Analysing the Performance of a Blockchain-Based Land

Registration Management System Implementation

1
Adam Musa Safiyanu, 2Aimufua G.I.O &
1
Department of Computer Science, Nasarawa State University, Keffi
2
Department of Computer Science, Nasarawa State University, Keffi
E-mails: 1musadanadam@nsuk.edu.ng; 2aimufuagio@yahoo.com;

ABSTRACT

Land registration management in Nigeria as well as in many parts of the world is very slow and
cumbersome process. There are also many intermediaries involved in the process of land
registration. Developing a system that not only accelerate the process of land registration, but
also make it easier for Buyers, Sellers and Government registrars to transfer the land ownership
from seller to a new buyer, is only possible by creating a distributed system that store all the
transactions made during the process of land buying. In this paper we’ll try to explore the
possibilities and problems solved by using a blockchain based system for land ownership
transfer. The system that we are trying to implement is based on Ethereum Blockchain that will
store all the transactions made during the process of land ownership transfer. Using the concept
of smart contracts of blockchain technology we can triggers various events like access of land
documents to a land inspector and fund transfer event from buyer to seller after successful
verification of the land ownership transfer. This system will solve the problems faced by all the
three parties during the land registration and will also remove the intermediaries like property
dealers. This system makes the process of land registration resilient and decrease the cases of
fraud in the process. Using the system, validation of the lands is also possible as immutable
transactions are being stored in the public ledger. Our method involves implementing a prototype
and then evaluating the integration and performance of land registration management from
different production databases.

KEYWORDS: Blockchain, Ethereum, Land Registration, Smart Contract

1 Introduction

For land, being a high-valued asset, it is very important to have accurate records which identify

the current owner and provide the proof that he is indeed a owner. These records can be used to

protect owner’s rights, prevent sale frauds, resolve disputes and make sure ownership is correctly

transferred to a new ownership Thus, it is crucial to maintain correctness and completeness of

1
this information, and prevent unauthorized, fraudulent changes. [5][8][12] Currently people rely

on third party, i.e., government agencies that are responsible for keeping track of ownership

information. This third party keep all the records in the centralized database. Hence to transfer

the ownership, it becomes difficult and slow to first find verify the land and then transfer the

ownership. [15] It is possible to keep track of the property ownership if we have a distributed

system which stores all the land history and share it among the interested buyers. This would

remove the intermediaries. And seller can directly contact the buyer. Thereby removing the extra

cost and time that is needed to be spent on the intermediaries. At minimum a blockchain based

ledger is needed that stores the transactions done in the process of land ownership transfer. This

problem is solved by Satoshi Nakamoto in his paper about bitcoins when he created [1][4],

storing the information in a blockchain, for correctness protocol rules can be used, and for

identifying the owner public key cryptography can be used. Ethereum is an free open source

platform which helps developers to build and deploy decentralized applications such as smart

contracts and other complicated legal and financial applications [15]. Ethereum is kind of a

programmable Bitcoin where developers can use the underlying blockchain to create markets,

shared ledgers, digital organizations, and other endless solutions application to a problem that

need immutable data and agreements, all without the need for a moderator or realtor. Released in

2015, Ethereum is the brainchild of the prodigious Vitalik Buterin, who saw the potential uses of

Bitcoin’s underlying blockchain technology as the next steps in speeding the expansion of the

blockchain community. Ethereum is now currently the cryptocurrency with the second highest

coin market cap and is expected by some to surpass Bitcoin as both a valued investment and as

the world’s most popular cryptocurrency. [2][9]

2
2. RELATED WORKS

Various blockchain implementations in the field of land registry have been reviewed. Majority of

implementations are either in initial or development stage. Some of them have been in pilot

testing phase. This section presents a brief discussion of the existing blockchain implementation

projects in the field of land registry. Thakur conducted a comprehensive study about existing

land records management system of India, how it can adopt Blockchain technology to improve

the current system and possible questions that need to be addressed to move in that direction.

They provide a model of Blockchain-based land titling system for India but fall short of

describing the smart contract scenarios, public key infrastructure (PKI) and type of architecture

(i.e. public, private, hybrid) to be adopted to implement that. As recommended by the authors of

Graglia and Mellon, 2018, it is not practical to move an old model to Blockchain without laying

out an incremental policy for real-life adoption[11].

In Mukne authors present another land title management system for India using permissioned

Blockchain such as Hyperledger Fabric and store documents using Inter Planetary File System

(IPFS). The authors mention that the biggest challenge is to move existing land records to the

Blockchain system [14]. In Hasan and Salah, authors present an Ethereum based digital asset

(e.g. file, book, image, video, or music) exchange system with a proof-of-delivery mechanism

using a viable PKI model. In this paper, the authors present implementation details and algorithm

models to reproduce the proposed system [13]. When we look at the examples of the Blockchain-

based land registration, it is seen that the applications in Brazil, Honduras, and Sweden come to

the fore. US-based Blockchain technology company Factom has developed a Blockchain-based

land registration solution for Honduras. Honduras' application is the first application to use

Blockchain technology for land registration. The main reason why the Honduran government

3
wanted to switch to a Blockchain-based land registration system was that it wanted to prevent

irregularities in the land registration. For this reason, they made a radical decision and agreed

with Factom to implement a Blockchain-based system. The system was operated for 3 months

starting from November 2015 Brazil, which carries out the ownership transfer in 13 steps, is

another country that has switched to the Blockchain-based land registration system. In addition

to reducing costs and irregularities, the Brazilian government decided to use Blockchain

technology to ensure accuracy, transparency, traceability and high security in transactions, and a

solution developed by Ubitquity was put into use in Rio Grande do Sul Province in May 2017.

When the data obtained as a result of the system, which was operated for a period of 3 months,

was evaluated, it was seen that the errors in the recording system decreased and an important

convenience was obtained in archiving [15]. Almost all of the authors talk about how

blockchain-based land registration management or land titling management system model was

developed in other to reduce the required number of physical documents, necessary steps, and

overall expenses, while others like Georgia try to implement blockchain-based model to reduce

corruption and mismanagement for their land ownership registries. Furthermore, all the models

are based on different countries land registration system. However, most of the models

considered the smart contract scenarios, mode of payment for land purchases to be made either in

full or partial, public key infrastructure (PKI) and the types of architecture, (open permissioned,

permissioned blockchain, consortium or hybrid), to be adopted for implementation.

2.1 CURRENT CHALLENGES

These days fraud is accomplished in any transaction. Tracking the details of property like who

owns the property, rate of the land, single owned or multi-owned property, does it has any

4
dispute issues are all difficult tasks. The challenges that are existing in the present land registry

are [9]

a) The increasing number of fraud cases: There have been several cases of imposters posing

as the seller of a property. If an imposter successfully pretends as a property owner, they

may receive the full amount after completion and escape with the funds. In many of the

cases, both sellers and buyers were unaware of the fraud until discovered by the land

registry as part of a spot check exercise.

b) Time delays: It may take several months to complete the land registration. Suppose if the

land has any litigated issues, then that leads to a court battle between parties.

c) Traceability: In some countries, through paper documents, you can only know the current

owner. It does not allow us to find out who else owned that land before.

d) Human error/intervention: Currently, updates to the land registry records are made

manually and the accuracy of those changes depends on a particular individual. It means

that the land registry is more vulnerable to human errors. Human intervention can

increase the chances of errors in the land registry system.

3. METHODOLOGY

The purpose of the implementation of this methodology is to avoid fraudulence in land

registration and to secure their transaction details. The main problem in the existing system is

purchaser did not use to get the actual property details due to imposters. So here we are using

Ethereum blockchain technology which is transparent, immutable, and decentralized [3]. In the

blockchain, we are creating a land registry platform where all the details of the property which

are earlier registered will be stored on a decentralized database, which is transparent, so any

individuals who wish to purchase a property can cross-verify the complete details of the

5
property. Details of each land will be stored in the form of a block and a digital title will also be

given to make search efficient, where for each block a unique hash value will be assigned by

using the SHA256 algorithm. Searchers can search the property with digital titles in that land

registry platform. We also analyzed the performance of the system by using Hyperledger caliper

a benchmark tool evaluate the performance of the system with the following performance

indicators throughput, latency execution time and scalability the following formula are used for

the evaluation. Also an overview architecture and prototype implementation are shown in

Figure.3.1

Execution Time: Time taken to commit all the transactions in the Blockchain.

¿ Transaction
Execution Time =
Arrival Rate

∑ TransactionLatency
Average Latency¿ ¿Transactions
¿Transactions

Valid Transaction Committed

Transaction Throughput=
Total Time Taken

Scalability: The ability to support increasing number of participants.

3.1 THE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

The architecture of an application defines how different parts of the system are organized and

logically connected. Here the design principles of layered architecture are adopted which are

used to design effective implementation deployment of the blockchain applications and the smart

contracts scenarios. Blockchain is a decentralized distributed ledger the application layer is

comprised of smart contracts, chain code, and DApps where transactions are arranged in blocks,

6
and placed in a Peer to peer network the other layers. Ensures that nodes can discover each other

and can communicate, propagate and synchronize with each other to maintain the valid current

state of the blockchain network.

Figure 1: An Overview of the Proposed Architecture

The user interacts with the system using the frontend (built with VueJS) by sending requests to

the server.

Server

7
The routes/request validators check and validate URLs and requests. The security layer checks

and verifies whether the client (user) should have access to the resource or not. The last layer

performs the request’s operation. It uses the Java IPFS client to store and retrieve files on IPFS

through an IPFS and Ethereum service provider (Infura). Similarly, it uses the Web3J Java

library to perform the transaction on Ethereum through Infura.

3.2 LAND PURCHASING AND REGISTRATION SYSTEM MODEL

Figure 2. Show the smart contract to be used for the land purchasing process. The buyer has to

register and login into the system, and search for the registered land for sale along with the

seller’s address and phone number to contact with.

8
 Figure 2: Workflow of the blockchain for land registry

The buyer and the seller must agree to each other’s terms and conditions in real life and should

settle for a price. If the buyer can pay the total amount and registration fee at the registration time

then the process will continue. Otherwise, they set a pledge for partial payment and set a date to

complete the pending balance. They should communicate with the land office after setting the

price. The land office verifies the documents related to the property. If the seller has legal

ownership, the land office logs into their account and creates an agreement with the pledge and

the rest of the money (convert automatically to land currency) with two different dates since the

buyer can’t complete a full transaction at a time. If he/she can pay the total amount at a time then

the pledge is set to zero and the rest of the amount will be set to the price amount with the date.

The seller has to agree to the pledge through his/her account. When he agrees to the pledge, the

property’s sellable field will be set to False and it can’t be sold while this agreement is alive. If

the buyer accepts the pledge, he/ she has to pay the amount within the fixed date. To pay for this

money, he/she has to go to the land office and buy the land currency. When this currency is paid

to the seller, the seller can’t cash that until the total price of the land is paid. This currency is kept

secured in Government Land Purchasing Account against the agreement which is the 3rd wallet

account. If the buyer failed to pay the pledge money during the given time frame, the sellable

field of the land will be set to True and the agreement will be void. When the buyer completes

the pledge, a new contract is created with the rest of the money and a new date, and the

9
registration process restarts. Later ownership of the land is handed over with the new agreement.

Otherwise, pledge money will be redeposited to the buyer’s account and buyable property will be

reset to True Whenever a blockchain is incorporated into a new blockchain transaction or some

new block is added to the blockchain means several nodes are required to execute algorithms to

evaluate, verify, and process the blockchain context within the same blockchain implementation.

The new block of blockchain transactions will be accepted into the ledger when most nodes

authenticate the block’s history and signature, and the new block with data will be added to the

database. If a consensus is not achieved, they refuse to add the block to the blockchain. This

distributed consensus model allows blockchain to operate as a distributed ledger, without any

central or unifying authority having to authorize blockchain transactions. So, the transaction is

highly secure in the blockchain [9].

4. RESULT

Evaluation Metrics and Results

The performance of the implemented system is evaluated on the Execution Time, Latency,

Throughput, and Scalability. The performance evaluation was conducted in two different phases.

PHASE ONE

The performance test was conducted using Hyperledger Caliper, several use cases were defined

by varying specifications of key parameters. The resulting performance of the blockchain

platform was then recorded and analyzed, against three performance metrics:

i. Throughput – successful transactions per second

ii. Latency – response time per transaction

iii. Scalability – the ability to support increasing number of participants.

10
Specific parameters used for performance evaluation are summarized in Table 1.

Parameters for Performance Evaluation

Table 1. Parameters for Performance Evaluation

Key parameters Transaction per second Number of transactions Simultaneous

(tps) transactions
Case 1: Impact of test 10, 15, 20, 25, 30tps 50 N/A
environment and
transction rate
Case 2: Impact of 20tps 50 N/A
number of transactions 100
150
Case 3: Impact of Equivalent to number of N/A 10
simultaneous simultaneous 20
transactions transactions 30

In Case 1, To study the impact of varying transaction rates on the performance of the blockchain

network. Several transaction rates were used, which are 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 tps. Total number

of transactions was fixed at 50. Simultaneous transactions were not defined.

In Case 2, the experiment was conducted to understand the impact of large-scale transactions on

cloud-based blockchain throughput and latency. The total number of transactions was varied

from 50, 100 to 150. The transaction rate was fixed at 20 tps. Number of simultaneous

transactions was not defined.

In Case 3, the impact of simultaneous transactions on blockchain performance was evaluated by

varying the number of simultaneous transactions (10, 20 and 30). In all scenarios, both types of
11
transactions (Insert and query) were tested, and the number of organizations was fixed at two, as

this is our expected deployment scenario.

Result obtained from the Hyperledger Caliper test benchmark were interpreted to evaluate the

performance of a specific blockchain implementation. Experimental results are discussed below

Case 1: Impact of Transaction Rates Figure 3 shows the average throughput (in tps) and latency

(in seconds) at different transaction rates, varying from 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30tps.

Impact of Transaction Rates

35 2
1.8
30
1.6
Throughput (tps)

25 1.4

Latency (sec)
20 1.2
1
15 0.8
10 0.6
0.4
5
0.2
0 0
10 15 20 25 30

Transaction Rate (tps)

Throughput (Open) Throughput (Query) Latency (Query) Latency (Open)

Figure. 3. Impact of transaction rates and transaction types on the blockchain

throughput and latency.

It can be seen that, with the “Open” type of transaction (where one read and one write were

performed per transaction), the blockchain network could only handle up to 20 tps without any

significant network latency. When the transaction rate increased above 20 tps, the blockchain

throughput decreased as the transaction rate increased and the latency significantly increased.

12
This implies that this specific test environment could handle up to 20 tps of the “Open”

transaction type without any significant network delay.

For the “query” type of transaction (where only one read was performed in a transaction), the

blockchain network obviously could handle 30 tps without any delay. The average latency was

still close to zero. This implies that the test environment did not reach its maximum limit, and it

could support higher transaction rates.

Case II: Impact of the Number of Transactions

To understand the impact of the total number of transactions on blockchain throughput and

latency, the total number of transactions was varied from 50, 100 to 150 and these transactions

were sent to blockchain at the rate of 20 tps (which was the upper transaction rate limit identified

in Case I). Figure 4 shows the average throughput and latency for both “insert” and “query”

transaction types at different numbers of transactions.

The experimental results indicate that the total number of transactions has no significant impact

on the throughput and latency if the selected transaction rate (tps) can be handled by the

hardware. As shown in Fig. 4, the throughput was flat in all cases at 20 tps, which was the

transaction rate used. The latency was also flat for “query” transaction at 0.1 seconds, while it

was slightly higher for “insert” transaction at 1.13-1.16 seconds. For the “insert” transaction

case, the latency slightly increased when a very high number of transactions was used. The

increase in latency was however still considered very small, i.e., 0.3 seconds.

13
 Impact of the Number of Transactions on the Throughput
and Latency

Average Latency (sec)

25 2
1.8
20 1.6
Throughput (tps)

1.4
15 1.2
1
10 0.8
0.6
5 0.4
0.2
0 0
100 1000 10000

Throughput (Open) Throughput (Query)

Latency (Query) Latency (Open)

Fig. 4. Impact of the number of transactions on the throughput and latency for

“Open” and “query” transactions.

These results can be generalized as follows:

1. A very high number of transactions can be supported, i.e., 150, at a very low latency

when the transactions have less operations (only read, not both read and write).

2. The type of transactions affects the network latency due to complexity and the number of

operations involved even though the blockchain platform is hosted by a high capability

hardware system.

In a blockchain network, the scalability can be measured in different ways, i.e., based on the

number of channels, the number of peers, the number of organizations, the number of nodes, the

number of transactions, the consensus protocol, etc. In this `study, the total number of

14
transactions was selected as the measurement parameter of the scalability. It is assumed that each

transaction represents a participant. Based on the results, the implemented Hyperledger platform

can support 100,000 participants with the selected hardware configuration. If the hardware

configuration has higher spec, higher number of participants can be supported. Hence, there is in

fact no limit on the number of participants that can take part in the Hyperledger Blockchain

network. It depends on the selected hardware and the blockchain network configurations.

Impact of Multiple Simultaneous Transactions

To evaluate the impact of transactions simultaneously submitted by many participants on the

blockchain throughput and latency, additional use cases were run under the same test

environment. It is assumed that there are 10, 20 and 30 participants, each of which sent a request

to blockchain simultaneously. Blockchain throughputs and latency were recorded for both

“open” and “query” transactions. Results are shown in Figure 5. It can be seen that both

throughput and latency increase with the increasing number of simultaneous transactions.

Impact of the Number of Participants on Throughput and Latency

30 2.5

25
Average Latency (sec)
2
Throughput (tps)

20
1.5
15
1
10

0.5
5

0 0
1 2 3

Throughput (Open) Troughput (Query)

Lsatency (query) Latency (Open)

Figure 5. Impact of the number of participants on throughput and latency.

15
With “Open” transactions, throughputs were 3.4, 4.3 and 4.8 tps for 10, 20 and 30 simultaneous

transactions, respectively. Latency also increased with the increasing number of simultaneous

transactions. This implies that the system has already reached its maximum capability to handle

such number of simultaneous transactions as the blockchain throughput could not catch up with

many simultaneous transactions given as the inputs. The increasing latency implies that the

blockchain network had to queue the remaining transactions for later processing.

On the other hand, with “query” transactions, the throughput was higher than the “open”

transaction, and the latency was significantly lower. This is as expected as “query” transactions

perform only one read operation per transaction. Under this case, the system could handle 20

simultaneous transactions without any queuing requirement as the throughput appeared to be

higher than 20tps. While at 30 simultaneous transactions, queuing was needed and hence the

latency started to increase.

These results can be generalized as follows:

1. Under this specific test environment, an increase in simultaneous transactions

significantly affects the performance of the blockchain network, in particular the latency.

2. Transaction type has a significant influence on the performance of the blockchain

network.

3. Throughput is relatively flat as the number of simultaneous transactions increases if the

system has already reached at its maximum limit.

• Latency increases with the increase in simultaneous transactions if the system has already

reached at its maximum limit.

PHASE TWO

16
Performance Evaluation Metrics

Implementation is done using Hyperledger Fabric consisting of four peers and used Hyperledger

Caliper, blockchain benchmark tool to evaluate the performance of our Blockchain-based land

registration management system. Hyperledger Caliper enables users to test blockchain solutions

with predefined use cases and get performance indicators such as Execution Time, throughput,

latency. Table 1. below give the details of the parameter used for evaluation.

Parameters for evaluation in Hyperledger Caliper

Table 2. Parameters for evaluation in Hyperledger Caliper

S/N Transaction type £Transactions Block size Arrival rates

1. Insert 100 10 20 – 110tps

2. query 100 10 3 – 11 tps

EVALUATION METRICS:

Average latency: - Transaction latency is defined as, time taken by a transaction to get added in

Blockchain.

Throughput: - Rate at which the valid transactions committed into the Blockchain. Execution

Time: - Time taken to commit all the transactions in the Blockchain.

Transactions done in the blockchain network is classified under two categories,

i) Insert transaction

ii) Query transaction.

17
In the Hyperledger Caliper tool, transactions are committed to the blockchain network in

batch, and there exists an optimal throughput for every blockchain network. If the arrival rate

of the transactions lesser than the optimal throughput, each transaction waits less time in the

network to get it confirmed, thereby decreasing the latency time. In the same way, if the

arrival rate of the transactions higher than the optimal throughput, each transaction stays a

long time in the network queue and so increase in latency time. Experiments were conducted

on two categories of transactions to understand the impact of arrival rate on optimal

throughput of the blockchain network. Experiment for insert transaction: For Insert

transactions, we kept a number of transactions to 100, with a block size of 10 and arrival rate

from 3 to 11 transactions per second(tps). Figure 6 shows the impact of arrival rate on

evaluation metrics for insert transaction. We have observed that the latency decreases until

the arrival rate of transactions reaches the optimal throughput (80tps). After that, the latency

tends to increase. Moreover, execution time decreases till optimal throughput but increases

beyond it.

Impact of TransactionArrival Rate

Arrival Time (tps)

80 4

70 3.5

60 3
Throughput (tps)

Latency (sec)

50 2.5

40 2

30 1.5

20 1

10 0.5

0 0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Throughput (tps) Execution Time (sec) Latency (sec)

18
 Fig. 6. Impact of arrival rate on evaluation metrics for insert transaction

Experiment for query transaction: In query transactions, each transaction does the search

operation in CouchDB and have a higher number of operations when compared to insert

transaction. For query transactions, we kept #no of ledger transactions to 100, with a block size

of 10 and arrival rate from 3 to 11 transactions per sections (tps). Figure 7 shows the impact of

arrival rate on evaluation metrics for insert transaction and observed that the optimal throughput

for query transactions is 7tps. It is flimsy when compared to the optimal throughput (80tps) for

insert transactions as the query transaction takes time to search entire ledger.

Impact of Transaction Arrival Rate (query)

9 6
8
5
7
Throughput (tps)

6 4

Latency (sec)
5
3
4
3 2
2
1
1
0 0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Fig. 7. Impact of arrival rate on evaluation

Arrival Rate (tps)metrics for query transaction
Throuhput(tps) Latency(sec)

4. CONCLUSION

With the use of smart contracts in blockchain technology, worldwide transactions are occurred in

a more secure viewpoint, because all transaction details are stored in the decentralized server,

which means the data is stored in multiple nodes, where misuse of information is nearly

19
impossible. Ethereum block is used to store all transactions details which occurred in the form of

bitcoins and also smart contracts. Third-party involvement is completed avoided and there will

be no forged documents since the administrator is going to upload all registered documents. A

registered buyer can easily know the complete information of the property if the land has any

litigate issues, so frauds occurring can be avoided and security is achieved.

REFERENCES

1. Liu, X., Chen, R., Chen, Y. W., & Yuan, S. M. (2018, November). Off-chain data
fetching architecture for Ethereum smart contract. In 2018 International Conference on
Cloud Computing, Big Data and Blockchain (ICCBB) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
2. Jaoude, J. A., &Saade, R. (2019). Business Applications of Blockchain Technology-A
Systematic Review. IEEE Access.
3. Nandi, M., Bhattacharjee, R. K., Jha, A., &Barbhuiya, F. A. (2020). A secured land
registration framework on Blockchain. In 2020 Third ISEA Conference on Security and
Privacy (ISEA-ISAP) (pp. 130-138). IEEE.
4. Leka, E., Selimi, B., &Lamani, L. (2019, September). Systematic literature review of
blockchain applications: Smart contracts. In 2019 International Conference on
Information Technologies (InfoTech) (pp. 1-3). IEEE.
5. Zheng, W., Zheng, Z., Chen, X., Dai, K., Li, P., & Chen, R. (2019). Nutbaas: A
blockchainas-a-service platform. Ieee Access, 7, 134422-134433.
6. Chen, J., Cai, T., He, W., Chen, L., Zhao, G., Zou, W., &Guo, L. (2020). A blockchain-
driven supply chain finance application for the auto retail industry. Entropy, 22(1), 95.
7. Halpin, H., &Piekarska, M. (2017, April). Introduction to Security and Privacy on the
Blockchain. In 2017 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops
(EuroS&PW) (pp. 1-3). IEEE.
8. Sekhari, A., Chatterjee, R., Dwivedi, R., Negi, R., & Shukla, S. (2019). Entangled
blockchain in land registry management. BW3, India.
9. Hu, Y., Liyanage, M., Mansoor, A., Thilakarathna, K., Jourjon, G., &Seneviratne, A.
(2018). Blockchain-based smart contracts-applications and challenges. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1810.04699.
10. Thakur, V., Doja, M. N., Dwivedi, Y. K., Ahmad, T., & Khadanga, G. (2020). Land
records on blockchain for implementation of land titling in India. International Journal of
Information Management, 52, 101940.
11. Lemieux, V. L. (2017). Evaluating the use of blockchain in land transactions: An archival
science perspective. European property law journal, 6(3), 392-440.

20
12. Graglia, J. M., & Mellon, C. (2018). Blockchain and property in 2018: At the end of the
beginning. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 12(1-2), 90-116.
13. Hasan, H. R., & Salah, K. (2018, June). Blockchain-based solution for proof of delivery
of physical assets. In International Conference on Blockchain (pp. 139-152). Springer,
Cham.
14. Mukne, H., Pai, P., Raut, S., & Ambawade, D. (2019, July). Land Record Management
using Hyperledger Fabric and IPFS. In 2019 10th International Conference on
Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
15. Abhishek, G. (2019). Property Registration and Land Record Management via
Blockchains. Diss. Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur.

21