Prof. (Dr.) Dayaram Yadav
G.V.P.G. College, Risia, Bahraich
Surya Bhan Singh Yadav
Ph.D. Research Scholar (Political Science),
Gayatri Vidyapeeth P.G. College, Risia, Bahraich
Land governance in India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh (UP), is entangled in colonial-era legacies of fragmented records, informal transactions, and overlapping claims (Roy, 2018). The Svamitva Scheme (2020), a flagship initiative to digitize rural land records, seeks to disrupt this inertia through emerging technologies: drones for aerial surveys, GIS for spatial data integration, and blockchain for secure registries. This paper employs a socio-technical systems lens (Geels, 2004) to theorize how these tools interact with UP’s agrarian political economy, caste dynamics, and bureaucratic structures.
The SVAMITVA Scheme: Empowering Rural India Through Land Rights
The SVAMITVA (Survey of Villages and Mapping with Improvised Technology in Village Areas) scheme is a transformative initiative launched by the Indian government in April 2020. Aimed at strengthening rural land governance, it uses modern technology to provide legal ownership documents to villagers, empowering them economically and socially.
Objectives of SVAMITVA
The scheme focuses on:
1. Land Ownership Clarity: Creating accurate digital maps of rural inhabited areas to resolve long-standing land disputes.
2. Property Cards: Issuing legal ownership certificates (called “property cards”) to villagers, granting them formal rights over their residential land.
3. Rural Development: Enabling better infrastructure planning, access to loans, and integration with welfare schemes.
Technology Behind the Scheme: SVAMITVA relies on two key technologies:
Drone Surveys: Drones capture high-resolution images of villages, even in remote areas. This replaces outdated manual surveys, which were slow and error-prone.
GIS Mapping: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) convert drone data into interactive digital maps, marking boundaries of each property. These maps are stored in a central database, ensuring transparency.
Implementation Process
1.Drone Flying: Trained pilots conduct aerial surveys of villages.
2.Data Processing: Images are stitched together to create village maps, with each property marked clearly.
3. Dispute Resolution: Local authorities and villagers verify boundaries to address conflicts.
4. Property Cards: Owners receive a physical and digital property card, recognized legally.
Benefits of SVAMITVA
Economic Empowerment: Property cards act as collateral for bank loans, helping villagers start businesses or improve homes.
Reduced Disputes: Clear land records minimize conflicts between families or communities.
Better Governance: Gram Panchayats (village councils) use maps for tax collection, road planning, and resource management.
Women’s Rights: Joint ownership on property cards promotes gender equality in land inheritance.
As of January 2025, total number of property cards distributed across India under SVAMITVA to 2.25 Crore (PIB. Jan,18,2025 “Ministry of Panchayati Raj”), with states like Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh leading in implementation. Property cards have helped villagers access loans and government schemes like PM Awas Yojana (housing for all). It will unlock economic activities worth over 100 lakh crore rupees.
The SVAMITVA scheme is a game-changer for rural India. By combining drones, GIS, and grassroots participation, it addresses the historical lack of land rights in villages. While challenges like technology ? accessibility and awareness persist, the scheme has already boosted financial inclusion and reduced inequality. If implemented effectively, it could transform millions of rural lives, turning land from a source of conflict into a tool for prosperity.
Technological determinism posits that innovations like drones inherently drive progress (Smith & Marx, 1994). Conversely, social shaping theory emphasizes how socio-political contexts Mold technology’s adoption (Williams & Edge, 1996). In UP, drone surveys-while efficient-face resistance from patwaris (land officials) fearing displacement, illustrating institutional inertia (Chakravorty, 2021).
Empowering communities: Locals (like farmers or indigenous groups) can use drones to map their land and prove ownership, reducing reliance on slow or biased government surveys.
Government/corporate control: Authorities might use drones to monitor land use strictly (e.g., stopping illegal logging), but this could also mean more surveillance over people.
GIS (Geographic Information Systems): Smart Maps
Transparency: Clear maps can resolve disputes by showing exact boundaries, reducing corruption in land records. Access issues: If only governments or wealthy groups have GIS tools, they might dominate decisions. But open-access GIS (like free apps) lets communities defend their rights with data.
Blockchain: Secure Digital Records
Blockchain stores land records in a tamper-proof digital ledger.
Reducing corruption: Records can’t be secretly altered, making it harder for officials or elites to steal land. Self-ownership: Individuals could control their land records directly via blockchain, bypassing slow bureaucracies.
Technology barriers: If governments control the blockchain system, they might still have power over who gets access. But communities gain tools to prove ownership, fight exploitation, and participate in decisions because of less fraud and bureaucracy in land records. Other than this, Technology access gaps might leave marginalized groups behind and Governments or corporations could misuse these tools for surveillance or control.
In my opinion, Drones, GIS, and blockchain can make land governance fairer and more transparent, but only if everyone has equal access. Otherwise, they might just hand more power to those already in charge.
Blockchain and Trust in Institutions
Blockchain’s decentralized architecture challenges traditional hierarchies by enabling “trust less” transactions (Nakamoto, 2008). Yet, in UP’s context, land ownership remains mediated by caste and patronage networks (Gupta, 2020). Blockchain’s success thus depends on aligning with existing institutional logics (Thornton et al., 2012), such as community-based verification.
Drones generate high-resolution maps, replacing error-prone manual surveys. Theoretically, this reduces rent-seeking by minimizing human intervention (World Bank, 2020). However, Foucault’s panopticon theory (1975) warns that aerial surveillance risks centralizing state control, marginalizing marginalized groups unable to contest digital evidence (Ramanathan, 2022).
GIS integrates cadastral maps with socio-economic data, enabling evidence-based policy (Harvey, 2001). In UP, GIS dashboards theoretically empower villagers to monitor land records. Yet, digital divide theory (Van Dijk, 2006) highlights exclusion of low-literacy populations, perpetuating inequalities.
Blockchain: Decentralization or Reinforced Hierarchies?
Blockchain’s immutability could resolve inheritance disputes through smart contracts (Tapscott & Tapscott, 2016). However, UP’s land records often exclude women and Dalits due to informal ownership norms (Agarwal, 1994). Without legal reforms, blockchain risks codifying existing exclusions (Srinivasan, 2021).
Land in UP is a site of caste assertion (Jaffrelot,2021). While Svamitva mandates women’s names on Property Cards, patriarchal norms often relegate them to symbolic ownership (Menon, 2023). Similarly, dominant castes manipulate digital systems to erase Dalit claims (Teltumbde,2020).
North’s institutional theory (1990) explains how legacy systems resist change. UP’s revenue bureaucracy, designed for manual processes, struggles to adapt to GIS workflows, causing delays (Singh, 2022).
Sen’s capability approach (1999) underscores that technology access ? empowerment. Only 34% of UP’s rural population uses smartphones (NSSO, 2021), limiting engagement with digital land records.
A polycentric governance framework (Ostrom, 2010) could harmonize technology with grassroots institutions:
1.Participatory Drone Mapping: Involve village councils in verifying boundaries.
2.Blockchain-Mediated SHGs: Use women’s self-help groups as validators for inclusive titling.
3.GIS Literacy Campaigns: Partner with NGOs to train marginalized communities.
Emerging technologies under Svamitva hold transformative potential but are constrained by UP’s entrenched socio-political hierarchies. Theoretical insights from institutional economics, feminist political ecology, and critical data studies reveal that land digitization must be reimagined as a socio-technical process, not merely a technocratic fix. Future research should explore hybrid models blending blockchain with community-led governance to advance equitable land justice.
References :
– Agarwal, B. (1994). A Field of One’s Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia. Cambridge University Press.
– Chakravorty, S. (2021). “Land Governance in Digital India: Promise and Peril.” Economic & Political Weekly, 56(12), 45-52.
– Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.
– Gupta, A. (2020). “Caste, Patronage, and Land Rights in Uttar Pradesh.” Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(3), 567-589.
– Ostrom, E. (2010). “Polycentric Systems for Coping with Collective Action.” Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550-557.
– Roy, A. (2018). “Land Rights in Postcolonial India: The Legal Regime and Agrarian Reforms.” Oxford Development Studies, 46(1), 89-103.
– Srinivasan, J. (2021). “Blockchain and Social Exclusion in India.” First Monday, 26(7).
– World Bank. (2020). Drones for Land Administration: Lessons from Global Pilots. World Bank Publications.
– PIB. (Jan,18,2025) “Ministry of Panchayati Raj”
