Land Regularisation for Reducing Urban Housing Inequality through State Recognition of Informal Housing Residents

In the sprawling cities of India, a deep divide runs through the landscape, separating two very different worlds. On one side stands the "planned city," a space of wide roads, modern buildings, and strict rules designed for the wealthy and the powerful. On the other lies the "unplanned city," a dense network of informal settlements where millions of people live in makeshift homes, often without legal permission to be there. For decades, the standard approach to fixing this divide has been to tear down these informal neighborhoods and move the residents to new, government-built apartments on the outskirts of town. This method assumes that a house is simply a physical structure, and that if people are given a new building, their problems will be solved. However, this view misses a crucial reality: for the urban poor, a home is not just a shelter; it is the center of their economic life, their community, and their identity. When they are moved far away from their jobs and neighbors, they lose their ability to survive.

This paper, written by legal scholars Vinayak Swaroop and Akansha Singh, challenges the old way of thinking about urban housing. Instead of moving people out, the authors argue that the government should recognize the people who are already there. They propose a policy called "land regularisation." In simple terms, this means the state officially acknowledges these informal settlements as legitimate parts of the city. It does not necessarily give the residents full ownership of the land immediately, but it grants them a legal right to stay, which allows them to access electricity, water, and other public services. The researchers suggest that this approach is far more effective than building new housing on the city's edge because it keeps people close to their livelihoods and preserves the social fabric of their communities. By making these residents "visible" to the law, the state can help them improve their existing homes rather than displacing them into isolation.

The authors begin by examining why the current methods of solving housing inequality are failing. They look at three main strategies that governments have used: building new government housing, creating zoning rules to mix rich and poor neighborhoods, and using private companies to build housing for the poor. They find that all three approaches often make things worse for the people they are meant to help. When the government builds new housing, it frequently places these apartments on the far edges of the city, far from the markets and factories where the poor work. In Hyderabad, for instance, a scheme intended to provide 100,000 homes ended up placing more than 70% of them on the city's periphery. The residents who moved there found themselves cut off from their jobs, unable to afford the long commutes, and separated from the tight-knit communities that supported them. The new buildings often lacked proper water and electricity, and the construction quality was poor. The result was that people lost their livelihoods and their sense of community, even though they had a new roof over their heads.

Zoning rules, which try to force developers to include affordable units in new luxury projects, also struggle. The authors explain that even when such rules exist, wealthy residents often resist living near the poor, and developers find ways to bypass the spirit of the law. Furthermore, simply building more houses in a city does not help if the people cannot find work there. The modern Indian city is increasingly dominated by high-tech jobs that require advanced education, leaving the unskilled laborers who built the city with no place to work. If they cannot find work, they cannot afford the new housing, no matter how cheap it is made to be. The paper argues that these policies treat housing as a commodity to be bought and sold, ignoring the fact that for the urban poor, housing is a tool for survival that must be located where the work is.

The authors then turn to the concept of "regularisation" as a better alternative. They draw on the idea of "legibility," which means making people and places visible and understandable to the government. Currently, people living in informal settlements are often treated as invisible or even as criminals, labeled as "encroachers" who have no right to the city. This status makes them afraid to ask for help or improve their homes because they fear being evicted. Regularisation changes this dynamic. It does not require the government to buy all the land or build new skyscrapers. Instead, it allows the government to officially record who lives where and grant them a limited right to stay. This legal recognition gives them the security they need to invest in their own homes and the confidence to demand basic services like roads and drains.

To test how this works in practice, the paper looks at the history of housing policies in Hyderabad, a city where more than two million people, or about 33% of the population, live in slums. The researchers trace efforts from the 1970s to the present day. They find that earlier attempts at regularisation had some success when they involved the local community. In the past, when the government worked with local leaders to improve roads and water supplies, the residents felt a sense of ownership and the neighborhoods became safer and more livable. However, these successes were often undermined by discrimination. The paper notes that while some residents were given the right to eventually own their land, others, particularly those from lower castes and marginalized communities, were denied these same rights. This shows that even well-intentioned policies can fail if they do not treat all citizens equally.

The most recent attempt in Hyderabad is the "Land Regularisation Scheme, 2020." This policy requires owners of unapproved plots to apply for regularisation and pay a fee to make their land legal. The goal is to stop the spread of illegal layouts and bring these areas into the formal planning system. The authors argue that this approach is promising because it focuses on making existing settlements livable rather than displacing people. However, they also point out a major flaw in its current implementation. As of late 2024, more than two million applications were still pending because the rules were being challenged in court. This delay has left residents in a state of anxiety, unable to secure their legal status or improve their homes. The paper suggests that for regularisation to truly work, the government must not just make rules from the top down but must actively engage with the communities. The process needs to be inclusive, allowing residents to have a say in how their neighborhoods are developed.

The authors conclude that land regularisation is not a perfect solution, but it is the most effective path forward. It acknowledges that the urban poor are equal citizens who deserve to live in the city, not on its fringes. By recognizing their right to stay, the state can help them build better lives without destroying the social and economic networks that keep them afloat. The paper warns that without this kind of recognition, and without a parallel effort to create jobs for the poor, housing policies will continue to fail. The ultimate goal is not just to provide a roof, but to ensure that every resident has a place in the city's future. The researchers emphasize that this requires a shift in mindset: seeing the informal city not as a problem to be erased, but as a vital part of the urban ecosystem that needs to be supported and integrated.