3 minute read
4.4 Legal Usability of Spatial Records
from NCAER releases India's first Land Records and Services Index to energise land governance in India
The average N-LRSI score of the top five States is 66.9 points The sensitivity analysis reveals that four out of the top five States/UTs retain their position under these different scenarios
per cent digitisation of land records and an advanced stage of computerisation of registration, but had not yet posted details of this achievement on the web.
Kerala reported digitisation of land records but accessing this record posed problems. Chandigarh had started digitising the registration process and holds promise of catching up with the rest of the country. Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh were still to make a significant effort in the digitisation process. Goa and Manipur showed dynamism in recent times, with the potential to show significant progress in a very short period of time.
7.6. Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was carried out on the following key parameters:
1) Changing the weightage between the
“extent of digitisation” and “quality of land records” to 50: 50 instead of the 60: 40 used in the original Index as presented; and 2) Impact of selected indicators, as well as cumulative effect of all indicators, pertaining to the quality of land records.
The impact of these scenarios are presented in this section.
Scenario 1: Change in weightage of extent of digitisation and quality of land records
The current N-LRSI methodology accords 60 per cent weightage to the “extent of digitisation”, and 40 per cent to the “quality of land records”. To check for the sensitivity of the index values and ranking of the States/UTs to the weights, the index was changed to provide equal weightage of 50 per cent each.
As discussed in Chapter 2, two out of five sub-components of the “quality of land records” are derived from the information obtained from the KCs. Sensitivity analysis was carried out by removing the scores for these two sub-components from the “quality of land records”.
Table 7.2: Sensitivity Analysis
GAIN LOSS
Scenario 1Original rankings Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Top-Five States
Madhya Pradesh Odisha Maharashtra Chhattisgarh Tamil Nadu Change in weights to Extent of Digitization and Quality of Land Records
Madhya Pradesh Odisha Maharashtra Chhattisgarh Jharkhand Exclusion of encumbrances and Updating ownership from Quality of Land Records
Madhya Pradesh Odisha Chhattisgarh Tamil Nadu Maharashtra Exclusion of Extent of joint ownership from Quality of Land Records
Madhya Pradesh Odisha Maharashtra Chhattisgarh West Bengal Exclusion of Extent of joint ownership, encumbrances and Updating ownership from Quality of Land Records
Madhya Pradesh Odisha Chhattisgarh Maharashtra Jharkhand
Source: N-LRSI 2019-20, NCAER Scenario 3: Exclusion of extent of joint ownership from quality of land records
The third scenario for sensitivity analysis entailed exclusion of the extent of joint ownership from the index calculation and arriving at the final score with modified values for the “quality of land records”.
The last scenario for sensitivity analysis was a combination of the second and third scenarios, and excluded joint ownership, encumbrances, and updating ownership from the “quality of land records” component of the N-LRSI. In this scenario, quality of land records consists of only the mapping-based verification checks—land use and land area/extent. The final index values were obtained from the normalised scores for these two checks of quality of land records.
Table 7.2 summarises the results of the sensitivity analysis and places the top five and the bottom five States/UTs based on the original N-LRSI values as well as for different scenarios of the sensitivity analysis (detailed scores and rankings are provided in Annexures A7.5 to A7.8).
The sensitivity analysis reveals that four out of the top five States/UTs retain their position under these different scenarios. Jharkhand moves into the top five from the seventh spot under Scenarios 1 and 4; and West Bengal, ranked sixth, moves up into the top five under Scenario 3.
The bottom five States/UTs also remain unchanged in all the four cases of sensitivity analysis. The position of other States/UTs does not change significantly.
