Kashmir has an urgent need to settle survey numbers post digitization

By Mohammad Amin Mir

The digitization of land records across Jammu & Kashmir has been hailed as a watershed moment in governance. Fragile paper jamabandis, once tucked away in patwar khanas, are now part of an online public database promising transparency, accessibility, and justice.

But behind this major achievement lies a growing, largely unnoticed crisis: the unresolved mess of survey numbers, overlapping family shares, and mismatches between digital records and ground realities.

Despite digitizing millions of land records, the government has yet to settle a crucial layer of detail—the actual possession and sub-division of land parcels, especially within families. The cost of this omission is being borne silently by thousands of rural households who find themselves stuck between outdated records and legal hurdles.

As Dr. Klaus Deininger, senior land economist at the World Bank, puts it, “Digitization is like mapping the sky. But unless the stars—your actual plots—are settled on the ground, you will always be navigating blind.”

In many villages across South and North Kashmir, a common situation is unfolding: one survey number in the digital record, multiple family shareholders, but only one or two individuals in actual possession.

Take, for instance, a village in Kulgam where survey number 792 lists five brothers as co-owners. In reality, only one of them has cultivated the land for two decades, while the others have shifted elsewhere based on informal family arrangements. Now that the jamabandi is online, this contradiction has become more visible—and more problematic.

Whenever a loan application, a crop insurance claim, or a land dispute arises, the mismatch between actual possession and registered record leads to confusion, delays, and sometimes legal confrontation.

The standard legal route to correct these discrepancies is through family settlements executed at sub-registrar offices. But this process involves stamp duty, legal paperwork, and procedural delays—not to mention significant costs.

For families depending on marginal agriculture, this burden is simply unaffordable. Even after completing a registered settlement, further steps like mutation and creation of a Tatima Shajra (sub-division sketch) are needed to make the record legally functional. Without these, even a legally registered deed may not hold ground in practical scenarios.

“Land administration fails when legality becomes too expensive,” says Dr. Rolf Stegmann, a land tenure specialist who worked with GIZ. “You need solutions that are affordable and locally applicable.”

A full-scale re-settlement of land across J&K may be unfeasible. But the Revenue Department can adopt a low-cost, field-based mechanism to verify and update survey numbers.

The approach is simple: organize camps at the village level under the supervision of the tehsildar. Patwaris and girdawars, aided by lambardars and chowkidars, physically verify each survey number. Family members are called in, possession is noted, and rough Tatima sketches are drawn. If consensus is reached, the mutation should be allowed. Where disputes exist, the mutation can be held in abeyance.

Such camps would not only provide clarity but also restore community trust in the land administration system. This model aligns with best practices in global land governance, which stress decentralized, people-centric interventions.

Without physical verification, digital jamabandis risk becoming inaccurate over time. They reflect ownership patterns from the past, but not the present reality.

In  Kulgam district, a widow was denied compensation under a crop insurance scheme because the digital record still listed her late father-in-law as the primary landholder. In such cases, government welfare schemes—PM-Kisan, land compensation, or agricultural subsidies—are undermined due to outdated data.

Revenue staff are often blamed for delays or mismatches, but the real issue lies in their limited ability to update records without formal deeds or verified possession.

1. Hold Settlement Camps: Start block-wise two-day camps in villages to verify on-ground possession and shares.

2. Empower Field Staff: Give patwaris and girdawars time, travel allowance, and legal support to carry out this work effectively.

3. Simplify Mutation Rules: Where all legal heirs consent, allow mutation based on current possession, without requiring a court decree.

4. Deploy Tatima Units: Assign junior staff or outsourced surveyors to prepare sub-division sketches during these camps.

5. Engage Panchayats: Involve sarpanches to mediate and verify family consensus, issuing joint verification letters.

6. Pilot and Scale: Begin with 50 trial villages in districts like Anantnag, Baramulla, and Budgam. Based on results, scale the process across the region.

Abdul Gani, a 72-year-old farmer  from Doru said, “Our father’s land is still in his name. We divided it years ago but couldn’t afford a registered deed. Now, the patwari says nothing can be done without that.”

In Ganderbal, Noor Jehan lives on a piece of land gifted orally by her late husband. “Everyone in the village knows it’s mine. But the online record says otherwise. I have no money for a court case,” she said.

These are not isolated cases—they represent a widespread, silent struggle across the Valley.

Digitization is not an end in itself. Its real value lies in connecting digital records with ground realities. The current situation calls for immediate attention to settle survey numbers village by village, family by family, using local knowledge and participatory methods.