Three Patiala village panchayats pass resolutions against land pooling policy

Three gram panchayats in Patiala district have passed resolutions against the AAP government’s land pooling policy, with residents saying the initiative was being “imposed” on them and lacked transparency.

The villages that rejected the initiative are Nanoki, Sakrali, and Khijarpur, located near Bhadson town in Nabha subdivision. The decision comes two days before farmer bodies are set to launch a statewide agitation against the initiative, under which the government has planned to develop urban estates over 65,000 acres across the state.

Earlier, farmer bodies had urged village panchayats to reject the policy and pass resolutions against it.

The Opposition parties too have upped the ante against the government, alleging that it would end up in large-scale corruption with ruling party leaders making money through land deals in connivance with builders.

The government has rejected the charge, saying it would spur urban development and participation in it would be completely voluntary. Ruling AAP has also claimed that it would benefit farmers and landowners who would get plots of higher value than the cost of their land.

Under the policy, for every one acre contributed by farmers, they would get a residential plot of 1,000 sq yards besides a commercial plot of 200 sq yards.

The resolutions were passed unanimously, stating that the gram panchayats won’t allow the acquisition of land in their area. The resolution read, “The government cannot acquire land under any scheme, including land pooling, without the consent — signatures or thumb impressions — of 90 per cent of the village population.”

“The common village sites such as temples, mosques, playgrounds, gurdwaras, dharamshalas, and panchayat-constructed properties will remain under the collective ownership of the village,” it added. Nanoki sarpanch Kulwinder Kaur and Sikh scholar and environmentalist Abjinder Singh Jogi Garewal said they would not surrender their land to the government at any cost.

The sarpanch said the initiative lacked clarity. She said even if they decide to be part of the scheme, the government has not given a clear timeline to complete the projects. She said the government could have opted for immediate transfer of money for land instead of keeping the property blocked till it is sold to developers, which may take years.

“Already urban estates are in a shambles across the state. Don’t know when will we get the selling price as development of a project may take years,” she added.

She said there was also no guarantee that landowners would get the desired higher price, as assured by the government.

Echoing similar sentiments, Garewal and Nanoki resident Kulwinder Singh alleged that the government was using various schemes to acquire village land as part of “conspiracy to erase the very existence of villages”. Garewal claimed that several gram panchayats in the district were in their contact and would soon pass similar resolutions.

Meanwhile, Raminder Singh Patiala of the Bharatiya Kisan Union (Ugrahan) said the policy was completely anti-farmer and they strongly oppose it.

“In the initial stage, the state government is going to acquire land in four villages in Patiala. But the scope of land accusation could be expanded. The move has caused jitters among villagers and as a preventive measure they are passing resolution to protect their land,” he said.