Image for representation.
Credit: iStock Photo
The Karnataka government’s decision to implement the e-khata system for all properties, while well-intentioned to curb fraudulent registrations as well as to enhance property tax collection, has raised significant concerns among citizens. Those concerns arise not least due to the arbitrary way in which it is being sought to be implemented, making it seem more like an imposition on property-owners rather than the assurance and convenience it should be.
While digitisation promises transparency and efficiency, the government cannot just suddenly decide to bring in a new system and make it mandatory immediately. Nor should it be implemented in a way that causes citizens stress and harassment or open up new opportunities for bribery and corruption. Revenue Minister Krishna Byre Gowda asserts that e-khata will reduce corruption by establishing a faceless, contactless system.
The initiative is meant to streamline record-keeping, benefiting both property-owners and the government. When fully implemented, the e-khata system is expected to simplify property ownership verification. Property-owners will also be able to view and update their khata records online, facilitating tracking of real estate transactions and reducing the risk of fraud, such as selling and registering a property to more than one person.
The new system, despite its benefits, has sparked criticism over its hasty imposition and due to unresolved issues over how it should be implemented. For instance, shouldn’t the BBMP and BDA automatically issue e-khata to those to whom these bodies have already issued the physical khata certificate, for which they have already verified the necessary documents and records? Why should they be made to carry out the exercise of applying for a set of documents and submitting it to the same authorities again and made to wait for the e-khata, all of which opens up opportunities for officials to demand bribes and speed-money?
Moreover, the distinction between A- and B-khata properties complicates matters. Properties with A-khata and a Property Identification (PID) number can secure e-khata upon submission of a set of documents, while those under B-khata will not be able to obtain the e-khata, thus leaving them in a lurch, unable to buy or sell assets even in dire situations. Also, revenue site-owners whose layouts lack sanction stand to face further hardship. The government will also have to address the needs of those without access to or familiarity with digital platforms.
The idea behind the e-khata initiative is commendable, but its abrupt and arbitrary implementation without resolving underlying issues is unfair to property-owners. The government must pause, engage with stakeholders, and ensure that the e-khata system truly serves its intended purpose, which is to enhance transparency and efficiency and reduce fraud in real estate transactions, not complicate the lives of property-owners who already own physical khata certificates.