Last week, both the ruling National Conference and opposition BJP voted against a Bill brought by Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) legislator Waheed Para in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, seeking ownership rights for “State subjects” who had been living in houses built on government land for at least 20 years.
While Chief Minister Omar Abdullah opposed the Bill saying it would “help the land mafia”, the BJP called it a bid for “land jihad”, and lauded the CM for “defeating the PDP’s nefarious designs”.
The proposed legislation followed a drive carried out last year by the Lt Governor Administration against alleged encroachment, triggering public outcry in both Kashmir and Jammu regions. More recently, coveted leases for 55 of the 59 hotels in Gulmarg expired, including that of the famous Nedous Hotel, linked to CM Abdullah’s relatives, with these now up for auction.
So what was the Jammu and Kashmir (Regularization and Recognition of Property Rights of Residents in Public Land) Bill which was brought by Para?
What did the Bill propose?
Para introduced it as a private member’s Bill. Invoking the ‘right to shelter’ guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, the Bill sought special provisions for residents of J&K to recognise their proprietary rights over houses constructed on State land, through rights of ownership or transfer, as a one-time measure.
The PDP called it an “anti-bulldozer” Bill, aimed at safeguarding the rights of residents of J&K”. The Bill set certain conditions for granting the ownership rights. These included:
a) These rights can only be given to those who have valid Permanent Resident Certificates (PRC) issued by the competent authority under the Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Permanent Resident Certificate (Procedure) Rules of 1968. In other words, the Bill proposed land rights only for the “original” State subjects of J&K, that is thus recognised as resident before the abrogation of Article 370.
Story continues below this ad
b) Land rights to be given only to permanent residents who have been “in continuous physical possession of (the property concerned) for more than 20 years, including his or her legal heirs”. The Bill proposed to exclude tenants, licensees.
c) The person seeking ownership rights should not own in his name or in the name of any of his dependent family members any site of the building or any built-up house in that village, other than the one for which regularisation is sought under the Act.
d) The ownership rights to be given only after payment of development charges, licence or permission fee or circle fee, as decided by the competent authority. However, the Bill said, the charges should not exceed 1/3rd of the circle rate for the specified area, and the competent authority should have powers to exempt these charges for economically weaker sections, persons belonging to below poverty line, and families of Army personnel or J&K policemen who have laid down their life on duty.
What did the NC say about the Bill?
Speaking in the House, CM Abdullah said the Bill would help “the land mafia” and “illegal encroachers”. He also claimed that it contained no safeguards for “residents of J&K”, though the Bill proposed ownership rights only for permanent residents as existed before the scrapping of J&K’s special status.
Story continues below this ad
Abdullah said: “How can we pass a Bill that helps the land mafia and illegal encroachers… In which, it can’t be said whether they are citizens of J&K, or have come here recently and built houses, but we have to give them the land.” He said there are “no provisions to identify the beneficiaries and genuine residents of J&K”.
What did the BJP say about the Bill?
Leader of the Opposition Sunil Sharma said: “The proposed Bill is aimed at helping those who have encroached land as part of land jihad and (for) changing demography. I thank CM Omar Abdullah… for showing a mirror to the PDP.”
How has PDP reacted to allegations against the Bill?
Questioning the allegations, Para said: “This Bill was in the interest of the original residents of J&K, and explicitly mentioned that it was only for State subjects… Either they (the CM and NC) are lying or they haven’t read the Bill. At a time when the government is talking about land to the landless and home to the homeless, how do you expect to take away shelter from people who have been living on State land?”
Para also asked how the Bill helped land grabbers. “The Bill clearly mentioned that only the land beneath and adjacent to the residential house be regularised and exclude any commercial building,” he said.
Story continues below this ad
The PDP MLA said it was “unfortunate and ironic” that the NC, which once pioneered the landmark ‘Land to the Tiller’ reforms under founder Sheikh Abdullah, was now opposing measures “aimed at safeguarding poor and landless people” “The PDP’s entire aim has been to address one of the most pressing issues in J&K – the issue of land,” Para said.
Why is land such an emotive issue in J&K?
Before the 2019 abrogation of Article 370, land ownership and lease in J&K were restricted only to permanent residents, with “outsiders” barred. The J&K Land Grant Rules, 2022, brought in while the Union Territory was under President’s Rule, ended that protection, ending automatic lease renewals and allowing expired leases to be auctioned through open bidding to “any Indian citizen”.
Incidentally, NC MLA Tanvir Sadiq has proposed a private member’s Bill too, called the J&K Land Grants (Restoration and Protection) Bill, to scrap changes brought by the 2002 rules, and to restore the 1960 framework that governed land leases in J&K.
Story continues below this ad
Sadiq has said his Bill was meant to safeguard the rights of existing leaseholders, protect local businesses, shield lawful occupants from eviction, ensure transparent renewals, and prioritize land grants for residents, cooperatives and local entrepreneurs.
Sadiq’s Bill did not come up for discussion in the recent Session, which was held for only a short duration. Speaking to The Indian Express, Sadiq said the NC opposed Para’s Bill because the domicile rules have changed and anybody could have benefited if the provisions it proposed were implemented.
“Also we had information from multiple sources that this Bill was brought to help people close to the PDP who have grabbed custodian and government land,” Sadiq claimed, adding that the NC government has already assured the poor and homeless in J&K 5 marlas of land.