PULWAMA: On the morning of June 4, 68-year-old Haji Abdul Qayoom Sofi walked towards his five-kanal paddy field in Dangerpora village of south Kashmir's Pulwama district to inspect the rice saplings he had transplanted just a day earlier. When he reached there, he was shocked to find tractors fitted with rotavators moving across the freshly planted field, uprooting young paddy seedlings and churning the soil beneath them.
For Sofi, the incident marked the beginning of land acquisition that has since engulfed the neighbouring villages of Padgampora, Dangerpora, Goripora and Wandakpora, where residents allege that nearly 1,200 kanals of fertile agricultural land are being taken out of cultivation despite having been farmed by local families for generations.
"I could not believe what I was seeing," Sofi recalled. "We had completed the transplantation only a day earlier. The field was ready for the season. Then the machines arrived, and everything was destroyed before our eyes."
The administration’s action to acquire land has triggered widespread anxiety across the villages, where agriculture remains the primary source of livelihood for hundreds of households. Farmers argue that the land is the foundation of their existence, supporting hundreds of families through generations of cultivation.
Years of Labour and Future Mowed Down
As the machines continued their work, neighbours gathered along the narrow embankments separating the fields. A few elderly villagers struggled to hold back their tears.
"I have spent decades working in these fields. When I saw the tractors entering the paddy, it felt as though they were ploughing through our memories, our labour and our future."
Farmers like Sofi say that the fields they have cultivated for generations are now being claimed by the government.
Standing at the edge of the field, his clothes stained with mud from the previous day's work, Sofi struggled to understand what lay ahead.
"We only know how to farm," he said quietly. "If we lose the land, what do we have left?"
A video accessed by Kashmir Times purportedly shows a tractor fitted with a rotavator ploughing through freshly transplanted paddy fields in the disputed area. The footage also appears to show police personnel present at the site while the operation was being carried out.
Kashmir Times could not independently verify the exact date on which the video was recorded. However, local residents claim that the footage relates to the recent action undertaken on the disputed agricultural land in Padgampora and Dangerpora.
Among those affected is Ashfaq Ahmad, 35, who said nearly five kanals of his freshly transplanted paddy field were damaged during the operation.
"We had completed the transplantation a day earlier," Ahmad said. "The seedlings were still fresh. We had spent money on labour, seeds and preparation of the land. When I saw the field being ploughed, I felt helpless. A farmer can recover from a poor harvest, but it is difficult to recover from seeing months of hard work destroyed in front of your eyes."
No Notice, No Consultation
Questioning the authorities, Ahmad said he was struggling to understand why action was being taken now after years of cultivation.
"If the land was under dispute, why were we not informed earlier? Why were we allowed to cultivate it for years? Why were we not given an opportunity to present our case before the action was taken?" he asked.
Firdous Ahmad, 37, said approximately two kanals of his paddy field were affected. Standing beside the damaged plot, he said the loss represented more than a crop.
"People see a field. I see the food that my family depends on," he said. "Every season begins with hope. We borrow money and prepare the land with the expectation that the harvest will support our household. When the crop was destroyed, it felt as though our future was being destroyed with it."
For 60-year-old Taja Bano, whose family cultivates nearly three kanals of land in the area, the dispute has created anxiety across the village.
"The entire year of a farming family revolves around the harvest," she said. "Women may not always own the land, but we share the burden of every season. We help in the fields, manage the household and depend on the crop for our survival. Today there is fear in every home. We do not know what will happen next."
Looking across the disputed fields, she questioned why authorities had chosen to intervene after decades of cultivation.
"Our elders worked on this land, our husbands worked on this land and now our children work on this land," she said. "If the authorities believed there was a problem, why did they wait all these years? Why did they not speak to us before taking such a step?"
Mushtaq Ahmad Dar, Secretary of the Auqaf Committee representing the villages of Padgampora, Dangerpora and Larkipora - comprising nearly 1,244 households – said that the residents were caught completely off guard by the actions of the Revenue Department.
"There was no notice, no consultation and no opportunity for the affected families to present their case," Dar said. "People suddenly found officials entering fields that have been under cultivation for generations."
1963 Gram Panchayat And Land Distribution
Dar claimed that local residents have been cultivating the land for more than seven decades. According to him, the land was historically categorized as State land, but around 1963, elders representing 22 clans from the area convened a Gram Panchayat and collectively decided to distribute portions of the land among different clans and farming households for cultivation.
"Our elders from 22 clans assembled in a Gram Panchayat and distributed the land among local families for agricultural purposes," Dar said. "Since then, generation after generation has cultivated these fields openly and continuously. During all these decades, no objection was raised by the government, nor was any attempt made to stop cultivation."
Over time, he said, the land became deeply integrated into the social and economic structure of the villages. Holdings were inherited by successive generations, partitioned among legal heirs and, in many cases, transferred through private arrangements among cultivators.
"People treated these holdings as family assets because they had remained under settled cultivation for decades," Dar said. "Families divided the land among their children, and some portions were purchased and sold among cultivators. I myself purchased several kanals from another cultivator. These transactions took place because people believed their possession would not be disturbed after generations of uninterrupted cultivation."
Dar warned that any attempt to reclaim the land now could trigger widespread family disputes and legal complications.
"This is not merely an administrative issue," he said. "Over generations, these holdings have been divided among brothers, sons and other family members. In many households, one brother inherited a portion of this cultivated land while another inherited different property. If the status of the land is suddenly changed, it will create endless disputes among families and open a new chapter of litigation."
Land Status
Residents said that the land had been under continuous cultivation for decades and that cultivators had regularly paid "Maali", a revenue-related fee associated with the agricultural use of the land.
Responding to questions regarding the nature of possession over the disputed land, Mushtaq Ahmad Dar, Secretary of the Auqaf Committee, told Kashmir Times that the cultivators' possession had long been reflected in revenue records through entries showing their cultivation and possession of the land.
According to Dar, the land was under "kabza kasht" (cultivatory possession), with the names of cultivators recorded in successive revenue entries over the years. He further said that whenever portions of land were transferred between cultivators, corresponding records and references relating to possession were reflected in documents maintained in the Mahafuz Khana (record repository), which, according to him, demonstrates the long-standing and acknowledged nature of cultivation in the area.
Dar also maintained that farmers had regularly paid government dues associated with cultivation. Kashmir Times has reviewed receipts produced by several cultivators showing payments of Aabiyana (irrigation water charges) to the Jammu and Kashmir Irrigation and Flood Control Department.
Residents argue that the continued recording of cultivation in revenue records and the payment of irrigation-related charges over the years reinforced their belief that their possession and agricultural use of the land had been recognised by the authorities.
However, Kashmir Times could not independently verify the legal implications of the revenue entries cited by residents, and revenue officials have maintained that the land is recorded as State land in official records.
Farmers Left With Questions
Questioning the timing of the government's intervention, Dar said residents were unable to understand why authorities had remained silent for decades if the land was indeed government property.
"If the Revenue Department maintains that this is State land, then it must explain why no effective action was taken despite our continuous, open and uninterrupted cultivation," he said. "My father cultivated this land, I cultivated this land and today my children cultivate this land. If the authorities believed we were unauthorised occupants, where are the eviction notices, recovery proceedings, demarcation reports or court orders from the last several decades? Why has this issue suddenly arisen now?"
Dar said, on June 4, tensions escalated after revenue authorities installed signboards on the disputed land declaring it to be government property and warning that trespassers would face legal action.
"The officials erected notice boards stating, 'This is government land. Keep it vacant. Trespassers will be prosecuted under law,'" Dar said. "People who have cultivated these fields for generations felt deeply hurt and humiliated by the message. Some residents, frustrated by the development, removed the boards."
He further alleged that on the same day that the sign-boards came up, the administration subsequently took measures that hampered cultivation activities, including restricting the flow of irrigation water to certain fields.
On June 8, political leaders from across party lines visited the affected villages and joined farmers in replanting paddy on the disputed fields. Among them was Waheed Ur Rehman Para, Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Pulwama, who publicly expressed support for the affected cultivators and their demand to continue farming the disputed land.
In a post on Meta, Para wrote: "Agriculture and horticulture are the industries that feed the nation. Snatching 1,200 kanals of fertile paddy land from the farmers of Padgampora, Dangerpora, Goripora and Wandakpora in Pulwama is not development—it is the disempowerment of farming."
In a separate post on X, the Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) for Pulwama stated: "Farmers in Padgampora and Dangerpora are being stopped from cultivating nearly 1,000 kanals of land they have farmed for years. Today, we joined them in sowing paddy on these very fields. Land that feeds families cannot be fenced off by bulldozers."
Several videos that surfaced on social media show Parra, along with local residents, political workers and representatives of various political parties, standing knee-deep in waterlogged fields and participating in the transplantation of paddy. The videos appear to show farmers returning to the disputed land and resuming cultivation days after revenue authorities allegedly cleared portions of the fields, an action that has become the focal point of the ongoing dispute.
Law on Long Standing Possession of Land
Yavar Ramzan, an advocate practicing before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, said the controversy raises important questions under the Limitation Act, 1963 concerning long-standing possession and the delayed assertion of rights by the State.
"The Limitation Act is founded upon a well-established legal principle that rights must be asserted within the period prescribed by law. Section 3 mandates that legal proceedings instituted beyond the prescribed period are liable to be barred by limitation. Equally significant is Section 9, which recognizes that once limitation begins to run, it continues uninterrupted except in circumstances specifically provided by law."
Ramzan noted that the Schedule to the Act provides a limitation period of twelve years for suits seeking possession of immovable property based on title and a longer period of thirty years where the Government seeks to assert such claims.
"If the villagers are able to establish that they and their predecessors have remained in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession for several decades, serious legal questions arise regarding the prolonged inaction of the authorities," he said. "The administration must explain whether any eviction proceedings, recovery actions, demarcation exercises, notices or legal proceedings were initiated during the relevant limitation period."
According to Ramzan, the dispute cannot be determined merely by referring to an ownership entry in a revenue record.
"The legal inquiry must extend to possession, cultivation history, Girdawari entries, Jamabandi records and the conduct of the parties over time. Where possession is claimed to have continued openly for generations, the State must justify why its rights were not asserted through lawful proceedings within the period contemplated by law."
He added that any attempt to dispossess cultivators without examining the historical revenue record and without affording affected persons an opportunity of being heard would raise serious concerns relating to due process and principles of natural justice.
"The burden is now on the authorities to place the complete revenue record before the public and explain the legal foundation of their action," Ramzan said.
A Verbal Communication Never Received
However, Tariq Ahmad, the Patwari of the concerned area, told Kashmir Times that the revenue authorities had verbally communicated the matter to the village Numberdar before initiating the action.
"We verbally informed the Numberdar regarding the proposed action," Ahmad said.
He further stated that the land in question is recorded as State land and that the local revenue officials were acting on directions received from the Tehsildar's office.
"We were merely implementing instructions issued by the higher authorities and acted in accordance with the directives communicated to us," he said.
However, Mohammad Yusuf, the Numberdar of Dangerpora-Padgampora, disputed the claim and said that he had not received any communication from the revenue authorities.
"I have not received any communication from the Revenue Department, either verbal or written, regarding the proposed action on the land," Yusuf said. "No official informed me about it beforehand, nor was any notice served to me in my capacity as Numberdar."
Kashmir Times reached out to the Tehsildar, Awantipora, for comment on the matter. However, phone calls made to the Tehsildar's office remained unanswered, and no response was received till the filing of this report.
Have you liked the news article?