The Survey of Villages and Improvised Technology in Village Areas (SVAMITVA) scheme launched nation-wide on April 24th, 2021, aims to provide rural homeowners a ‘Record of Rights’ in the form of property cards that would work as legal documents of property ownership. The scheme covers housing in abadi (populated) areas that are normally provided by gram panchayats from land owned by it, for residential purposes.
In several Indian states abadi areas continue to remain in the name of the gram panchayat (Haryana), while some states (Maharashtra and Gujarat) have recorded these properties in the name of residents. Furthermore, in some states while abadi land was recorded, individual ownership and possession were not recorded. SVAMITVA aims to officially record the ownership of such properties in the names of residents, thus enabling their access to credit. The scheme’s primary purpose seems to be to increase taxes for local gram panchayats, once ownership is determined. In addition to mapping residential property, it also provides for the mapping of public land and gram sabha properties.
While the objective of the scheme holds potential in resolving persistent challenges in providing secure property rights in the country, SVAMITVA’s narrow focus on housing within abadi areas, may exclude homestead plots that include housing as well as land for personal cultivation provided by state governments to landless labourers and land-poor households, that are outside the designated abadi areas. The restricted focus on individual ownership will further exclude groups holding non-ownership rights like those enjoyed by economically weaker groups settled on public land. Such groups may find themselves vulnerable to eviction.
A review of the SVAMITVA guidelines in Uttar Pradesh, reveals the lack of community participation in the various stages of implementation, from boundary marking to conflict resolution. As land and housing is contentious, with the rural landscape segregated by caste, religious and communal hierarchies, the marking of boundaries which determines access to land and infrastructure, is a political act. Placing sole reliance on revenue officials without involving communities can have disastrous results. Community participation can ensure acceptance of the scheme at the local level; provide a voice to vulnerable groups that may otherwise be excluded and thus act as a safety mechanism against exclusion. Furthermore, the mission mode of implementation, with 15-day notice periods provided for objections at different steps in the process, is likely to cause complications, especially in case of families with migrant members.
The most serious drawback of SVAMITVA is its refusal to integrate gender into the scheme. As abadi properties are in most states recorded as belonging to gram panchayats, the scheme in effect transfers state-owned property to private individuals. States have in the past while allotting land or housing, provided ownership to both men and women, to address the gender imbalance in property holdings. Likewise, the SVAMITVA could have made ownership contingent on co-ownership of men and women. Gender-based data on land ownership is limited to agricultural land in India. As per the most reliable data available, the International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) data, only 16% of rural households reported women’s ownership. SVAMITVA’s narrow reliance on ownership and possession as recorded in documents, will only reinforce prevailing gender inequalities.
SVAMITVA aims to provide ownership rights, thereby enabling access to formal credit. Making the scheme inclusive and linking it to existing laws and schemes could empower socially disadvantaged groups. It must therefore ensure that inequalities are not furthered but rather addressed to help truly realise the vision of a model ‘Gram Swaraj’.
(The writer is an Associate Professor, Jindal School of Government and Public Policy, OP Jindal Global University)