Land ownership, and who counts as an insider or outsider, has been a contested issue across states, as I detailed in my last column. Today, we will examine Uttarakhand’s new land legislation, which also reflects the flip-flop within the state BJP.
Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami’s approach is far more conservative than that of his predecessor Trivendra Singh Rawat. Rawat’s 2018 land reforms—seen as enabling extensive land acquisitions by outsiders— had seen a series of protests in Tawaghat, Kotkhara, Nainisar, Naini Danda, Pauri, and Tehri Garhwal. Activists rallied under the banner of the Mool-Niwas Bhoo-Kanoon Samanvay Sangharsh Samiti (Local Domiciles Coordination Committee on Land Legislation), advocating restrictions on large-scale land sales to individuals from outside the state. They also blamed migration and ghost villages on the lure of easy money offered by rich outsiders.
As in the case of Himachal, they sought an extension of the minimum residency period required for non-Uttarakhand residents to obtain a domicile certificate. To address their concerns, the Dhami government formed a five-member Bhoo Kanoon (Land Laws) review committee in December 2021 to examine the existing land laws. The committee submitted its recommendations in September 2022, which were accepted ‘in principle’. A subsequent drafting committee, headed by then-additional chief secretary (now chief secretary) Radha Raturi, was set up in December 2023 to examine these recommendations in detail. On 21 February, the state assembly passed the Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition And Land Reforms Act, 1950) Amendment Bill, 2025.
But will restricting land sales really benefit Uttarakhandis?
Also Read: Insiders, outsiders, and land—Uttarakhand closes off while J&K opens up
Land under pressure
Over the last four years, there have been counter-pulls and pressures both for and against restrictions on land ownership, with BJP leaders like former state party chief and Haridwar legislator Madan Kaushik opposing the move. Perhaps as a compromise, the two districts of Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar have been excluded from the provisions of the Act.
The implication of this legislation is that only those domiciled in Dehradun, Pauri Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal, Uttarkashi, Rudraprayag, Chamoli, Nainital, Pithoragarh, Champawat, Almora, and Bageshwar districts will have the right to purchase ‘agricultural land’ without permission in non-municipal areas. Of course, forest land is strictly off-limits, even for those with domicile status.
That agricultural land is under pressure is borne out by land-use statistics. State government data shows that of Uttarakhand’s total land area—53,484 square kilometres—forest cover comprises around 61.1 per cent, while land available for cultivation is just about 14 per cent. The rest falls under culturable wastelands (pastures), current fallows, and other non-agricultural uses. What is more alarming is that the land under cultivation reportedly went down from 7.7 lakh hectares in 2000-01 to 6.4 lakh hectares by 2021.
Until this enactment, the 2018 Act permitted the purchase of up to 12.5 acres of agricultural land across Uttarakhand. This upper limit was on the lines of the ceiling imposed under the UP Zamindari Abolition Act, which Uttarakhand adopted when it became a state in 2000. For residential use, anyone could buy land in any part of the state and there was no cap on the land size.
It may, however, be mentioned that in 2003, the ND Tiwari government restricted this to 500 square metres of land per family for residential purposes. It was further cut down to 250 square metres by BC Khanduri in 2008. For industrial or commercial purposes, separate permission was needed for the sale and purchase of land.
Even being on the voters’ list is not enough
Per the new law, anyone who has not lived in the ‘hill districts’ continuously for fifteen years is ineligible to purchase land there. In fact, even Uttarakhandis from Udham Singh Nagar and Haridwar are not eligible to buy land in the ‘hill districts.’
Here, there are two points of departure from the Himachal legislation. The first relates to the residency requirement—twenty years in Himachal versus fifteen in Uttarakhand. The second is that Himachal has no plains districts, meaning its law is applicable across the state without exception.
Thus, while an ‘outsider’ Indian residing in the hill districts can vote in panchayat, municipal, assembly, and parliamentary elections, she cannot purchase agricultural land. However, if the outsider sets up an NGO or an enterprise, these legal entities are eligible to purchase land after taking the requisite permissions from the state government.
Let us examine the pros and cons of this enactment. Those in favour argue that it preserves land rights by protecting agricultural land for local farmers and residents. They also proffer environmental protection and cultural conservation as reasons to justify the restriction on land sales to outsiders.
The argument that it will prevent speculation and keep land prices affordable cuts both ways—many landowners complain that this has reduced the value of their assets, and many would have liked to use their land as collateral. Other arguments against the law include the perception that it makes the state investor-unfriendly, which could directly impact several sectors, including eco-tourism.
Divesting district magistrates of their powers over land matters and centralising authority in the state government will also make decision-making more political rather than administrative.
Thus, in the final analysis, while the new law prioritises land conservation and local interests, it may slow down economic growth and investment.
Also Read: Uttarakhand UCC regulating live-in relationships has a positive side too
Agriculture is losing its salience
My final take is that laws, especially those related to land ownership, are never cast in stone, and there may soon be a counter-movement from highlanders who want to dispose of their land and move out of agriculture.
Irrespective of land laws and schemes like PM Kisan, people are looking for options, and within the next two decades—if not earlier—land will no longer hold the same salience it once did in the economic lives of people. This is as true for the Uttarakhand hills as it is for Punjab and Maharashtra. Urbanisation, migration, gender empowerment, and vocational skills will transform the rural landscape.
Another factor that has not been widely discussed or documented is that the Scheduled Caste population, which holds less than 2 per cent of agricultural land, is eager to move out of rural areas at the first opportunity. The UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (UPZALR) Act had provisions allowing ceiling-surplus or excess land in villages to be granted to landless labourers or Dalits under Section 157A and others. However, neither the Congress nor the BJP took up these provisions seriously, and it is perhaps too late now.
Reservation in education and employment has opened up multiple opportunities. Even those in the informal sector—working as plumbers, masons, drivers, or gig workers in urban areas—now make more than landless agricultural workers or MGNREGA daily wagers in the hill districts, or for that matter, in any other district.
The jury is still out on whether or not this is a positive development. But it will certainly impact the way we look at land ownership and entitlement in a fast-changing economic scenario, where both GDP and employment in agriculture will shrink, and the services sector will witness exponential growth.
Sanjeev Chopra is a former IAS officer and Festival Director of Valley of Words. Until recently, he was director, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration. He tweets @ChopraSanjeev. Views are personal.
(Edited by Asavari Singh)