brand logo

Land policies and procedures designed for political survival, not for benefit of landowners

02 Nov 2022

By Shenali D. Waduge The citizens entrust the land, its resources, and the people’s sovereignty to those they elect to govern the country. They do not expect these custodians to barter the land and its resources according to the land policy dictated by foreign agents.  Land sovereignty has been alienated to be handled by foreign advisors for the past 70 years. Sri Lanka’s land policy and registration functions according to the research papers of foreign experts, which are published on the internet. Successive governments have failed to depend on local research, and have systematically terminated research programmes in the Colombo University’s Law Faculty and the Sri Lanka Law College. Today, we have to conclude that not only politicians, but even the other pillars entrusted to protect Sri Lanka’s land resources, have completely failed; land is being delivered into the hands of fraudsters, and in the near future to be delivered into the hands of large companies – the agenda in short. Foreign funds are given or solicited with the mutual agreement that giver and taker are free to disburse land and enjoy the fruits of the harvest, little concerned about the threat to the island’s territory and the right to land of future generations. These agreements and statutes have completely failed, according to the reports of the commissions appointed by the Government.  Our land registration and land policy changes are akin to keeping up with the Joneses, without any benefit to landowners.   A land registration process of no economic benefit to the country or people   Nations have only one register. The reason is that a country having a single register can provide an electronically operated “one-stop-shop” system. There is no requirement for several registers, where entrepreneurs, land buyers and banks have to search for “who owns what”. Unless confusion is part of the agenda. Sri Lanka has several registers with different names – land bank, Title register, Land Information system (LIS or the e-register), and the old register – and altogether four land registries are currently being established.   Parliament passes four land registers for our country?   Sri Lanka has deviated from the well-established international registration laws and land policy requirement of the Doing Business Index. Our legislators should look at land registries of countries to know the repercussions of not having a compulsory comprehensive single register where all landowners are registered and protected from land theft – unless some seek to benefit from the confusion that arises. How can we buy and mortgage land searching through four registers? How can a bank rely on four registers to find owners? We are presently investing a substantial amount of dollars to establish four registers. Register 1 under Ordinance 23 of 1927 amended in October 2022, without the vital amendments, aims:
  • to make the register a one-stop-shop, i.e., making the register mandatory, where all owners will be recorded (all government and private owners) 
  • to empower the Registrar to reject forged deeds. It is unbelievable that the legislature in October 2022 agreed to maintain a land register where land buyers and banks cannot rely on the register to confirm ownership. It remains a priority register, not an ownership register. 
Register 2, operated by Act 21 of 1998, changed our land law to Australian law, and this intention of the legislature is questionable. The legislature did not pay any attention to introducing the international biometric solutions and laws to protect owners from fraud. In 1998, the Act came about without legal input, and even against advice by the Australian consultant. Even the World Bank’s Quality of Land Administration report claims Sri Lanka’s land operating system is in disarray. The World Bank 2007 report claims Sri Lanka has not followed the Learning and Innovation Loan when implementing Act 21 of 1998. Several commission reports have repeatedly concluded that the second register under Act 21 of 1998 is unsuitable, whereas, alarmingly, the constraints analysis report by the Government appealed for $ 67 million to implement this Act via the (Millennium Challenge Corporation) MCC Land Project across five years. The operation of the act by the Government has resulted in a colossal loss to the country – in 20 years, of 12 million land parcels, only 750,000 had been electronically registered at the rate of $ 2.5 million per year (a rough estimate) – totalling $ 50 million over a 20-year period. Register 3, which is on its way, is called the Land Information System (LIS) e-register, which defines land without deeds and with numbers, without any protection to owners. Register 4, the State Land Bank, drafted in 2018, is also on its way to being implemented via the MCC. The MCC land project was initiated in 2015, manipulating loopholes in the Bim Saviya (Title Registration) programme.
  • The $ 67 million MCC land project only covers 10 land registries in seven targeted districts (67% land area), a deed registry that is linked to the e-land registry, and a digital parcel fabric map for investor transactions (the Government has to bear the cost of the other land registries and districts)
  • The MCC land project covers both private (Bim Saviya) and State land and is promoting freehold title deeds of State land (which is why MPs are promoting giving leased State land as freehold deed ownership, which is Constitutionally prohibited) – this was attempted by the Land Special Provisions Act to privatise all State land before signing the MCC (MCC funding was to be released only after the said Act was passed)
  • The MCC requires land registries (45 land registries) to be electronic, and for the original deeds to be destroyed. Without manual records, if a cybercrime occurs, how can owners be ascertained? What will happen to the land sovereignty of Sri Lanka?
There are many more dangers associated with the MCC on top of the threat to the land sovereignty. Similar to Act 21, this legislation for the fourth register was prepared surreptitiously without any legal advice and sent to the then-PM on 20 February 2018. This register is very much against international law as it only lists State land. MPs must be alert enough to find out whether we can attain a better position in the Doing Business Index with four land registers. The Colombo University Law Faculty and the Sri Lanka Law College should be encouraged to research and advise legislators, as done in Australia, the UK, Singapore, European nations, India, Malaysia, and South Africa. Their registries are safely monitored and managed by professors of law.  Many books have been written on the subject and there is ample literature available to refer to in order to introduce a single internationally recognised register to be in a better position in the Doing Business Index (DBI)    Is Parliament aware of the repercussions of the legislation they pass?   Around $ 50 million has been spent preparing land registration according to the statutes passed. Shockingly, the result is that not a single landowner is safe. According to the Criminal Investigation Department’s (CID) reports, land fraud is extremely pervasive. The Land Registry collects stamp duty amounting to billions, but the registry is not in a place an owner or a Notary can reach, and it is a nightmare for banks and buyers to find owners .  Whom are we fooling by setting up four registers with different names, as highlighted above? There is a simple solution: Sri Lanka requires only one register, the Register under Order 23 of 1927. This requires amendments to be on par with international law; namely, the introduction of biometric solutions to prevent fraud, and registration being made mandatory, where all owners are registered. Thus we will not require four registers.  The question remains, however – why have officers and policy advisors not raised the need to implement the above instead of soliciting foreign funds?    (The writer is an independent political analyst who writes on a broad range of topics, and was previously the International Human Rights Commission’s Goodwill Ambassador for Sri Lanka) ……………………………………  (The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication.)          


More News..