Darshini Mahadevia¹ & Pooja Shah ²

Introduction

In most developing countries, empirical observations indicate that there is a vicious cycle of relationship between the insecurity of housing tenure and poverty, the latter defined by housing conditions and employment status. In general, those living in slums are considered as poor. But, among the slum dwellers, there is a hierarchy of tenure security. It must be however remembered that the slum formation is largely a metropolitan and large city phenomenon; poor in small cities are living in regular housing and not in slums. Basic services such as housing, water and sanitation, electricity, education, health and above all employment and access to credit also play a vital role in the overall development and enhancement of quality of life of the poor people.  Providing access to these services would lead to improvement in health of these individuals and saving of energy and time spent of accessing these basic services. This in turn, leads to households spending available time on income generation. This happens more so with increase in women’s work participation with the improvement in access to basic services. Also, improvements in health leads to reduction in expenditures on one hand and higher labour productivity and higher participation in the labour market, all leading to increased incomes and savings. But, basic services, such as water and sanitation are not available to the slum dwellers living in ‘illegal’ housing or what is called ‘slums with insecure land tenure’. Hence, land tenure has a very significant link with poverty reduction and is a very significant input into poverty reduction.

Poverty induces insecure tenure primarily because of a poor formal land delivery system, which fails to cater to the needs of the low-income group. The tenure choices of the poor in urban areas are driven by two major needs:

1. That the costs of acquiring and occupying land are low
2. That their homes be located close to their place of work

When the formal land delivery system does not suit these requirements, the poor are forced into informal settlements. These informal settlements include both irregular livelihood and irregular rental occupancy of the house. In the short-run these informal settlements are cost-saving arrangements for the poor, in the long run the poor undergo several threats to their already uncertain economic standing




Figure 1 - Vicious Cycle of Tenure Insecurity and Poverty

Figure 2 – Virtuous Cycle of Tenure Security and Coming Out of Poverty

Tenural issues and urban poverty can be well explained through the following multiple levels of deprivations:

Housing deprivation and land tenure issues: Land tenure provides poor legal address and citizenship right. Without tenure people are not willing to invest in their houses because of constant fear of eviction and stay in the shabby dwelling for the lifetime.  It also increases their possibility to access to basic services such as water supply, sanitation, waste management, public transport etc.

Deprivation in access to basic services: The land tenure security directly affects access to basic services. More secure the tenure better the access to water, sanitation, waste management, electricity etc., which implies notified slums having better basic services as compared to non-notified slums because both, community and the urban local body are interested spending on legal houses.

Deprivation in access to credit: People who do not have tenured houses face problems in availing credit from a formal institution because absence of tenure denies their citizenship in the urban area. They do not have the security needed by banks for loans; and in that case they are helpless and compelled to go to local money lenders where they trapped in vicious circle of repayment at higher interest rates.

Education and health deprivation: One of the important endowments that can pull out the households from poverty is literacy and education. For good quality of education poor also want to put their children in private schools which require adequate finance which is denied due to illegal citizenship. Due to financial constraints and low awareness poor do not report their ailments.

In rapidly growing cities, Tenure insecurity and poverty have been observed as two sides of the same coin. While it is empirically marked that it is mainly the poor who are forced into informal, even illegal land settlements, it is also true that land tenure insecurity accelerates the vicious cycle of poverty. According to the United Nations Human Settlements Program (UN-Habitat), “the worsening state of access to shelter and security of tenure results in severe overcrowding, homelessness, and environmental health problems in most cities.”

What is Land Tenure?
Access to land has remained a major bottleneck in the access of urban poor to shelter, inspite of sites and services and shelter upgradation programmes pursued by the governments of the developing countries since the early seventies. Most governments have accepted these two programmes as official housing policy. Between the two programmes, shelter upgradation has remained popular with the governments (Van der Linden 1994). Part of this programme is tenure regularization within existing informal housing market, which has become commercialized over the years (Payne 1989). The entry to this market has become restrictive for the poor. Not only that, the governments enter into conflict with the powerful local actors, who affect the land tenure in the informal housing market. Governments of the developing countries have not been successful in implementing tenure regularization in the informal housing settlements as a result.

Land Tenure is defined as a mode by which land is held or owned, or the set of relationship among people concerning land or its product. In other words, it can be defined as the options from full ownership on one end to less exclusive forms of possession on the other end. ­­­­­Major difficulty in understanding tenurial system is that there are different systems of legislation relating to land, and different forms of tenure, co-existing in the same country and, sometimes, even within the same city, or between an urban area and its surroundings. The term land tenure therefore encompasses "not only ownership but also laws, customs and practices governing rights, duties and relationships of people to land" (Wolfe 1992: 4). Each form of tenure has its advantages and limitations depending upon its context.

These complex modes of tenure systems have evolved because; on one hand, due to continuous inflow of migrants to large cities and their hinterlands the public sector has been unable to keep pace with the supply of land for housing programmes, including sites and services schemes, and a large-scale informal commercial market has stepped in as a major supplier of housing. Many actors - local politicians, private sector developers, land owners and residents -are active in this housing submarket in which residents have willingly invested. Formal legal titles have not been a prerequisite for housing improvement (Doebele 1987). On the contrary, even lesser actions, such as enlistment on electoral rolls, have been perceived by illegal occupants as de facto, if not de jure, acceptance of permanency (Strassman 1984). In many developing countries where there are dual systems of land ownership, one governed by traditional laws and another by European laws, there may be far less need to legalize land titles for housing improvement (Chung et al 1992). De jure and De facto ownership and occupancy claims on urban land have emerged and which has made tenure regularization more difficult than generally understood. It follows that social, political and economic structures specific to developing countries and manifesting through role of different actors in the housing market, determine the land tenure and use. Therefore, a simple policy of tenure regularization may not solve the problem of the access of the poor to urban land.

Types of Tenure³

There is another form of customary land rights, the given as gifts to the users by the erstwhile rulers, former kings, emperors and local lords to their staff in appreciation of the latter’s services to the former. If these lands fall within the urban limits, then these are subdivided and handed to friends and family and people of their caste for housing purposes. These are called ‘Gift lands’ or ‘Inamdar lands’, which are given with certain conditions and are therefore not from encumbrance.

Private tenure: This is largely an imported concept from the developed market economies and is usually concentrated in urban areas, where it was designed to serve the interests of colonial settlers. As such, it may co-exist with other local tenure systems. The system permits the almost unrestricted use and exchange of land and is intended to ensure its most intense and efficient use. Its primary limitation is the difficulty of access by lower income groups.

Public tenure: Almost all societies acknowledge the concept of public land ownership to some degree. In socialist countries, all rights are vested in the State, while in capitalist countries it may be restricted to a narrow range of public requirements, such as strategic or communal uses. The concept of public land ownership is largely a reaction to the perceived limitations of private ownership in that it seeks to enable all sections of society to obtain access to land under conditions of increasing competition. Although it has frequently achieved higher levels of equity than private systems, it has rarely achieved high levels of efficiency due to bureaucratic inefficiency or systems of support. In case of public tenure, the households and the firms are given use rights through what are termed as lease document.

In Indian context, the public tenured lands are of the urban local government, Panchayat (rural local government), state government (each department of the state government own’s its lands, such as the Public Works Department, Housing Department, etc.), central government (each ministry owns its own lands such as the railways, defence, etc.), and public sector corporations of the central and state governments such as the Port Trust of India, Industrial Development Corporations. It is important to understand that each of these public entities have different degree of flexibility for lands being available for the purpose of housing the urban poor.

Leasehold tenure: This is a formal right to use the land but not own the land. The public lands are often given to the firms and households for the purpose of designated use. Lease rights are also given by the private land owners. The lease rights are given on long term basis and are as good as security attained through ownership, except that the users cannot transact the land without the permission of the owner.

Group tenure: The unit of group registration can be the land parcel (block), a building or plot of land or the area belonging to a customary group or sub-group. This unit can be registered in freehold or lease, for example in the name of a cooperative, community land trust or housing association, while individual occupation rights/sub-leases is granted by the group. Lease length and conditions, inheritance rights, rules on transfer of rights outside the group, maximum area, decision-making process etc are then decided by the group. This is much more affordable than individual tenure, as it does not require such specialized land administration approaches to secure individual rights. It diminishes the number of registration units and, thereby, also the survey, registration and public land administration costs.

Religious land tenure system: The long-established forms of tenure, especially in Islamic countries represent another variation in this range. There are four main categories of land tenure within Islamic societies. ‘Waqf’ land is land ‘held for God’, at the same time as `mulk', or private lands, are also protected in law; `miri', or state controlled land which carries `tassruf' or usufruct rights, is increasingly common, whilst `musha', or communal lands, are gradually ceasing to be a major factor under the requirement by land registry that ownership of land parcels has to be proven (United Nations 1973: 37). The religious foundations of the Waqf hold substantial areas of land in some cities, notably Baghdad and Beirut, which are protected from legislative encroachment. Because they are outside the commercial land market, waqf lands are often inefficiently managed (as in Lahore). Such lands are also found in number of Indian cities. Temples, Churches and other religious places also hold such lands in Indian cities. These are sometimes leased out for residential purposes.

Land tenure for the Charity trusts: This form of lands exist in many Indian cities. Trusts are formed under the Charity Act, where such entities come to own lands, either being donated to them or acquired by them for carrying out activities stated in the purpose of the trust. These lands cannot be used for commercial purposes. Housing not being considered commercial in certain contexts, has benefited from this. Some private industrial houses, in particular in the western industrialized cities of Ahmedabad and Mumbai, donated some of their lands for the purpose of Charity; to run an educational institute, for any charity work and so on. These lands do not have characteristics as private lands and hence have been classified separately.

Housing Mobility - Case studies of Ahmedabad and Surat

Figure 3 - Stages of tenure


When poor migrants come to the cities in search of better livelihood options then agricultural labour or any other allied activities, their first abode is any footpath, railway track side, vacant industrial land, land under reservation or outskirts of the city which they can easily squat. Gradually with daily wage in unorganized sector, the squatter dwellings increase in number and convert into pavement dwellings. The dwelling form changes from most vulnerable structures like plastic sheets to other comparatively durable material like tin, mud and bamboo without any basic amenities like water supply and sanitation. The question of access to social infrastructure like education and health does not arise given that there is no access to physical and civic infrastructure. But, in case public social amenities are available, they may access these, given that their incomes do not permit them to access private amenities. Sometimes at this stage the dwellings are evicted by the Urban Local Bodies (Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation – AMC - and Surat Municipal Corporation - SMC), then they start over again, in the same place or in a new place. They may also be pushed to the city periphery, not being allowed to squat again on the same or nearby lands.

In case they are not evicted but no facilities are provided because the land owners (in particular the railways, or even the ULB whose land they are squatting upon), they may continue to live like this for a few generations.  It is not unusual to find the slum dwellers living in such shelter conditions for more than a generation - nearly two in five slum households (39%), were living in slums for more than 20 years, nearly one generation (NSSO 2003). In these settlements, households may begun to make gradual investments, and a slum is formed. The temporary settlements convert in to slums without any legal documents.

It may happen that some of them may move to another settlement, which is slightly better in terms of basic services, and rent a place there or purchase a dwelling unit there, depending on their incomes and informal housing prices. This stage is slightly better. This transition happens if the city provides economic mobility opportunities, as the two cities did provide, till the recent economic crises. Some new migrants, with contacts in the city, such as a family member or a friend, may straight enter a rental housing market in such relatively better settlements, before they move on to purchase their own house in the informal housing market. The choice of location of housing depends on their work location. With increased incomes, the migrants may ask their families from back home join them, and a proper household formation takes place. Some migrants also come with families and then continue to squat for long periods before moving into a settlement with basic services. A community therefore gets formed gradually. Within a slum settlement also, there is a tendency of the households of the same caste to cluster together.

The move to a new settlement could be to a one with de facto tenurial security. In case of Ahmedabad, many of these lands are private lands on the urban periphery, subdivided by an informal sector developer, and sold to the buyers on Rs. 10 or now even Rs. 500 stamp-paper. This document records the financial transaction. But, it may not give land ownership right to the owner. This is the commercial informal land market, where the low income groups buy house. But, the people think that these are legal documents, which gives them security of tenure. Such settlements may be with basic services or without it. The households may make their individual arrangements for basic services. But, over time, the services get extended to such settlements as the local governments do not have any objections in doing so. At least, in these two cities, such instances were found. Thereafter, the schools come up and so do the health services, but, in the private sector. Those who have assets back home, such as lands in village, find it easier to move to such settlements soon on coming to the cities. People then start getting their individual electricity connection. Receipt of payment of electricity bill is an important document to establish the household’s residential address. In the recent years, with the pressure on the local governments to raise their own taxes, they have begun assessing such slum housing for property tax. Payment of property tax also establishes de facto tenurial security of the households.

All the settlements formed through above processes are under threats of eviction and some of them also receive such threats. It is then they realize that the land is not owned by them and they would always live in uncertainty. If some of them can afford, they may want to take a housing loan to extend their house, to accommodate growing family or for rental purposes, they realise that they cannot get loans from the public institutions, which are the cheapest loans. Thus, starts the struggle to acquire a legal tenure, struggle which is not in the conventional sense, but through the contacts with the political leaders, through raising demands before the elections, and so on. These are gradual claiming of rights, through pushing the boundaries of State action. For slums on public lands they may be able to get land ownership right, which is called patta. In case of settlements on private lands, the slum dwellers have to purchase the lands from the owner (s) and this process is extremely complicated because it is fraught with innumerable legalities. If an NGO steps in, the process may start and complete. If not, then this uncertain status remains forever.

It is clear from the above discussion of Ahmedabad and Surat and which is true for almost all the developing countries that in the first place, insecure tenure has a negative impact on the provision of urban services, and consequently on the economic situation of the urban poor. Governments are frequently reluctant to provide basic services in informal settlements because they view such actions as a first step toward legal recognition of the settlements and tenure regularization. Slum dwellers have no choice but to rely on informal service providers at a cost that is much higher than that which other urban households pay leading to distorted prices: both land and services. Significantly, lack of secure tenure discourages household investments and investments in home-based activities. In short, when people are in doubt about their future in a particular settlement, they are far less to be expected to invest in their houses. This has an unfavourable effect on poverty mitigation. It intensifies the problem of irregular settlements since it reduces much needed investment in the household sector, and falls short to improve living standards.