IntroductionThe Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) was enacted in response to the Law Commission Report No. 271, replacing the Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA 1925), whereby the Law Commission and Land Registry visualised a much simplified and modernised approach to the law of land registration through a very novel method of e-conveyancing. Even though this was the fundamental aim, the Act further seeks to ensure a reduction of risk in acquiring unsafe titles by focusing on registration as the way to, and proof of, title. As such, the law commission endeavoured to secure the exchange of land for both the purchaser and the proprietor. Subsequently, the most noteworthy change and will have the most effect on the land registration is that the register ought to be a total and exact impression of the condition of the title of land at any given time and that the purchaser ought to have the capacity to research title to the land that they are thinking of buying on the internet without further difficulties or enquiries. This essay will critically discuss the current progress of the implementation of LRA 2002 and challenges to its full implication.1. Progress of implementation of LRA 2002LRA 2002 has gone to great lengths to ensure the position of a purchaser. In spite of the fact that the 2002 Act does not deny the presence of unregistered land, it has made each move to dispose of the unregistered title sooner rather than later. In the expressions of Law Commission, the unregistered land ‘has had its day’ . Thus there is an obligatory registration on most dispositions of interests in land and that as a result will ensure good title. The register of title is proposed to work as a “mirror”, this is one of the three basic principles of land registration. Hence, the “mirror principle” implies that the register ought to be a precise mirror of the interests that exist on the land and in this way the ownership could be precisely related to the propriety benefits and burdens influencing the land.