MLA Javid Riyaz Questions Government on Farmers’ Eviction After Land Transfer to Ministry of Defense
Avinash Azad
A contentious land transfer in Village Rakhe Buran Pattan has ignited debate in the Jammu & Kashmir Assembly, with MLA Javid Riyaz raising concerns over the fate of local farmers.
In a pointed exchange, Riyaz questioned the government about the transfer of 757 Kanals and 06 Marlas of land to the Ministry of Defense, Government of India, and its impact on villagers who relied on it for their livelihood. The government’s responses, while confirming the transfer, have left lingering ethical questions about compensation and rehabilitation unanswered.
Land Transferred to Ministry of Defense
MLA Javid Riyaz began by seeking confirmation of the transfer, referencing Order No. 85-JK (Rev) of 2023, dated June 28, 2023, which allocated 757 Kanals and 06 Marlas of land in Rakhe Buran Pattan to the Ministry of Defense. The government succinctly affirmed, “Yes,” validating the transaction.
Farmers’ Historical Use of the Land
Riyaz pressed further, asking whether the land had been occupied by local villagers who paid an annual share of their harvested crops to the Rakhs and Farmers Department. The government, citing a report from the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, clarified the legal status: “In the revenue records, the land is recorded as state land in the ownership and Makbooza Mahakma Astabal in the Tenancy column.” This response sidestepped the MLA’s focus on the villagers’ customary use, emphasizing instead the land’s official classification.
Eviction Without Compensation?
The MLA escalated his line of inquiry, asking whether these farmers were evicted from the transferred land without compensation or alternative cultivation sites. The government’s reply was terse: “The land in question is state land.” By reiterating the legal ownership, the response avoided directly addressing the eviction or its fallout, leaving the villagers’ plight unacknowledged.
Rehabilitation Plans Fall Flat Riyaz concluded by asking whether, if his concerns were valid, the government intends to rehabilitate the affected farmers in the near future and, if so, when. The government dismissed the query outright, stating, “Not applicable,” signaling no plans to address the farmers’ displacement.
