitation vis-à-vis land-grabbing practices (Bhowmick, 2013). The problem is getting compounded due to the unplanned ways in which land utilisation are tackled by various sectors. Dictated by need and greed coupled with rising scarcity and land values, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and its subsequent amendments did not protect the rights of people effectively even as a shift in legislation towards a Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, took force. This Act aims at reducing land conflicts through better land administration. There is a need to understand the drivers and multifaceted manifestations of land conflicts in order to bridge the gap between land administration and conflict resolution.
This article tries to identify the state of knowledge over land conflicts using a systematic literature review approach. Specifically, we would like to explore the following questions to analyse the land conflicts at a deeper level:
What are the drivers/stimuli of land-related conflicts? What are the various types of land conflicts being documented? What is the distribution of land-related conflicts across India?
Addressing these questions will help identify the leading causes and the most evident types of land conflicts occurring in India. It will also provide insights into documented evidence of land conflicts in India. Finally, these questions will address issues of knowledge gaps in the documented evidence related to land conflicts in India.
A systematic literature review approach is a better way of ascertaining the state of knowledge in a given discipline, which involves reviewing documents in accordance with clearly formulated research questions while using systematic and explicit methods to select and critically appraise relevant research papers (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006; The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011), allowing these reviews to become more transparent than narrative reviews (Garg et al. 2008). Narrative literature reviews lack such detail, making it challenging to replicate the study, validate interpretation and examine comprehensiveness. This approach, while common in health sciences, is limited in the social sciences. Systematic reviews help us determine what we know and are also powerful tools for identifying knowledge gaps in the literature. This allows for knowledge stocktaking, identifying gaps and the shaping of future research (Eagly & Wood, 1994; Pearce et al. 2011; Schlosser, 2006). It also provides pre-filtered evidence by synthesising results from multiple original studies for evidence-based decision-making (Berrang-Ford et al., 2011). Our experience has also been rewarding in terms of identifying the state of knowledge in this domain.
Methodology
This section fixes the boundary of the study in terms of databases, the period of the study, the process for identification of eligible studies, inclusion and exclusion criteria and protocol for review and analysis of the documents.
Identification of Eligible Studies
We used EBSCOhost with seven research databases: SocINDEX with Full Text, Humanities International Complete, Environment Complete, and Research Starters—Business, GreenFILE, and eBook Collection along with India Citation Index (ICI) and Google Scholar (GS) for the systematic review of land conflicts. We selected GS for the study primarily owing to the acceptability of its coverage and precision (Bramer et al., 2013), which is demonstrably higher compared to other academic databases (Gehanno et al., 2013). The keyword search performed with EBSCOhost and ICI research databases included English key topic terms such as land* AND conflict* AND India*. A search was conducted with GS to expand the pool with keywords such as India + ‘land conflict’. The eight academic databases and GS were selected to ensure high coverage, precision and recall. Figure 1 illustrates the stages involved in identifying eligible studies.
The Process for Identification of Eligible Studies.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Document Selection.
Description of Search Criteria Classifications.
Review of Documents
Following the screening of documents, 30 documents found a place in the included list based on the inclusion criteria illustrated in Figure 1. We developed a questionnaire for surveying selected articles to document and characterise drivers, types of land conflicts and occurrence at various spatial scales in India. We also developed a questionnaire to standardise the analysis of articles. The questionnaire (under supplemental material 2) begins with questions on the general characteristics of the article in terms of authorship, year published and first author affiliations. The main section has fixed, forced-choice questions focusing on the nature of land conflicts informed by the practical guide to dealing with land disputes (Wehrmann, 2008) while focusing on (i) the drivers, (ii) types, (iii) scale of land conflicts and (iv) states where land conflicts are most evident. We conducted a full-text review of all the (30) articles with the help of the questionnaire. In the articles reviewed, multiple drivers and types of land conflicts identified were incorporated for meta-analysis. Seven papers happen to report land conflicts in exclusive economic zones (SEZs), besides the types identified in the questionnaire. Hence, SEZ-related conflicts were classified based on the descriptions in the papers reporting such conflicts.
Analysis
We retained all (30) included documents for review and validation and entered the data into an Excel spreadsheet. We summarised the typology of land conflicts with the help of descriptive statistics. However, inferential statistics were infeasible due to a low number of cell counts. Qualitative analysis was performed using latent content analysis to identify key themes based on the description of land conflicts within the selected publications. Two researchers independently coded the studies for themes to discover patterns, themes and categories. On this basis, coding categories were created and organised around the themes established by the questionnaire (supplementary material 1). The researchers then discussed the possible themes before arriving at a consensus and went on to create a single code file for each document based on the questionnaire. The coded text was then retrieved, evaluated and compared with the quantitative analysis to identify key characteristics of land conflicts. State-level data were plotted over state boundaries.
Results
Reporting on the Evidence of Land-related Conflicts Is Random and Limited
Thirty out of 1,820 documents fitted into our inclusion criteria related to evidence concerning land conflicts in India. Excluded articles were primarily associated with land conflicts occurring in other nations. There is an increasing trend in the documentation of land conflicts in India (Figure 2). Documented pieces of evidence of land conflict occur randomly over the observation period, with a higher number of conflicts reported in 2008, 2013 and 2015.
Land Administration in India: The Main Driver of Conflicts
The main driver of land conflicts across India is the ineffectiveness of land administration on multiple scales. Insufficient implementation of regulations, lack of transparency and responsibility, gaps in communication, cooperation, and coordination within and between different government agencies and corruption are the sub-drivers of land conflicts in India. Further, political, socio-economic and sociocultural factors are also significant contributors to land conflicts in India. Changes in the political and economic system, the strong hierarchical structure of society and the destruction or deterioration of traditional values and structures are some of the political, socio-economic and sociocultural factors responsible for triggering land conflicts across India. Finally, legal/ juridical, ecological, technological and psychological factors also contribute to land conflicts in India (Table 3). Technical reasons/drivers concerning insufficient and inaccurate survey data, as well as missing records of vital land data, can cause conflict. However, technical drivers were captured only in 10% of the literature.
Conflicts at the Sub-national Levels Most Documented While Sub-district and District-level Land Conflicts Least Documented
Land conflicts with implications at the state level (Table 4) have registered the highest documentation, followed by village/communities and special economic zone level. Limited studies are reporting the national level of land conflicts. It is also evident that most land-related conflicts are documented in Maharashtra, followed by Assam, Odisha, and Karnataka (Figure 3).
Year-wise Number of Publications Reporting Land Conflicts.
Spatial Distribution of Evidence of Land Conflicts in India.
Drivers of Land Conflicts.
Notes:
1. The types of land conflicts have been adapted from Wehrmann (2008).
2. Based on 30 included papers (criteria for inclusion are illustrated in Figure 1).
3. Numbers in parentheses are percentage share. Number/percentage is non-cumulative.
Land Conflict at Various Spatial Scales.
Notes:
1. Based on 30 included papers (criteria for inclusion are illustrated in Figure 1).
2. Numbers in parentheses are percentage share. Number/percentage is non-cumulative.
3. A special economic zone at times falls within a district but at times beyond a district boundary.
Boundary/Territorial Conflicts Are the Most Documented Conflicts Occurring on All Types of Properties
Conflicts Occurring on All Types of Properties.
Notes:
1. The types of land conflicts have been adapted from Wehrmann (2008).
2. Based on 30 included papers (criteria for inclusion are illustrated in Figure 1).
3. Numbers in parentheses are percentage share. Number/percentage is non-cumulative.
Conflicts over Private, Common, Collective and State Properties
Special Conflicts over Private Property.
Notes:
1. The types of land conflicts have been adapted from Wehrmann (2008).
2. Based on 30 included papers (criteria for inclusion are illustrated in Figure 1).
3. Numbers in parentheses are percentage share. Number/percentage is non-cumulative.
Special Conflicts over Common and Collective Property.
Notes:
1. The types of land conflicts have been adapted from Wehrmann (2008); one new category is added.
2. Based on 30 included papers (criteria for inclusion are illustrated in Figure 1).
3. Numbers in parentheses are percentage share. Number/percentage is non-cumulative.
. Special Conflicts over State Property.
Notes:
1. The types of land conflicts have been adapted from Wehrmann (2008); one new category is added.
2. Based on 30 included papers (criteria for inclusion are illustrated in Figure 1).
3. Numbers in parentheses are percentage share. Number/percentage is non-cumulative.
Special Economic Zone (SEZ)-Related Land Conflicts
Conflicts over SEZ Lands.
Notes:
1. The types of land conflicts have been identified based on the reporting in the literature.
2. Based on 30 included papers (criteria for inclusion are illustrated in Figure 1).
3. Numbers in parentheses are percentage share. Number/percentage is non-cumulative.
Types of Conflict Not Documented
Significant knowledge gaps exist pertinent to the various types of land conflicts that have been identified through this study. This section identifies the knowledge gaps strictly based on the research protocol. Knowledge gap on conflicts increasing the difficulties of addressing issues includes the following: ownership conflicts due to non-registration of land, sale of someone else’s private property, leasing/renting of someone else’s private property, illegal expropriations by banks, illegal/improper uses of private land, intra-family conflicts (especially in cases of polygamy) and illegal sales of state land (Tables 5–8).
Discussion
Systematic literature reviews are powerful tools that help with decision-making and advancing policy processes. This approach allows one to take stock of knowledge and identify gaps while providing insights into future research required to bridge knowledge gaps. Landholdings have enormous social, economic, ecological and symbolic relevance for Indians; its conflict has always been a turbulent issue in the country, leading to mass mobilisation. The included research articles in this paper primarily documented conflicts, which revolve around SEZ, caste and class struggles, ethnic groups, peasants and sub-urban communities.
Seven out of 30 included articles report land conflict associated with SEZs. The government of India adopted the SEZ policy in 2000. This policy was brought into the governance fold to improve foreign investment and for the betterment of the existing local markets, allowing them to compete internationally. However, with the gradual implementation of this policy across the country, there were multiple forced acquisitions of agricultural lands by the state government, which led to conflict between the agrarian community and the industrialists. In most cases, the state failed to administer a smooth transition of the agrarian land along highways into urban expansions. Displaced landowners resisted the state's policy of handing over the land ownership to corporate stakeholders for urban expansion. In Goa, the state revoked and cancelled the SEZ project, due to resistance from the local community and continues to be in the land ownership reversal conflict. In other states, such as Punjab and Maharashtra, the government is finding it challenging to balance the land distribution between the local peasants and industrialists (13–15, 24, 25, 27, 29).
Articles documenting caste- and class-based land conflicts project the demand for ownership and inclusiveness for the underprivileged and marginalised in the society. Most caste- and class-based land conflicts arise from the alienation of the marginalised communities by the state and failure to involve them in the governance structure. Furthermore, the failure of the state to withdraw from the case-based agrarian land control system led to further social conflict among the community. This uneven distribution of land has also led to these marginalised groups taking up arms to revolt against the state (03, 04).
A few of the included articles also focused on forest-dwelling communities, which have historically inhabited forest land. Most of these conflicts are based in the northeast and eastern parts of India, where the state is reluctant to yield the authority and also has failed to provide them the legal recognition. These conflicts involve the state proposing/initiating a development strategy without considering the forest-dependent communities, which has eventually led to forest-dwelling communities to come forward to protest against the state (06–08, 10, 16, 17, 23).
Some of the articles exhibit the existing issues of land conflict in northeast India, which is multi-layered and convoluted. North-east India not only has land conflict issues internationally but also shares border disputes within other states. These issues mainly emerge due to the multiple ethnic groups (especially the Kuki–Naga conflict) and their attempts to establish dominance among other tribes over land. These conflicts date back to the post-independence period, since there has not been any amicable solution to the conflict of land distribution and border establishment by the governments. In addition, illegal migration from neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh also escalates the tension (01, 02, 12, 19, 21, 26, 28).
A few research papers document land conflict issues pertaining to development measures by the state in major cities including Delhi and Mumbai. In these cases, the state action has led to either deforestation or forced afforestation which has displaced rural/suburban communities from their current arrangements. Besides, the mining industry has also impacted communities residing in the vicinity of the mining region. In such cases, both the authorities and the displaced community could not reach to the middle ground. Moreover, the government has rendered a top-down approach that failed to enhance the participation of the concerned stakeholders in the discussion of these matters (05, 09, 11, 20, 22, 30).
It is quite evident that there is a lack of coordinated effort to highlight the large spectrum of land conflicts and related disputes, there being no significant trend in the pieces of evidence pertinent to land conflicts occurring in India. To resolve issues with land administration, governments must understand the different forms of land conflict and their manifestation. Since land conflicts are largely documented at sub-national and national levels, the knowledge gap regarding land conflicts at community and individual levels may widen, propelling inefficient land administration at the community, individual and district levels.
Two-thirds of the included papers reported land administration as the key driver of land conflicts, while only 10% recognise lack of up-to-date records as reasons for the conflicts. The limited and incomplete data on land records burden land administration rendering conflict resolution, resettlement and rehabilitation a problematic exercise (World Bank, 2007). There is a multiplicity of agencies dealing with land matters including the survey and settlement department, land revenue department, stamp and registration department and municipal bodies. There are no interconnectivity and data-sharing arrangements between these agencies. As a result, when one agency updates land records, the same with other agencies become outdated. Most of the institutions and processes for administering land in India were adopted from the colonial government who were mainly interested in revenue collection from productive agricultural lands (World Bank, 2007). Urban areas, forest lands, marginal lands and habitations in rural areas remained outside the system. Computerisation of land records was launched as a centrally sponsored scheme in 1998–1999. However, such attempts were limited to update only textual records, leaving textual records outdated, inaccurate and incomprehensive, giving rise to disputes and litigation. The focus has been more on computerisation and less on creating a system that maintains accurate and up-to-date records. There is a need for a comprehensive, reasonably accurate, cost-effective and affordable data framework, which will be a crucial element of improving the land administration system in India.
Conclusions
Land administration has been identified as the primary driver of land conflicts in India. It is essential, therefore, for governments to revamp land administration processes by rendering them transparent and creating an environment conducive to showcasing credibility, accountability and responsibility. Political lobbying and corruption are also one of the critical drivers in land conflicts that need to be rooted out. Caste-based subjugation and suppression of the underprivileged for access to commons and collective property need to be removed through conscientisation of the elites.
The majority of the scientific studies reported land administration as the key driver of land conflicts in India while they are unable to recognise the lack of up-to-date records as reasons for the conflicts. Land administration cannot be effective unless there are up-to-date records.
Another basic region of land conflicts in India, which the studies have failed to identify, is relating to deed registration in the country. The Registration Act, 1908, provides for registration of deeds, which establishes public records of only the transaction, but not the validity of the transaction. The Registration Act, 1908, makes land titles in India ‘presumptive’ and not ‘conclusive’. The registrar’s office is neither under an obligation to check the veracity of title claims nor does it have access to land records and cadastral maps to do so, which has resulted in a lack of clarity in land title and has created scope for fraud, disputes and litigations. Lack of clear land titles in India puts buyers under huge risks since the buyers are accountable for problems with the title.
The Title Registration, also known as the Torrens System, allows the appointment of a registrar who serves as the primary source of ownership (Van Dorren, 2017). Registration is mandatory for the transfer of title, and the title is conclusive proof of ownership (ibid.). Under the system, the buyer becomes the rightful owner, even when the seller who did not own the land in the first place, has sold him the land fraudulently (ibid.). The aggrieved person in such a case gets compensation from the state, but not the restitution of his land (ibid.). Land administration must ensure tenure security while seeking to reduce boundary and territorial conflicts. In August 2008, the government of India decided to move decisively towards title registration (Torrens System). Subsequently, it launched a nationwide scheme called the National Land Records Modernization Programme (Department of Land Resources, Government of India 2008). Such an initiative is likely to create adequate tenure security. It has been included under the Digital India Initiative and is being implemented as Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme with a 100% central grant to the states with effect from 1 April 2016.
The establishment of a comprehensive, reasonably accurate, cost-effective and affordable data framework will be crucial to moving towards tenure security. Such a data framework can be achieved by combining high-resolution satellite imagery and differential global positioning system with existing spatial data (cadastral map, tax map, among others). Another requirement is the functional integration of textural and spatial databases used in land administration to provide landowners a certificate of conclusive proof of ownership. Such functional integration requires a reasonably accurate map defining the spatial extent of the land parcel and its relationship to adjoining land parcels and links them to textual records irrespective of the government department maintaining the respective information. It would also involve a mechanism to ensure that any changes in either textual or spatial records get updated in the entire system.
Further, amicable solutions are needed to resolve issues of competing uses/rights to commons, collectives and state lands while illegal and improper use of these lands should be made punishable while seeking to avoid such problems. Finally, significant data gaps cannot be ruled out while documenting conflicts due to market evictions, distortions in local land markets and conflicting claims in post-conflict situations. Research in these domains is required to reduce significant knowledge gaps and enable effective land administration in India.
Footnotes
List of Documents Included for Review
Acknowledgement
The authors thank the anonymous reviewer for his elaborate and insightful comments and constructive suggestions on the earlier version of the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
