Who Owns the Land? The Case for an Authoritative Ownership Record in Bangladesh

Ask a simple question about a piece of land in Bangladesh: Who owns it? The answer may require a registered deed, one or more khatians, mutation records, inheritance documents, a survey map, tax records and sometimes a court decision. Each serves a purpose. The difficulty is that Bangladesh still does not maintain, for every identifiable parcel, a continuously updated ownership chain capable of answering three questions together: who holds the right, over exactly which land, and through what lawful sequence did that right reach the present holder?

Registration and Land Records were Compiled Separately
The Registration Act, 1908 regulates the registration of instruments, while the Record of Rights is prepared and maintained under a different legal and administrative framework. A registered transfer therefore does not by itself become part of a continuously maintained ownership history in the land record.

Section 52A, which took effect in 2005, strengthened the registration process by requiring, among other things, the latest khatian, property particulars, a map, a brief 25-year ownership history and an affidavit of lawful title.

An especially important issue arises with inheritance. Section 52A permits the latest khatian to be in the name of the seller or donor or�"where ownership came by inheritance - in the name of his or her predecessor. That may be practical, but it creates a major verification challenge. The State must still determine the lawful heirs, their respective shares, previous transfers and how much of the inherited interest remains available to the person seeking to transfer it. A 25-year ownership description submitted for one transaction is not the same as a State-maintained ownership chain.

Bangladesh should not simply declare today’s khatian�"or any existing database�"conclusive. That could convert historical errors into protected errors. The safer path is progressive: identify the parcel; connect deeds, khatians, mutation, inheritance, partition and relevant court information; reconcile joint shares and previous transfers; provide notice and opportunity for objection; and route conflicts for correction or adjudication.

Succession Information Is Another Disconnected Link
Death registration is a formal government process, but a death record does not itself identify the lawful heirs or update the land record. Local government institutions such as Union Parishads, municipalities and city corporations also issue warish or heir certificates. Where such certificates are prepared manually, maintained locally or cannot be checked against a common digitally verifiable register, duplicate or inconsistent certificates can create additional risks for mutation, partition and subsequent transfers.

The Tenancy Rules, 1955 already recognise the importance of succession information. Rule 22 places responsibility on the Tahsildar or Patwari to report changes in ownership and, in succession cases, to report the names and addresses of all heirs, their respective shares and the holdings inherited. But this information-gathering duty is not the same as a nationwide, continuously reconciled succession-and-ownership register. Where field verification relies on locally issued certificates that are not centrally verifiable, inconsistencies can enter the ownership chain. 

Joint Khatians Make the Problem Harder
The difficulty becomes sharper in joint khatians. A co-sharer may lawfully hold and transfer an undivided share, but the khatian may not identify an exclusive physical portion of a particular dag belonging to that person.
Suppose a 100-decimal dag is jointly held by several heirs and one co-sharer transfers 20 decimals. Another transfer may later describe another 20 decimals. Unless ownership shares, earlier transactions and the actual parcel geometry are reconciled, the system may know the quantity transferred without reliably showing whether the same physical land has already been affected. Inheritance multiplies the uncertainty. One generation dies, several heirs succeed, another heir dies, some interests are transferred and others remain undivided. Without continuous updating, a current transaction may require the reconstruction of several generations of rights.

What Do the Courts Say?
Bangladesh’s Appellate Division has repeatedly held that a Record of Rights does not itself create title; its statutory presumption remains rebuttable. The principle appears in Akrab Ali and others v. Zahiruddin Kari and others, 30 DLR (AD) 81, and was reiterated in Chief Engineer, Roads and Highway Directorate v. Asaduzzaman Siddique and others, 69 DLR (AD) 440. The Supreme Court has subsequently cited both authorities in reaffirming that a mere Record of Rights does not create title.

This distinction matters. A khatian is an important government record, mutation updates that record, and a registered deed is important evidence of transfer. But none should be confused with a continuously maintained, parcel-based ownership history. When records conflict, courts may still have to work backwards through deeds, khatians, possession, inheritance and other evidence.

The Missing Object Is the Ownership Chain
A modern system should preserve not only the current recorded name but how the right arose. It should link the current right-holder to the parcel, the share held, the transaction or succession event, the supporting records and the historical chain. A khatian showing the current record entry, together with only the immediately preceding khatian, cannot by itself provide the complete ownership history.

If a parcel is subdivided, its parent-child relationship should remain visible. If an owner dies, succession should enter the chain. If a court cancels a deed or Government acquires part of the land, both the rights history and parcel history should change accordingly. Spatial identification is equally essential: ownership cannot become authoritative if the State cannot reliably identify the land to which the right relates.

A name without identifiable land is incomplete; a parcel without a reliable rights history is equally incomplete.

Regional experience points in the same direction. India is connecting RoR, registration and georeferenced parcel information under DILRMP and ULPIN/Bhu-Aadhaar. Punjab, Pakistan is moving towards property records supported by ownership-chain, encumbrance and GIS-based verification. Sri Lanka’s experience with parcel-based title registration similarly shows that stronger title certainty requires investigation, cadastral accuracy, objection handling, institutional capacity and mechanisms for correction.

From Evidence of Ownership to an Authoritative Record
Bangladesh should not simply declare today’s khatian�"or any existing database�"conclusive. That could convert historical errors into protected errors. The safer path is progressive: identify the parcel; connect deeds, khatians, mutation, inheritance, partition and relevant court information; reconcile joint shares and previous transfers; provide notice and opportunity for objection; and route conflicts for correction or adjudication.

The result can be an authoritative current ownership record with a clearly defined legal status and a traceable history behind it�"without removing the courts’ role or introducing an unlimited State guarantee of title.

Bangladesh already records most of the pieces. The next reform is to connect the right person, the right share and the right parcel through one continuously maintained ownership chain.

Then the question “Who owns this land?” can finally have a reliable government answer.