Rajasthan Legislature Passes Rajasthan Immovable Property Prohibition Bill on March 6 | Photo credit: ANI
Story so far:
The Rajasthan Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property in Disturbed Areas Act was passed by the Rajasthan Legislature on March 6 in a voice vote. The bill seeks to regulate property transactions in areas the government declares to be “disturbed”. However, the legislation has sparked debate about its constitutional validity, potential abuse, and its wider social and economic consequences.
What does the bill propose?
Under the proposed Act, Section 3(1), 2 provides that the State Government can declare any area in the State as a “disturbed area” if it believes that there is or is likely to be communal violence, riot or public disturbance.
Under Section 5(1), 2, once the site is notified, any transfer of immovable property, including land, houses or commercial establishments, will require the prior approval of the District Magistrate or Collector. This restriction applies to transfers by sale, gift, exchange, lease, etc. Property transactions made without this permission would be considered void. Section 7 empowers the District Magistrate or the Collector to conduct an inquiry to determine whether the proposed transfer is voluntary and genuine or involves coercion, intimidation or distress sale.
Pursuant to Section 9, the law also provides for sanctions for transfers of property carried out without the required permission. Section 10 contains provisions aimed at protecting tenants from forced or illegal eviction in such sensitive areas. Violation of the Act (Section 12) is considered a non-bailable offense and is punishable by imprisonment for three to five years and a fine.
How does the Gujarat model compare?
Rajasthan’s law draws comparisons with Gujarat’s Disturbed Areas Act, which has its origins in a 1986 ordinance passed after serious riots in Ahmedabad. The law was first passed in 1991.
It was later strengthened through amendments in 2020. The law was introduced to prevent distress sales of property by minorities who felt forced to leave their neighborhoods and sell property at low prices after repeated communal riots in cities like Ahmedabad and Vadodara. It has been recognized that once areas are identified with a particular community, administrative control of cross-community property transactions can make such exchanges difficult.
In Ahmedabad, a large portion of the Muslim population is concentrated in Juhapura, often described as the largest Muslim ghetto in western Ahmedabad, limiting the geographical spread of the community. While the law was originally intended to prevent distressed sales and the ghettoization of communities, the application of the law created the exact opposite effect of communal segregation of urban spaces. In relation to the 2020 amendments, then Chief Minister Vijay Rupani publicly said that the intent of the law was to ensure that Hindus and Muslims remained in their own areas and did not exchange property.
What are the legal and constitutional implications?
Although the right to property was removed as a fundamental right by the 44th Amendment to the Constitution in 1978, it remains protected under Article 300A, which provides that no one can be deprived of property except by law. The proposed legislation provides such power by requiring government approval before transferring property in notified “disturbed areas”.
The bill also drew attention to Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. Legal observers note that if the provision disproportionately affects certain neighborhoods or communities, the law could face scrutiny based on arbitrary classification or discrimination.
What concerns does the opposition have?
Congress challenged the general bias of the law. Additionally, real estate transactions in notified areas could slow down as each transfer would require administrative approval from the district authorities. They also point out that vague terms such as “disturbed area” or “demographic imbalance” can leave room for wide administrative discretion. There are also concerns about the arbitrary classification of disturbed areas, the creation of ghettos in communities, potential discrimination in government services and distortion of representation. As a result, the policy, although intended to prevent forced displacement, has been criticized for institutionalizing residential segregation and communal polarization while reinforcing existing community boundaries in housing markets rather than promoting integration.
(Saee Pande is a freelance writer focusing on politics, current affairs, international relations and geopolitics)
Published – 16 March 2026 08:30 IST
