Difference between revisions of "No Entry (India)"

‎[[File:No Entry Hyderabad Map.png|400px|thumb|right|]]

<div class='item'>The term ''no entry'' refers to an informal system of land transfer that is prevalent within the urban limits of Hyderabad, India. While similar practices may exist in other parts of the country, the term is specific to Hyderabad, which is India’s fifth largest city, and the capital of the recently formed state of Telengana. The term itself derives from the English word ‘notary’ or ‘notary public,’ through the agency of which the alienation and transfer of property rights is deemed to be ratified. A notary public of the common law is a public officer appointed by either the central or state government to serve the public in matters concerned with estates, deeds, powers of attorney, and foreign and international business (SRO.324, The Notaries Rules, 1956). ''No entry'' is a colloquialism which has passed into common use, and while its root may be an English word, it is used frequently and even predominantly by those who do not speak English. The term can relate to the land that is being informally transferred, to the informal way it has been transferred, or to the informal documents that accompany such informal transactions.<br>''No entry'' transactions are informal as they do not go through the State Revenue Department – the authority in charge of all matters pertaining to urban and rural lands at the State level (sub-national), including land expropriation, registration of transactions, determining terms of tenure, documenting title deeds etc. <ref>Banerjee, B. 2002a. 'Security of Tenure in Indian Cities', in Durand-Lasserve, A. and Royston, L. (eds), ''Holding Their Ground: Secure land tenure for the urban poor in developing countries.'' London: Earthscan: 37–58</ref>. Formal land transactions not only involve a notary, but are also approved by the state revenue department. In the case of a ''no entry'' transaction, the vital additional step of being approved by the state revenue department – and the resultant paying of land tax and stamp duty – is not taken. While the notary is a public officer, the ratification of property exchange without the State Revenue Department’s approval and formal registration constitutes an extra-legal act.<br>Sales and purchases of property via the ''no entry'' system are not entered in the land registry records, and none of the associated fees are paid to the state. These should include stamp duty (7 per cent of property value), transfer fee (2 per cent of property value) and registration fee (0.5 per cent of property value). Indian law requires the registration of all property transfers unless the value of the property under consideration is less than one hundred rupees (Registration Act 1908), which is roughly equivalent to £1 in exchange value. Yet in practice, such registration is rarely carried out. ''No entry'' documents resemble formal property sale agreements, made in good faith (bona-fide), but drawn up on non-judicial stamp paper. A large proportion of ''no entry'' transactions involve exchanges of property located within informal settlements, or slums, or spaces where there may be multiple or conflicting claims on land <ref>Bartlett, S. and Satterthwaite, D. (eds). 1989. 'Introduction: Beyond the stereotype of slums', ''Environment and Urbanization'', 1(2): 2–5</ref>.<br>The dual nature of the ''no entry system'' – not formal, but not wholly informal either, because it is structured and codified – is well-suited to enabling transactions in cases where property rights are not clearly defined or deemed inalienable/non-transferable under the existing legal constraints. In other words, the ''no entry'' system appears to have evolved as a tactic to enable transactions that would otherwise be impossible under the law. Slums, spread across the country, create a massive demand for systems similar to ''no entry'', based on a ''mélange'' of informal arrangements with the state, as well as those that emerge where the state is absent. Slums can be divided into notified, i.e. identified and recognised by the state, and non-notified slums. Notification is essential for slums to receive municipal services such as piped water, sanitation services and electricity, yet half of all slums in India are estimated to be non-notified<ref>Subbaraman, R., O’brien, J., Shitole, T., Shitole, S., Sawant, K., Bloom, D. E. and Patil-Deshmukh, A. 2012. 'Off the map: the health and social implications of being a non-notified slum in India', ''Environment and urbanization'', 24(2): 643-663</ref>. The reasons for non-notification are associated with issues of ownership of the land which the slum occupies. For example, notification is possible if the land belongs to the city government, but several slums in the Hyderabad area are located on government land that does not belong to the city government <ref>Banerjee, B. 2002a. 'Security of Tenure in Indian Cities', in Durand-Lasserve, A. and Royston, L. (eds), ''Holding Their Ground: Secure land tenure for the urban poor in developing countries''. London: Earthscan: 37–58</ref>. For example, there are slums on land that belong to the Central Defence Ministry, Ministry of Railways, and on private lands where there is some ambiguity about legal ownership.<br>In practical terms, for residents in notified slums on city government land, or in low-income housing colonies built under government schemes, notification opens the possibility of being granted a ''patta''. ''Pattas'' are documents issued by the State Revenue Department, which bestow an inalienable property right under certain conditions and for a certain time period <ref>Banerjee B. 2002b. 'Security of Tenure of Irregular Settlements in Visakhapatnam', in Durand- Lasserve, A. and Royston, L. (eds), ''Holding Their Ground: Secure land tenure for the urban poor in developing countries.'' London: Earthscan: 86-100. pp.37-58</ref>. The conditions of the ''patta'' reflect the underlying objectives of the state and often aim at granting tenurial security, while restricting sale or marketisation (ibid). Thus, the ''patta''-holder may hold the right to live on the property and bequest it, but is not allowed to transfer or lease the property to a third party.<br><br>‎[[File:No Entry Document.png|200px|thumb|left|''No entry'' document]][[File:No Entry Patta.png|200px|thumb|right|The original ''patta'', the possession certificate]]Against the backdrop of such limited property rights, the ''no entry'' system serves as an instrument for trading the officially non-tradable ''pattas''.  If a ''patta''-holder decides to sell the land specified in the ''patta'', a ''no entry'' document is drawn up and then notarised by the public notary office. The original ''patta'' along with the ''no entry'' document then constitutes a proof of ownership – with the understood limitation – for the new owner. With each subsequent sale, the original ''patta'' along with all of the ''no entry'' documents from each of the previous transactions gets passed on to the new owner. ''No entry'' land is not normally built over by the de facto owners or used as collateral, but it is often leased out either partially or wholly.<br>The nearest equivalent to the ''no entry'' system can be found in squatter settlements in Bogota, Colombia. Here, illegally subdivided plots are transferred via a private agreement, which is drawn up on ordinary paper, usually handwritten and not even registered by a notary <ref>Aristizabel, N. and Gomez, O. 2002. 'Are services more important than titles in Bogota?', in Payne, G. (ed.), ''Land, Rights and Innovation: Improving Tenure Security for the Urban Poor''. London: ITDG Publishing: 100–113</ref>. Interestingly, the seller may employ the use of a ''testaferro'' (‘figurehead’) – someone over sixty – to act as a co-signatory and nominal owner as ‘cover’ for the real owner, because senior citizens cannot be prosecuted under Colombian law (ibid).  The ''no entry'' system can also be likened to the transfer system of properties through ''aurfi'' contracts (which translates roughly as ‘hand claims’) in Cairo, Egypt. The ''aurfi'' contract requires signatures of the buyer and the seller, as well as those of two male witnesses of their handshake agreement. Such contracts can be formalised through the ''dawa saha wa towqia'' – a relatively simple and inexpensive procedure in a local court – though such formalisation does not give any legal status to the property transaction itself <ref>Sims, D. 2002. 'What is secure tenure in urban Egypt?' In Payne, G. (ed.), ''Land, Rights and Innovation: Improving Tenure Security for the Urban Poor''. London: ITDG Publishing: 79–87</ref>. In other words, while the procedure fomalises the exchange of certain limited rights to the land, it does not acknowledge legal ownership of the land by the seller – and by extension the buyer. Like ''no entry'', the ''aurfi'' contractual system is not recognised by the state as legitimate means of property transfer. There is however an important difference between the two system: the ''aurfi'' contract infers liability to pay ''aawayid'' (property tax), and thus implies a tacit acknowledgement of the informal system of property transfer by the Egyptian authorities, while in India there is no recognition of the ''no entry'' system. Comparable yet distinct informal land transfer practices have been reported to exist in Benin<ref>Durand-Lasserve, A., Bagre, A., Gueye, M. and Tonato, J. 2002. 'Current changes and trends: Benin, Burkina Faso and Senegal', in Payne, G. (ed.); ''Land, Rights and Innovation: Improving Tenure Security for the Urban Poor''. London: ITDG Publishing: 114–135</ref>, Burkina Faso <ref>Mathieu, P., Zongo, M. and Pare, L. 2002. 'Monetary Land Transactions in Western Burkina Faso: Commoditisation, Papers and Ambiguities', ''The European Journal of Development Research'', 14(2): 109–128</ref>, North-West Rwanda <ref>Andre, C. 2002. 'Custom, Contracts and Cadastres in North-West Rwanda', ''The European Journal of Development Research'', 14(2): 153–172<br></ref>, as well as some other parts of Africa <ref>Rakodi, C. 2004. ''Land for housing in African cities: are informal delivery systems institutionally robust and pro-poor?'' Paper to Expert Group Meeting on Secure Land Tenure: New Legal Frameworks and Tools, FIG Commission 7, UN-HABITAT, ISK and CASLE.</ref>.<br>While the ''no entry'' system is specific to Hyderabad, most of the informal systems of land property transfer mentioned above perform similar functions in rural as well as urban contexts in developing countries. In rural contexts, they provide a low-cost means of enabling free-market transactions that brings land to its most productive use <ref>Deininger, K. and Feder, G. 2001. 'Land Institutions and Land Markets', in Gardner, B. L. and Rausser, G. C. (eds). ''Handbook of Agricultural Economics''. Amsterdam: North-Holland: 288–331</ref>. For instance, land that is not being cultivated may be brought under cultivation by the new owners, especially where certain investments are required which would be uneconomical under a short-term lease. These informal mechanisms of transfer may also be recognised by informal lenders, allowing access to capital, where formal systems may be cumbersome or unavailable. Most significantly, these systems are more accessible to a wider set of potential buyers and sellers, providing greater equity in land markets. In urban settings, the issue of access to land is often intimately linked to access to housing or shelter, and associated benefits such as livelihood opportunities, public services and credit <ref>Payne, G. 2002. 'Introduction', in Payne, G. (ed.), ''Land, Rights and Innovation: Improving Tenure Security for the Urban Poor.'' London: ITDG Publishing: 3–22</ref>. In countries like India where one in four city dwellers can be classified as poor, informal systems like ''no entry'' provide access to basic services for a vast number of people.<br><br>==Notes==<br><references /><br>[[Category:Asia]]<br>[[Category:India]]<br>[[Category:Functional]<br>[[Gaming the System]]<br>[[Category:Intermediation]]</div>