In a significant reversal, the Uttarakhand assembly, during its recent budget session, passed an amendment dismantling the land laws introduced in 2018 under the Trivendra Singh Rawat government. The new legislation, titled the ‘Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (UPZALR), 1950) (Amendment) Act, 2025’, curtails land purchases by non-residents marking a departure from the earlier policy that had in many ways allowed for land ownership for outsiders.
Under the amended provisions, purchasing land designated for agriculture and horticulture will now be entirely prohibited across 11 hilly districts, with Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar as exceptions. Moreover, non-residents will be restricted to buying only 250 square metres of residential land, now subjected to a strict one-purchase-per-family rule, which will be enforced through mandatory affidavits. District magistrates, who once held the authority to approve land transactions, will no longer exercise that power. Many critics maintain that this amendment has many loopholes, like section 2 which excludes municipal areas from its purview.
Chief minister Pushkar Singh Dhami justified this stringent policy shift as a necessary measure to safeguard the “cultural heritage of Devbhoomi.” He said that the amendment aims to strike a delicate balance between environmental preservation and economic growth while protecting the rights of local residents.
While the amendments promise to protect Uttarakhand’s cultural and environmental heritage, they also raise some crucial questions. Will tightening land laws in any way revitalise the state’s hill economy, or will it further isolate the region from potential development?
The sentiments driving popular demand for land reforms are situated within the current economic trajectory of the state.
A battle
दिदाँ भू, बुग्याळ, यु माटू, पाणी, बिक जालू /त्यारा पुरखौं कु सैंत्यूं सम्भाल्यूं, बिक जालू
(Didi, this land, soil, grasslands, water, everything will be sold. All the land cultivated by your ancestors will be sold).
The above are Garhwali lyrics of the song ‘Bhoo Bugyal’, which the Uttarakhand band Pandavaas performed during the opening ceremony of the 38th National Games, held in Dehradun this year. The lyrics echoed a fear – that Uttarakhand’s lands are being sold off to profit-seeking outsiders, including corporations and hospitality ventures, and being illegally occupied by land ‘mafias’, all at the expense of local communities’ wellbeing.
The commercialisation of the state’s resources, fuelled by the rapid expansion of tourism, has intensified land sales to these ‘outsiders’. This trend gained momentum after the 2018 land policy reforms under the Rawat government, which eased earlier restrictions on land purchases by granting district magistrates the authority to approve larger land purchases by outsiders. The policy shift sparked widespread concern and protests over declining employment opportunities, threats to food security, and increasing pressure on the state’s already fragile natural resources.
Economic fragility of the hills
Historically, Uttarakhand’s hilly regions have been sustained by a delicate balance of subsistence agriculture, forestry, and animal husbandry. However, the realities of the terrain impose significant constraints with only 14% of the state’s total area of 56.72 lakh hectares being cultivable, and a majority of land categorised as forest or wasteland. Small, fragmented and marginal landholdings dominate the scene therefore limiting economies of scale and raising input costs relative to output. Additionally, agriculture in Uttarakhand is predominantly rain-fed, with only 45% of the net sown area being irrigated – mostly confined to the plains (85.83%) and valleys due to the challenges posed by the rugged hill terrain.
Despite these hurdles, the agricultural sector remains central to the livelihoods of the state. According to the NSSO 70th Round (2013), 72% of the net income of agricultural households in Uttarakhand stems from cultivation and allied activities – surpassing the national average of 60% and significantly higher than neighbouring Himachal Pradesh’s 45%. Yet, paradoxically, the average monthly income of an agricultural household in the state stands at a modest Rs 4,701, trailing both the national average of Rs 4,923 and Himachal Pradesh’s Rs 8,777.
The rapid sale of arable land to non-residents threatens to exacerbate these vulnerabilities by posing risks to indigenous food diversity, local livelihoods, and the region’s long-term food security. This concern is more pressing when viewed against Uttarakhand’s existing within-state economic disparities.
Industrial development in Uttarakhand has remained heavily lopsided in favour of the Terai plains, leaving the hill districts economically marginalised and underdeveloped.
Economic Survey 2023-24 Chapter 01-14. Visible is how plain districts of Dehradun, Haridwar and US Nagar compare with hill districts.
According to Uttarakhand Directorate of Economics and Statistics’s figures for 2021-22, districts like Haridwar, Udham Singh Nagar, and Dehradun dominate economically, with per capita incomes of Rs 3,62,688, Rs 2,69,070, and Rs 2,35,707, respectively while the hill districts significantly lag behind. In comparison, Chamoli – the highest-earning among hill districts, has a per capita income that is nearly half of Haridwar’s, at Rs 1,27,330. The gap widens further for Rudraprayag and Bageshwar, where incomes drop to Rs 93,160 and Rs 98,755, respectively – almost a third of Haridwar’s earnings. This economic difference continues to fuel the outmigration of the hill residents, leaving living mountains hollowed out and increasingly disconnected from the state’s growth narrative.
Migration
The imbalance that is both geographic and economic, and perhaps also political in nature, has contributed to a tragic socio-economic crisis in the state: the emergence of abandoned ghost villages. This is a consequence of limited economic opportunities, inadequate infrastructure, and climate change-induced natural calamities that have plagued these regions. Out-migration from the hills to the plains has over the years only intensified, driven by dwindling livelihoods and a deepening agrarian distress. Farmers, very frequently, report the destruction of crops by animals like wild boars and monkeys, and this further adds to the layers of vulnerability and struggle for those who remain – mainly women and the elderly. This reality is often captured in village vlogs on YouTube, where residents share firsthand accounts of their battles to sustain farming amidst already dwindling harvest and increasing wildlife interference.
The widespread migration from the hills casts a shadow over those picturesque views of the mountains that often grace tourist brochures and travel agency advertisements. The 2011 Census data has it that while the state’s overall population grew by 19.17% between 2001 and 2011, seven hill districts experienced less than 6% growth, with Almora (-1.73%) and Pauri Garhwal (-1.51%) witnessing population declines. In contrast, the three of the plains districts saw a population surge of nearly 33%. The 10 hill districts of the state together accounted for only 48.1% of its population.
The bigger picture
In light of the persistent economic vulnerability of the hills, the conversation must now move beyond merely safeguarding land from external encroachment. The question should be: once the land is reclaimed and protected, how can its agricultural productivity be enhanced, especially given the inherent limitations of small and fragmented holdings?
With step farming as the dominant practice, land consolidation emerges as a frequently proposed policy solution by the experts. In ‘Land Consolidation as Land Reform in India’, Philip Oldenburg draws on the experiences of farmers from Uttar Pradesh to highlight the benefits of this approach. Clustering fragmented plots into larger, cohesive holdings, saves both land and time by eliminating scattered plots and redundant boundaries. Its greatest advantage lies in enabling productive investments and lowering production costs, especially of water-intensive crops.
This strategy gains special significance in Uttarakhand, where the average landholding size stands at just 0.95 hectares, well below the national average of 1.57 hectares. For smallholder farmers, this makes the efficient use of every available resource even more critical. But despite previous attempts in this direction in the state, its potential remains untapped owing to poor execution.
Ayush Rawat is an economics student at Ashoka University with interests in public policy, economic research, and international relations.
