Inadequate infrastructure and technical glitches, leading to frequent inaccuracies in land records

For decades, land-related disputes in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh were largely resolved at the field level, with Tahsildars, Revenue Divisional Officers (RDOs), Joint Collectors and District Collectors empowered to correct errors based on the nature of the issue. Only in rare and complex cases did matters escalate to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), who issued directions through the District Collector after examining records. Minor discrepancies in land records—such as survey or name errors—were routinely corrected through local surveys, and accountability mechanisms ensured action against erring officials.

However, the landscape changed significantly after the formation of Telangana with the introduction of the Dharani portal by the BRS government. Designed to streamline land transactions by integrating registration and instant mutation, Dharani initially received public approval. Over time, even minor errors in land records—such as incorrect names, survey numbers or land extent—turned into prolonged ordeals for landowners.

A key criticism was the centralisation of powers. Authority to rectify errors was taken away from Tahsildars and vested almost entirely with the CCLA, resulting in an unprecedented backlog of nearly five lakh applications. Landowners were forced to move from one office to another—from Tahsildars and RDOs to Additional Collectors, District Collectors and finally the CCLA—leading to mounting expenses, delays and mental distress.

Public dissatisfaction with Dharani grew steadily and eventually emerged as a major political liability. Many observers believe the land portal played a significant role in the electoral defeat of the BRS, earning the reputation of having “consumed” the party politically.

After assuming office, the Congress government scrapped Dharani and launched Bhu Bharati, promising a more citizen-friendly land records system. While corrective measures were announced, critics argue that meaningful powers were not restored to Tahsildars. Even now, field-level officers lack authority to correct basic errors such as name mismatches or survey discrepancies, forcing citizens to approach higher officials.

The situation is particularly severe in cases involving prohibited (POB) lands. Even when mistakes are evident, landowners are made to wait for months, repeatedly visiting RDO and Collector offices. This, critics say, has increased financial burden on citizens and created space for middlemen, as access to senior officials remains limited.

Compounding the problem are untrained personnel, inadequate infrastructure and technical glitches, leading to frequent inaccuracies in land records. Instances of private patta lands being wrongly marked as prohibited, and vice versa, have added to public distress, with rectification becoming a lengthy and exhausting process.

Although orders are issued with Tahsildar signatures, revenue experts point out that real decision-making continues to rest with RDOs and Collectors. They argue that unless genuine authority is delegated to field-level officials—along with proper oversight—the system will remain inefficient.

Public discontent is already visible, with political analysts warning that if the current situation persists, Bhu Bharati could inflict political damage on the Congress similar to the impact Dharani had on the BRS. Ensuring clear land ownership, enabling local-level corrections and preventing fresh disputes, they caution, will be crucial in restoring public trust and avoiding a repeat of history.