A major debate has emerged in Punjab over the government’s land pooling policy, which proposes to acquire large areas of farmland for urban estates and industrial projects. Farmers across the state have expressed concerns about displacement and livelihood security, with many refusing to part with their land. Several peasant organizations, including the United Kisan Morcha, have initiated protest actions, and local demonstrations are being held in different regions. Political parties too are responding to the growing discontent, as the issue has become a prominent subject in the state’s political discourse.
Under the policy, the government has announced the acquisition of 24,311 acres of land in 32 villages of Ludhiana district, with similar projects planned near 11 other cities involving about 12,341 acres. Expansion in Mohali for industrial purposes is also included, and in total, approximately 65,533 acres across 164 villages are scheduled to be brought under land pooling.
While some farmers see the policy as an opportunity to benefit from rising land values, others fear they will be left with inadequate compensation and no sustainable means of livelihood. Small and marginal farmers, who depend entirely on agriculture, are particularly apprehensive. They argue that the promised returns from the government are insufficient compared to prevailing land lease rates. The government maintains that the policy will be implemented with farmers’ consent, but critics question whether such assurances will be upheld.
The Land Acquisition and Resettlement Act of 2013 already lays down provisions for land acquisition, including compensation, rehabilitation, and environmental considerations. Farmers’ groups argue that the land pooling model is being used to bypass some of these protections, by offering inducements for voluntary consent. This has created skepticism about the true extent of choice available to farmers.
Another dimension of the debate concerns the long-term purpose of the land being acquired. While the government has highlighted the creation of housing and infrastructure, opponents contend that the land will eventually benefit large businesses and real estate ventures. They point to previous projects, such as the Bharatmala highway network, as examples of infrastructure development that primarily served corporate expansion rather than local needs.
Critics also emphasize the impact on agriculture and food security. Fertile land, they argue, is essential for sustaining production, and diverting it to non-agricultural purposes risks undermining rural livelihoods and environmental sustainability. The fear is that farmers may lose land without viable resettlement, while speculative real estate ventures and industries gain.
The land pooling debate has also drawn attention to broader issues of urbanization, inequality, and land use. While new colonies and estates are being planned, many existing plots remain vacant, and longstanding demands of landless laborers and urban poor for small housing plots have not been addressed. This has led to questions about whose interests are prioritized in land allocation.
At its core, the dispute reflects contrasting models of development. One vision prioritizes rapid urbanization and industrial expansion as a means of attracting investment. The other stresses the importance of preserving fertile land, promoting agriculture-based development, and linking industrial growth to local needs. Farmer organizations are urging for alternatives that strengthen rural livelihoods rather than replace them.
The land pooling policy has therefore become more than a question of consent or compensation. It has sparked a wider discussion on the future of Punjab’s agriculture, the balance between urban and rural development, and the need for models of growth that protect both livelihoods and the environment.
---
*Freelance journalist
Comments