Regulatory Determinants of Urban Land Markets: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Impacts and Market Efficiency in India

Regulatory frameworks, encompassing policy, land use, and financial instruments, fundamentally shape urban land markets and development trajectories. In rapidly urbanizing nations like India, these frameworks often struggle to balance the need for orderly growth with market efficiency. This study aims to analyze the evolution of diverse regulatory frameworks and their specific impacts on urban and peripheral land development in India, utilizing international benchmarks to highlight unique challenges and areas of convergence. The research employs a systematic scoping review to map and categorize multidisciplinary regulatory frameworks across urban economics, planning, and public policy. A structured selection process was conducted, initially identifying over 2,000 records. Through rigorous filtering, the pool was refined to 58 relevant studies, which were then thematically analyzed under categories of theory, case studies, and specific regulatory types. Findings indicate that while market-based land allocation enhances urban productivity compared to administrative systems, rigid land use regulations such as strict Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limits and Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) often lead to significant housing price inflation and welfare losses. For example, Mumbai’s uniform and restrictive FSI policy has historically constrained floor space supply, driving prices upward and forcing a majority of the population into informal settlements. Furthermore, case studies from the UK and India demonstrate that containment policies frequently fail when overridden by fiscal interests, leading to uncontrolled sprawl. While Indian reforms like RERA (2016) and LARR (2013) have improved transparency and compensation, enforcement disparities continue to undermine market dynamism. The study concludes that although regulations are essential for guiding sustainable growth, overly rigid or outdated structures often induce unintended consequences, including market distortions and increased informality. A nuanced, context-specific approach is required to balance private property rights with public interests. Future urban resilience depends on integrating risk assessments into zoning and improving coordination between state-led regulations and market-led development.