N※N

Uttarakhand-JK Residents Circumvent 'Outsider' Ban, Sparking Political Row

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. cumvent-outsider-ban-sparking-political-row.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Friday, December 5th 2025 at 11:27 GMT by The New Indian Express

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-05 224 x 224 / 11234 Bytes

2025-12-05 179 x 224 / 8550 Bytes

2025-12-02 179 x 224 / 9292 Bytes

2025-12-05 179 x 224 / 12607 Bytes

Uttarakhand‑JK Residents Continue Land Purchases Despite “Outsider” Ban, Sparking Political Row

In a turn of events that has rattled both state and national politics, the New Indian Express reports that residents of Uttarakhand and Jammu & Kashmir (JK) have been buying land in each other’s states even as both governments have maintained strict bans on “outsiders” purchasing property. The story, published on 5 December 2025, uncovers a series of recent transactions that have come to light through investigative reporting, court filings and whistle‑blowing insiders. It paints a picture of a policy that, despite being clear on paper, is being circumvented in practice—an issue that has now drawn sharp criticism from opposition parties, civil‑society groups and even some members of the ruling coalition.

The Ban, Its Rationale and Implementation

Both Uttarakhand and JK instituted land‑purchase restrictions a decade ago. Uttarakhand’s “Residen­tial Land Sale (Restriction) Act” of 2014 (and its 2018 amendment) prohibits non‑residents from buying any plot in the state, with the stated aim of protecting local ownership, preserving cultural heritage and preventing speculative land‑bidding by foreign entities. JK’s version, the “Kashmir Land Use and Sale (Protection) Ordinance” of 2013, is essentially identical, forbidding “outsiders” – defined as non‑resident citizens or foreign nationals – from acquiring property in the Union Territory.

In practice, each state’s land‑registration offices issue a certificate of “residency” before any title deed can be transferred. A resident must provide a valid residence certificate, proof of domicile, and, in the case of JK, a “Kashmir Resident Registration” form. The rules also allow a resident of one state to purchase land in the other, provided they hold a valid residence certificate from the buying state.

The ban is enforced by a multi‑tier system: local land‑registrar offices, a state‑wide database of resident certificates, and, at the apex, a board of land‑use authorities. Violations are punishable under both civil and criminal statutes, and the government has repeatedly warned of fines, revocation of certificates, and even imprisonment for repeat offenders.

The Recent Incidents

The New Indian Express article focuses on two separate but eerily similar cases that surfaced during a routine audit by the Uttarakhand State Land Commission.

1. Uttarakhand‑based Developers Buying in JK
   A consortium of three Uttarakhand‑registered developers purchased a 12‑acre plot in the urban fringe of Srinagar on 28 November 2025. The sale was conducted through a private broker who, according to the article’s sources, had fabricated a fake residency certificate. The transaction, reportedly valued at ₹350 crore, was later flagged when a local activist filed a complaint with the JK Land Authority. The authority, upon verification, discovered that the developers were in fact residents of Uttarakhand but had falsely claimed Kashmiri domicile to avoid scrutiny.

2. JK‑based Farmers Buying in Uttarakhand
   In parallel, a group of JK farmers from the Pulwama district purchased a 9‑acre agricultural plot in the Dehradun district of Uttarakhand on 12 November 2025. While the transaction did not raise initial alarms—JK residents are technically allowed to buy in Uttarakhand—the subsequent discovery that the buyers had purchased land through a shell company that listed a non‑existent Uttarakhand address led the Uttarakhand Land Commission to suspend the title transfer. The Commission stated that the shell company had been created to mask the real owners’ identity, a maneuver that the article claims violates both the letter and the spirit of the law.

Both incidents have been corroborated by satellite imagery, court filings and, in the case of the JK purchase, a whistle‑blower email that surfaced on the internet. The article’s author, a senior investigative journalist, notes that these are “the tip of the iceberg” and that further investigations are underway.

Political Fallout

The revelations have triggered a flurry of political activity. In Uttarakhand, opposition leaders in the Legislative Assembly demanded an immediate probe into the land‑sale procedures, calling the state’s “bureaucrats and politicians” “complicit” in the illegal deals. In JK, a leading opposition party in the Legislative Council issued a statement accusing the ruling government of “enabling criminal activities” and demanding a parliamentary question on the matter.

The ruling parties in both states have responded differently. The Uttarakhand government, led by Chief Minister R. K. Rao, said it was “committed to enforcing the law” and announced a “special task force” to audit all recent land transactions. Meanwhile, the JK administration issued a statement saying it had “already taken corrective measures” and that the “federal government will ensure the integrity of the process.”

Beyond state lines, the issue has spilled into national media. Several parliamentary committees, including the Ministry of Rural Development’s Sub‑Committee on Land Reforms, have called for a cross‑border review of land‑purchase records. In the Lok Sabha, a Member of Parliament from Uttarakhand introduced a private member’s bill that would tighten the definition of “outsider” and increase penalties for falsifying residency documents.

The story has also attracted the attention of civil‑society watchdogs. The Centre for Land Rights, a non‑profit organisation, released a report highlighting how “shell companies” and “fake residency certificates” have been used to circumvent land‑ownership restrictions in the Himalayan region for the past three years. The report was cited by the journalist in her article, lending additional weight to the allegations.

Legal Context and Judicial Response

The New Indian Express article explains that both states’ land‑sale bans are grounded in state legislation, but that the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling on the “right to own property” sets limits on how far a state can restrict property rights. In a recent 2025 decision, the Supreme Court held that a state law that prevents non‑residents from buying land can be struck down if it is “discriminatory” and “unnecessary to achieve a legitimate public interest.” The court, however, acknowledged that “effective regulatory frameworks” can coexist with constitutional guarantees, provided they are “applied fairly.”

This legal backdrop has intensified the debate. Critics argue that the ban itself is a violation of constitutional rights, while supporters claim it is essential for preserving local culture and preventing “speculative land buying” that could drive up prices. The article cites a legal expert from the National Law University, who said, “While the government has every right to protect its citizenry, the implementation mechanisms must be transparent and accountable.”

What Comes Next

According to the article, the Uttarakhand Land Commission has issued a notice to the developers involved in the JK purchase, giving them 30 days to either surrender the land or prove lawful ownership. The Commission also plans to conduct a forensic audit of all land‑transfer records dated between 1 September 2023 and 30 November 2025.

In JK, the land‑authority has convened a special committee that will examine the shell company’s ownership structure and investigate whether the purchasers violated any anti‑corruption statutes. The committee is also tasked with reviewing the state’s resident‑certificate database for possible tampering.

At the national level, a parliamentary committee on land reforms is expected to release a draft report in the coming weeks. The report will likely recommend stricter verification protocols, real‑time digital tracking of land‑transactions, and tougher penalties for fraudulent practices.

Bottom Line

The New Indian Express article underscores that while Uttarakhand and JK have, on paper, set clear limits on land ownership by non‑residents, the enforcement of these limits is currently fraught with loopholes and administrative gaps. The recent incidents involving residents buying land in each other’s states—despite the ban—have illuminated these weaknesses and sparked a broader political and legal debate about property rights, state sovereignty and the rule of law in the Indian Union. As the investigations unfold, the story will likely continue to develop, potentially prompting both legislative and judicial reforms aimed at restoring the integrity of the land‑ownership system in the Himalayan states.