Since the Vancouver Habitat Conference in 1976, which highlighted land as a scarce resource and maintained that its management should be subject to public surveillance in the interest of the nation, a large number of countries both developing and developed, have shown a growing concern in the problems of supply, price and use allocation of lands, particularly in the urban areas. The concern largely stems from the fact that, for many people in most of the developing countries which are experiencing rapid urbanisation, the habitat conditions are totally unsatisfactory. It is now widely accepted that one of the major reasons for such a situation is the poor management of land. Most of the developing countries do not have effective policies at the national or subnational levels to control the supply and use of urban land nor have they been able to intervene significantly at local levels to improve the access of the urban poor to owning land. Since the late 1960s however, many governments have introduced a number of controls mostly directed towards public acquisition, tenure and use of urban land. Though the intrinsic problems associated with urban land management are largely common to most developing countries there exist wide differences between them in their perception of their land problems and the choice of methods for tackling them. Most countries, however, have the objective of striking a balance between the demands for urban land by individuals and the society at large. A number of these countries are now making sincere efforts to help the lower and lower-middle-income groups to own land at least for shelter.

Effective land policy and control over the use of land are important from the viewpoint of urban efficiency. Infrastructure is the basic requirement of urban life and its adequacy and appropriateness set the pace of development and the quality of life. If infrastructure is to be provided economically, and made available in an equitable way to all sections of the community, the development pattern of land must be put under public regulation and control. Market forces normally ignore societal and community requirements. Therefore, community purposes are least served if the land development decisions are left entirely to the market forces. In order to maximise the potential of urban land and to use the potential for the public good, it is imperative for the state to intervene in the supply, allocation and pricing of the land and to offset the market forces which favour accumulation of wealth that accrues from land in the hands of a few. These arguments and assumptions support public intervention in the land market. But in what ways the public authority should intervene, what instruments of control the authorities should have and how they can effectively help the poor and other disadvantaged groups to have adequate land to meet their basic need for shelter are complex issues to which no generally applicable solutions are available.