The Administration is making strides to reverse eKhata’s turbulent beginning by resolving glitches and implementing safeguards. We also urge them to proactively share updates about known technical glitches, address individual concerns on social platforms, establish a complaint tracking system and a safe space for reporting bribes – in that order.

Zen Citizen was launched in Sep ’24 to provide clear, practical information about poorly documented Government procedures, to help citizens get friction-free services from the Administration. To further simplify access to online Government services, we also develop tools, like our Encumbrance Certificate (EC) tool, which addresses challenges such as inconsistent village mappings on the Kaveri portal.

Our goal is to empower citizens to confidently navigate the system, stand their ground, and challenge bribery, and we do this by walking the path with a few citizens who are applying for Government services to uncover practical hurdles that citizens can avoid. We envision our guides to be like the ‘What to expect when you’re expecting (a baby)’ version for Government services.

Our website launch coincided with the implementation of eKhata. As the first service we sought to demystify, we had a front-row seat to its ambitious vision and rocky rollout. Citizens were trapped in delays and confusion, while Government staff exploited the disorder to demand inflated bribes. Although the administration is making a determined effort to address the situation, the lack of robust accountability processes has further eroded already fragile public trust, with some alleging that the system was intentionally designed to facilitate bribe collection.

By all accounts, the administration behind the initiative is committed, capable and has its heart in the right place. Yet, if this is the outcome of their efforts, it highlights for Zen Citizen the colossal challenge of tackling petty corruption.  

In this article, we trace the journey of the eKhata and urge the Administration to look beyond metrics to restore public trust.   

Bold Vision, Rough Beginning

Starting October 1, 2024, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) made eKhata – a digital version of the traditional Khata – mandatory for property registration and title transfers. Previously, BBMP managed around 2.2 million property records manually, which made oversight challenging and often forced citizens to resort to bribing officials or relying on middlemen. The system was also prone to errors and tampering, enabling fraudulent claims of property ownership. This shift marked a significant step toward greater transparency, security, and efficiency in property transactions.

The rollout, however, exacerbated inefficiencies and corruption. Despite promises of a faceless, contactless service, applications were rarely approved automatically. Instead, they were forwarded to AROs, often due to mismatches in names across BBMP registers, Aadhaar, and the Kaveri portal – issues rooted in the flawed digitization of manual records. These errors, along with inadequate training for AROs and the absence of a correction module, meant that even bribes were not effective in ensuring timely service. 

Technical bugs ran rampant, turning citizens into unwitting quality assurance testers for the Government. Promised help desks and helplines were either unavailable or unhelpful, forcing citizens to visit AROs in person. Those who managed to get through often encountered either overwhelmed officials or exploitative ones. 

Processes like requiring an EC no older than seven days were poorly conceived. Obtaining an EC for records dating back to 2004 or the registration date often took longer, causing delays that forced citizens to reapply and repay the EC fee repeatedly.

As a result, property registrations were delayed, forcing citizens with valid Khatas to pay bribes to complete transactions. Buyers were unable to move in as planned, and some, burdened by disbursed loans, had to pay both EMIs and rent. Banks, following the Government’s lead, also made eKhata mandatory for mortgaging property, providing loans, and even closing mortgages. adding to the mounting burden on citizens.

The Government has yet to explain why systems like BHU Aadhar and UPOR weren’t used to streamline the process, or why citizens had to gather already available information. The eKhata program was piloted in East Bangalore, where these issues should have been flagged. Why was the implementation rushed without addressing the problems?

Promising Signs, Lingering Issues

The eKhata process is showing signs of stabilization. Applications are now easier to submit via Bangalore One, and public engagement by the Administration has increased. Daily video conferences with AROs are being conducted by the Special Commissioner (Revenue) to increase oversight, and new modules for properties without a Khata and to support mutation are being introduced. Staff capacity has increased with the appointment of four additional AROs, and a helpline is now available to report bribery. All this signals a more responsive system.

However, significant challenges remain ahead. 

Persistent bugs continue to disrupt the eKhata system. Zen Citizen’s readers report that draft applications still disappear and reappear after delays. A bug has temporarily reintroduced the Encumbrance Certificate requirement. Village names are sometimes misspelled, with AROs stating they lack the authority to correct them. Additionally, some citizens face discrepancies with the system showing unpaid taxes, despite them being paid. Some properties still cannot be recognized or selected on the map interface. 

There is currently no system in place to track complaints, such as a complaint ID or reliable feedback loop to ensure accountability. The lack of a tracking mechanism allows staff to delay action to extort bribes. Given these unresolved issues it is unclear why the Administration is encouraging citizens without an immediate need for eKhata to apply. 

How Our Reader G’s Experience Highlights the Issues

G has a vacant plot and needs a building plan approval, which requires a Khata. Since eKhata hadn’t reached his zone, BBMP officers initially told him to apply for a regular Khata. However, after submitting the application, he discovered that eKhata was now required not only for property registration but also for building plan approval, despite the Government only officially making it mandatory for registration. He then started the online application process for eKhata.

G’s property has odd dimensions, and he faced an error while entering the dimension values. He tested with even dimensions, which worked fine. Eventually, the error for odd dimensions disappeared, but the even ones from his test showed up in the review section. After submission, G received an eKhata with the even dimensions. 

Despite multiple visits, G was told by the case worker that the correction module couldn’t resolve the issue. After submitting a formal request and insisting several times, G finally received a written acknowledgment of his request.

By now, G has taken time off work and visited the ward office 7-8 times. He is non-confrontational and doesn’t want to file a complaint, but he is also determined not to pay a bribe to get his work done. A relative, seeing his frustration, convinced him to lodge a complaint.

G escalated the issue by emailing the Deputy Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, and CC’ing the BBMP Chief Commissioner. The Chief Commissioner swiftly directed senior officers to resolve the matter. G also submitted a complaint about the case worker’s delays at the zonal office. In response, the concerned case worker called G to assure resolution. Additionally, G contacted the Revenue Officer (RO), who instructed the case worker to forward the case details for further attention. The e-Khata helpdesk also reached out to the ward office on G’s behalf.

It has now been a week, and the case worker, once again difficult to reach, informed G that his case is awaiting RO verification. After a few days, G was told that the RO, located at the zonal office, insists on receiving a physical file related to his application. The case worker claims to be unable to find time to commute from the ward office, causing further delays.

Calling the eKhata dedicated helpline and emailing the BBMP Chief has not led to any meaningful action, with only auto-responses and no follow-up. Attempts to contact the DC/JC have also been unsuccessful. G is now considering filing a complaint against the RO if the issue isn’t resolved by the end of the week. 

⁠It has been 2.5 months since G started the eKhata application.

Beyond Metrics: Restoring Trust and Accountability in eKhata

While the Administration highlights a two-day disposal of cases as a measure of improvement, Goodhart’s Law reminds us that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Prioritizing speed over quality has led to rejected applications to meet daily targets.

The Administration is making strides to reverse eKhata’s narrative, resolving bugs incrementally and adding guardrails to improve the program.

To build on these efforts, we urge the Administration to focus on restoring public trust by:

• Proactively sharing updates about known technical glitches.
• Addressing individual concerns raised on social platforms.
• Establishing a transparent complaint tracking system to hold staff accountable.
• Creating a safe environment for reporting delays and corruption without fear of retribution.

We are confident this Administration will deliver on its promise to bring transparency and efficiency to the eKhata process. Our ultimate goal is to make our eKhata guide unnecessary because the system functions seamlessly. Onward and upward!

Update: Our reader, G, successfully obtained the eKhata 2.5 months after applying – without paying a bribe.

The 2.5-month timeline includes initial hurdles such as website glitches, changing requirements, inadequate training for government staff, and software limitations that delayed processing. Additionally, this was not a standard case like a name mismatch; it involved a more complex scenario – a property with irregular dimensions.

The process may now be quicker as these teething issues get resolved.