Digital Mapping as Evidence: Adjudicating Urban Land Disputes

Introduction 

Accelerating urbanisation has not only increased the number of urban land issues; it has also changed the way the state determines and proves “encroachment.” The increased use of GISapplications, satellite imagery and drone surveys changes the factual basis of eviction and demolition from ground surveys and revenue records to opaque technical products to whichaffected parties do not have access.

This shift creates three interlinked problems. Firstly, evidentiary law has developed around discrete, self-contained records, whereas GIS outputs are composite, layered and interpretive. Secondly, procedural law assumes that affected persons can test the material relied upon against them; in practice, however, digital spatial data is frequently treated as conclusive without disclosure of datasets or methodologies. Thirdly, constitutional property protection under Article 300A presupposes that deprivation follows a fair and knowable procedure, which technology-driven governance currently undermines.

The argument advanced here is that digital mapping in urban land disputes is not merely a question of “new evidence” but of a misalignment between technological practices and the evidentiary, procedural, and constitutional assumptions of adjudication. Targeted regulatory standards for GIS-based evidence are therefore not a technical luxury but a rights-protectivenecessity.

Digital Mapping and Urban Governance 

Digital mapping has reasserted institutional power in urban land governance. By enabling authorities to overlay legacy records with recent imagery, GIS tools displace on-groundverification and local knowledge with centralised, screen-based assessment. This produces informational asymmetry: the state controls the data pipeline, from capture to processing, while affected occupants see only the end product, typically in the form of a printed map appended in a notice.

The governance payoff (speed, coverage, and a veneer of objectivity) comes with legal costs. To start with, when cadastral records and spatial outputs conflict, there is no clear rule on which should prevail or how conflicts should be reconciled. Secondly, decisionmaking becomes pathdependent on the particular software, parameters, and classification choices used at the GIS stage, none of which are visible in the adjudicatory record. Thirdly, in the absence of codified standards, courts end up validating or rejecting digital evidence in an ad hoc manner, amplifying uncertainty for both administrators and rightsholders.

In short, digital mapping has created a new evidentiary “infrastructure” for urban governance without a corresponding legal architecture that determines how that infrastructure may be deployed, challenged and reviewed.

Digital Maps as Electronic Evidence 

Current evidence law treats GIS outputs as if they were ordinary electronic records; this is analytically unsound. Sections 61 and 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 were crafted for discrete digital artefacts, documents, emails, and audiovisual recordings, where the central concern is the authenticity of a file, not the validity of a multi-step analytical process. The Supreme Court’s insistence in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on strict compliance with Section 65B addresses only the threshold of admissibility, not the internal reliability of complex spatial analysis.

GIS evidence raises qualitatively different questions: how imagery was sourced and calibrated; how layers were chosen and weighted; what error margins and classification thresholds were adopted; and whether the temporal stamp of the imagery matches the alleged encroachment. A bare 65B certificate says nothing about these factors. The logic of State of H.P. v. Jai Lal, that scientific and technical evidence must be accompanied by expert testimony explaining its methodology and limitations, therefore applies with particular force to GIS data.

The core evidentiary claim, then, is that treating GIS outputs as regular “electronic records” collapses two distinct inquiries: file authenticity and analytical reliability. Without a doctrinal separation between these, courts risk admitting technically authentic but substantively untested spatial evidence as the decisive basis for coercive state action.

Procedural Fairness and Due Process

From a procedural justice perspective, the problem with GIS-driven evictions is not only how evidence is generated, but how it is operationalised against individuals. Digital maps are being used in many urban demolition drives as unilateral state artefacts: notices referto“satellite surveys” or “GIS verification” without revealing the underlying datasets or providing occupants any opportunity to contest the analysis.

This practice conflicts with two strands of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, reiterated Article 300A as a constitutional check on arbitrary deprivation of property, demanding a procedure grounded in law rather than administrative fiat. In Olga Tellis v. BMC, even non-title holders were recognised as rights-bearing subjects entitled to prior notice and hearing. The court in Rajendra Bajoria v. St. of West Bengalhighlighted the problems arising due to digitisation errors and called for the establishment ofgrievance redressal mechanisms. When digital mapping is considered to be the final piece of evidence, yet its basis is unavailable and technically opaque, the hearingurns into an empty formality. Analytically, GIS-based governance transforms a procedure established by law into a procedure established by software, without inscribing legal transparency and explanation guarantees.

Judicial Approaches and Inconsistencies 

Indian Courts have taken inconsistent positions in respect of digital mapping evidence. In environmental and commonsprotection cases such as M.C. Mehta (Kant Enclave matters) v. Union of India and Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, satellite imagery and administrative surveys have been embraced as means to monitor illegal constructions and exposeencroachment on forest land and village commons. In those contexts, the judiciary has prioritised ecological and publictrust concerns, and has often treated spatial evidence as corroborative of a broader fact-finding exercise.

However, in individual property disputes and urban plot-specific conflicts, courts have been more cautious where GIS-based material is not backed by statutory survey procedures or groundtruthing. In Satyevir Yadav v. Union of India (2017), the court did not accept satellite imagery as an independent, standalone piece of evidence, emphasising the importance of physical surveys. This unspoken separation between public interest environmental enforcement and the individual rights disputes has never been officially stated as a rule. The result is a jurisprudence in which the same category of evidence oscillates between “decisive,” “supportive,” and “suspect,” with no clear criteria for each posture.

A more coherent approach would distinguish three analytical stages: (i) admissibility as electronic records; (ii) reliability as technical analysis (where expert scrutiny is necessary); and (iii) weight in light of corroborative or conflicting evidence (where the nature of the dispute, commons or individual title, may legitimately matter). At present, these stages are blurred, leading to unpredictability and forum-specific outcomes.

Comparative Perspectives

Comparative experience in other jurisdictions, like the UK and the US, indicates that GIS evidence can be included in the adjudication process without compromising procedural protections. Courts there generally impose three prerequisites before placing reliance on spatial data: disclosure of base datasets and processing procedures; expert testimony that can be cross-examined; and, where high-stakes rights are involved, independent surveys must be corroborated by data.

India needs to acknowledge the structural wisdom that digital evidence should be subject toadversarial processes and not be an exception. The logic of Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court drew on comparative civilprocedure reforms to recalibrate Indian practice, fits here. GIS-based governance similarly calls for procedure-level adaptation rather than case-by-case improvisation.

Regulatory Framework

The regulatory gap is therefore not merely that “no specific law exists on GIS,” but that existing evidentiary and procedural norms do not explicitly map onto spatial data. A viable framework would operationalise three commitments. First, transpercy: authorities relying on digital mapping in land proceedings should be under a statutory duty to disclose base imagery, capture dates, scales, classification parameters, and documented error margins at the notice stage.

Second, technical scrutiny: courts should treat GIS outputs as a category of scientific evidence that presumptively requires expert explanation and cross-examination. This can be institutionalised through rules under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, that define minimum technical particulars to be proved when spatial data is tendered.

Third, context-sensitive weight: urban and planning laws must state that GIS evidence can justifiably lead to inspections and enforcement, but cannot, on its own and without substantiation, justify irreparable action such as demolition where significant right deprivation is involved. This framework would transform digital mapping from a means of evidential shortcut to an organised input that enhances, rather than replaces adjudicatory enquiry.

Conclusion 

Digital mapping has already transformed how Indian cities see and manage land; it is merely that the law is lagging behind in keeping it in check. The primary concern is not technological error, but the readiness of the legal system to accept the visually convincing spatial productions as self-evident, despite lacking clear methodology and a trial in the court. As long as courts continue to accept or reject GIS evidence based on intuition and comfort for a given case, the grey area between administrators and rights holders will remain. Nevertheless, through the reorganisation of evidentiary and procedural doctrine and instillingtransparency, expert investigations, and corroboration, spatial data can make urban land administration more effective and rights-compliant.