Land reforms should benefit Himachalis, not just industry


Himachal Pradesh is among the few states in India where strong land ownership laws have protected the interests of local people. But with rapid industrialisation the state has been going through tremendous pulls and pushes from various interest groups, affecting the livelihood of a common resident. Read on to know how the government may try a balancing act…

By: Kulbhushan Upmanyu & Guman Singh

Himachal Pradesh legislature passed the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act in 1975 to safeguard the interests of local and indigenous residents of the state. The said Act proved pro-people and achieved the objective of land distribution quite satisfactoraly. Secondly, this Act under Section 118, also protected the land within the state from being sold to rich non-Himachalis. This is the reason why there are still very few landless households in this state and developmental benefits could reach to the majority section.

The government is now in the process of bringing about radical changes in the procedure of land transfer to non-Himachalis on the premise of facilitating the development processes in the state. The recent governments have been enthusiastic about promoting industrial, business activity and fulfilling the dream of making HP an educational hub, which is being justified on the plea of faster development for the state but the way in which the provisions of the HP Tenancy and Land reform Act 1975, especially Section 118 and rule 38(A), are being relaxed, needs urgent rethinking.

While the state needs welfare and business activities for development, the simplification of the procedure for purchase of land by non-Himachali business entrepreneurs will surly attract large number of interested people for residential purposes and large amounts of land will get transferred to outsiders. This trend will render more and more Himachalis landless and their long term livelihood security will be undermined, which was the basic concern of the above said Act and can also change the demographic balance of the state which has the potential to create problems, as demonstrated elsewhere.

Even in the past, permission has been granted in thousands of cases by similar relaxations in the provisions of the Act, but in many cases the lands have been used for other than declared purposes. Also, there are numerous instances of plots allotted within the industrials areas lying vacant or being used for residential purposes of the allottees. It is also feared that the people who have purchased lands in the state through benami transactions would try to get their possessions regularized through the new opportunities created by the proposed relaxations in the said Act, i.e. through opening dubious business and welfare ventures that are going to operate in name only.

The solution to this dilemma can be found in not allowing sale of land for doubtful business and welfare ventures. Instead, the land should be leased out for these activities without changing the ownership of the land. When the project life is over and the project is wound up, the land should be reverted to the original owner in whatever condition is specified in the lease agreement. The period of the lease agreement should not exceed 40 years with provision for renewal of lease after the elapse of this period. This should be strictly enforced and it should be ensured that the leased lands not be used for any purpose other than the one specified at the stage of seeking permission from the state government. In the case of violations, the lease agreement must be treated as cancelled. This will facilitate the entrepreneurs to come to the state and invest and also safeguard the interests of the people of the state as envisioned in the Act of 1975.

Previous articleRanji Trophy: Himachal goes down to Goa
Next articleEconomic slowdown: ACC shuts down kiln at Gagal for clinker stock management

No posts to display


  1. Dear Kulbhushan and Guman Singh,

    These days all are enlightened, be it farmers or industrialists.

    Things donot materialise where there is desire by one party to WIN and other party to LOOSE. Both should be in WIN WIN situation.

    If you think that only Farmers should get the Rate they want then forget Jobs thru Industrialisation. HP has been closed to Industrialisation has accumulated DEBT of Rs.29000 Crores.

    How do you propose to help the govt. with increase in Revenue and Jobseekers with Jobs.

    Flexibility is needed in our approach with precautions.

    with Warm Regards – SSJ

  2. Dear Kulbhushan, Ghuman Singh,

    Does it not look funny, that I should have right to settle in any State in India, but others should not have right to settle in HP.

    Then is Raj Thakre not right, the no other than Maharashtrian should settle in Maharashtra.

    Where are we going to?

    R we not practicing double standards, is it not hypocracy?

    Think for a while. by the way I am also a Himachali.

    – Regards – SSJ

  3. sir one Industrial unit set up in Industrial zone in the said unit old partner wants to retire from the said unit in place of old partner new partner wants to enter in the said pertner ship firm Firm would be the same no change any type of name & style or working can the said firm have to take again permission for 118 or not

Comments are closed.