The Pandjab Government has recently introduced the landing of land association for “urban” pressure “in the state, dominated by the rural population involved in agriculture, attracting sharp criticism from farmers, clothing of agricultural workers, landowners, political parties and experts in agriculture and economics.
The persecution of its obligation to create well -planned urban assets that will satisfy the needs of the growing population of consolidation of fragmented land lands and ensuring fair and sustainable development, the AAM AADMI (AAP) 4 June announced the policy of land association, 2025.
In this policy, the state is expected to receive over 65,000 acres of land in Ludhiana, Mohali, Amritsar, Jalandhar, Patiala, Moga and Tarn Taran. Owners who decide to associate would receive 1,000 square YD. Residential land and 200 square yd. Commercial conspiracy in fully developed soil instead of one acre, among other things.
Since its launch, several agricultural bodies and political parties have organized protests requiring the withdrawal of policy. He also came under court control, with the High Court in Panjab and Haryana on August 7, who granted an interim stay in his activities and provided the state government for four weeks to respond to concerns.
Several village gram of panchayatů passed a resolution against politics. Congress, Shiromanians Akali Dal (Sad) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) accused the AAP government of attempting to grasp agricultural land. The government dismissed the accusation and described politics as “friendly for farmers” and accused her opponents of spreading “misleading propaganda”. Main Minister Bhagwant Mann claimed that “a single yard will not be forcibly obtained from landowners.”
Jagmohan Singh, head of the farmer Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM), welcomed the interim stay of the High Court and called on the government to withdraw this policy. “This policy is unconstitutional because it violates the provisions of the right to fair compensation and transparency in obtaining, rehabilitation and relocation of the 2013 law, according to which 70% of land owners are required,” J. Singh said.
“The Pandjab association is an attempt to bypass this rule that in itself creates serious doubts about the government’s intention. In the Patiala of six villages identified for association of land have already passed four.
Nirbhay Singh, President Kirti Kisan Union, said: “The government’s only goal is to take away our fertile ground. The claim that no land will be forcibly filed. Once the land falls under the jurisdiction of the City Development Office to sell?
“The government is trying to forced urbanization that would benefit large businesses. It has no connection with social development, the interests of farmers or the good living conditions of the village.
Kesar Singh Bhangoo, professor and Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences on Patiala University, Patial, questioned the justification of politics. “Between 2000 and 2025, a total of about 11,000 acres of land was obtained in Pandjab for all purposes – residential, industrial and institutional. Now the government wants to obtain 65,000 per lake acres, which is approximately 1% of the cultivated area of the state.
For this exponential increase, a rational explanation is required, but politics is unclear. Absolute transparency should be followed, but this is not the case. Especially in the last 25 years the pandjab has contributed 42% wheat to the central pool; This is essential for national food security and national security. Urbanising a huge piece of land without assessing the need could have serious consequences, ”he said.
Lakhwinder Singh, a leading economist and visiting professor at the Institute for Human Development, New Delhi, said: “The first and most important question is whether the government has conducted any survey for housing demand or urbanization in the panda.
The petitioner based in Ludhiana Gurdeep Singh Gill, whose action the High Court suspended this policy, claimed that it was announced without the necessary assessment of the environment and social impacts. He also claimed that this would adversely affect the nutrition of the families of small and marginal farmers and that policy was discriminated against by small landowners.
Published – August 8, 2025 9:32
