With reference to the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme, consider the following statements : 1. To implement the scheme, the Central Government provides 100% funding. 2. Under the Scheme, Cadastral Maps are digitised. 3. An initiative has been undertaken to transliterate the Records of Rights from local language to any of the languages recognized by the Constitution of India. Which of the statements given above are correct ?

Explicitly identifies DILRMP as a 'Centrally Sponsored Scheme' (merged from earlier central schemes).

A student can infer that DILRMP funding likely follows central–state cost‑sharing norms used for centrally sponsored schemes and look up those typical ratios to test the statement.

Describes the historical CSS lineage (Computerisation of Land Records, SRA&ULR) that were merged into DILRMP, reinforcing that it inherits CSS funding structures.

One can use knowledge of how legacy CSS for land records were funded (central share percentages) to estimate the likely central share under DILRMP and then verify.

Gives an example (National Infrastructure Pipeline) where Central and State Governments are expected to have equal funding shares (39% each), illustrating one possible central–state split used for large programmes.

A student could use this as an example of equal sharing to consider whether DILRMP might follow a similar equal-share pattern or contrast it with other CSS ratios to narrow possibilities.

Notes that programme‑specific allocations occur under Centrally Sponsored Schemes and that States are principal implementers of many functions, implying shared funding responsibility.

This suggests checking typical programme‑specific central grant practices (e.g., central grant plus state matching) to assess plausible central share for DILRMP.

Mentions active central encouragement for states to digitize land records and lists states that have digitized, indicating central policy priority which may affect central funding generosity.

A student might combine this with knowledge that high‑priority national initiatives often have larger central shares to hypothesize and then verify the central share for DILRMP.

States that DILRMP aims to "improve the quality and accessibility of land records," suggesting measures to make records usable by more people.

A student could infer that improving accessibility might include language-related steps (e.g., transliteration or translation) and then check official DILRMP documents for language/ transliteration components.

Says DILRMP will "update the land records and also integrate the textual and spatial records," indicating textual standardisation or processing is part of the programme.

From the need to integrate textual records, a student might reasonably investigate whether textual integration includes transliteration across different scripts/languages used in RoR.

Notes that updating land records must include "recording of rights" (RoR) that were previously unrecorded, implying substantial textual work on RoR.

Given substantial work on RoR, a student could posit that language-normalisation (transliteration/translation) would be a logical component and look for DILRMP technical guidelines addressing language handling.

Lists states (Karnataka, Rajasthan, MP, UP, Kerala, Andhra, Telangana, Gujarat) that have digitised records, implying DILRMP operates across many linguistic regions.

A student can combine this with knowledge of these states' different scripts/languages to reason that cross-state accessibility may require transliteration/standardisation, then check state implementations or central rules for transliteration policies.

Summarises the expansion of constitutionally recognised languages (now 22), showing India’s multilingual constitutional context relevant to any nationwide records programme.

Knowing many constitutionally recognised languages exist, a student could infer a nationwide programme might need to address script/language differences (e.g., transliteration) and then search DILRMP materials for explicit language/ transliteration provisions.