Jaipur Development Authority

The Urban Development and Housing (UDH) department’s newly introduced land registry rule in Rajasthan has triggered strong criticism across legal, administrative, and real estate circles. While the regulation is being positioned as a step toward planned development, many argue it quietly shifts power toward large builders and makes land transactions far more difficult for small landowners, farmers, and individual buyers. At the heart of the controversy is a new requirement that prevents the registration of sale deeds unless the land has an official conversion certificate. This certificate changes the land’s status from agricultural to residential or industrial and must be obtained from authorities such as the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) or other government bodies. Why the Rule Is Under Fire Critics say the rule ignores ground realities. For large developers, obtaining conversion certificates is routine. They have legal teams, consultants, and financial resources to manage approvals without much disruption. For individual landowners, especially farmers, the process is anything but simple. Conversion certificates involve multiple approvals, significant fees, and long waiting periods. Many small landowners lack the time, money, or administrative experience to navigate this system. As a result, they may feel forced to approach big builders to handle land transactions on their behalf, often at unfavorable terms. A senior UDH official, speaking anonymously, noted that the rule creates indirect pressure on landowners to rely on large developers. Instead of enabling fair and open transactions, it risks centralizing control of land deals in the hands of a few major players. Impact on Farmers and Small Landowners For farmers on the outskirts of cities like Jaipur, selling small portions of agricultural land has traditionally been a way to meet financial needs. Under the new rule, even genuine buyers cannot register a purchase unless conversion is completed beforehand. Critics say this effectively blocks independent land sales. Many farmers fear their land will lose immediate market value because buyers are unwilling to take on the uncertainty of conversion. This could leave landowners with limited choices and reduced bargaining power. Problems for Buyers and Existing Plot Owners The rule also affects buyers and current plot owners. Buyers are becoming increasingly cautious, avoiding plots without conversion certificates due to fears of registration rejection and legal complications. Existing plot owners who purchased land legally in the past but did not obtain conversion are now facing resale difficulties. Lawyers working at district collectorate offices warn that this could lead to a rise in informal agreements or stalled transactions, creating more legal disputes rather than reducing them. JDA Expansion Adds to Concerns The timing of the rule has raised further questions. It coincides with the recent expansion of JDA’s jurisdiction to include several villages in the Lajpur district. These areas were already seeing increased real estate activity. The new regulation adds another layer of compliance just as demand was growing, affecting both sellers and buyers. Calls for Review and Clarity Legal experts and policy observers are not entirely against regulation. Their concern lies with how abruptly the rule was enforced and how little clarity was provided to the public. Many landowners only became aware of the requirement when they reached registration offices. Critics suggest the government could have adopted a phased approach, simplified conversion for small plots, or provided exemptions for farmers. Clear guidelines and awareness campaigns could have reduced confusion and backlash. Conclusion While the aim of planned development is valid, the current form of Rajasthan’s new land registry rule appears to place an unequal burden on small landowners while benefiting large builders. Without timely clarification or policy adjustments, the rule risks reshaping the land market in ways that reduce fairness, limit choice, and push independent players to the margins. Development works best when growth is inclusive, not when access depends on size and influence.