PDP chief flags food security, orchard protection and earthquake-related risks as J&K balances investment, construction and agricultural sustainability
By: Javid Amin | 11 October 2026
Srinagar: Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti has raised concerns over Jammu and Kashmir’s evolving land-use and ease-of-doing-business framework, warning that allowing commercial high-rise construction on agricultural land and orchards could threaten food security, damage the environment and expose people to serious safety risks.
In a post on X on Sunday, Mehbooba questioned the government’s development priorities, arguing that the push to facilitate commercial construction must not come at the expense of the region’s agricultural resources and public safety. Her remarks followed criticism by PDP MLA Waheed-ur-Rehman Para of changes to the ease-of-doing-business framework and their possible implications for construction, land use and regulatory oversight.
The controversy raises a larger question for Jammu and Kashmir: how can the administration attract investment, accelerate infrastructure development and create employment without weakening the agricultural base, environmental safeguards and planning standards on which long-term prosperity also depends?
The debate is particularly significant in a region where farming and horticulture support a substantial share of the workforce, while urban expansion and demand for commercial property continue to place pressure on land.
‘This Is Not Development’: Mehbooba Questions the Government’s Approach
Mehbooba’s criticism centres on what she sees as the risks of permitting commercial high-rise buildings on land traditionally used for farming and horticulture.
She warned that opening orchards and agricultural areas to commercial construction could undermine food security and expose communities to serious consequences in the event of an earthquake or other disaster.
Her intervention also raised the question of accountability. If changes to land-use rules or construction approvals result in damage to agricultural resources or increase risks to residents, she asked, who would be responsible?
The PDP chief’s remarks reflect a wider concern that the benefits of faster approvals and commercial investment should not be assessed in isolation from their environmental, agricultural and social costs.
The government and supporters of regulatory reform have a different consideration: lengthy approval processes can delay projects, raise business costs and discourage investment. Faster and more transparent procedures can help businesses operate more efficiently, provided that statutory safeguards remain effective.
The key issue, therefore, is not whether Jammu and Kashmir needs investment or development. It is whether the rules governing development can facilitate economic activity without compromising land-use planning, public safety and the region’s long-term resource base.
Agriculture Remains Central to Jammu and Kashmir’s Economy
Official economic data underline why the debate over agricultural land carries implications beyond individual construction projects.
According to the Jammu and Kashmir Economic Survey 2025-26, the primary sector is estimated to account for 20.45 per cent of the Union Territory’s gross state value added in 2025-26. The sector, dominated by agriculture and allied activities, accounted for 42.99 per cent of the workforce under the Periodic Labour Force Survey 2023-24.
These figures demonstrate that agriculture remains a major source of livelihood, even as services and other sectors contribute significantly to the economy.
The region’s agricultural economy extends well beyond the cultivation of food grains. Apple orchards, walnuts, almonds, vegetables, dairy, livestock and other allied activities support farming households, transporters, traders, storage facilities, packaging units and local markets.
Horticulture is particularly important to Kashmir’s rural economy. The Economic Survey 2024-25 estimated that the sector contributed around 6 to 7 per cent of J&K’s gross domestic product and directly or indirectly supported approximately 35 lakh people, including about seven lakh families. The survey also recorded growth in the area under major horticultural crops between 2021-22 and 2024-25.
These activities create economic value that may not be immediately visible when a parcel of land is assessed solely by its potential sale price or commercial development value.
An orchard, for example, can generate income over many years and support several connected livelihoods. Its value includes the produce it yields, the employment it sustains and its contribution to local supply chains.
Replacing such land with a commercial building may generate investment and employment, but the economic comparison needs to account for both the new activity and the agricultural production that could be lost.
That calculation is especially important when the land concerned is fertile, irrigated, strategically located for food production or difficult to replace elsewhere.
Food Security: The Concern Goes Beyond the Size of the Harvest
Food security is often discussed in terms of whether enough food is available. In practice, it also involves affordability, access, stability of supply and the ability of households to obtain nutritious food.
For Jammu and Kashmir, the issue has several dimensions.
The region produces a range of agricultural and horticultural products, but its requirements cannot be assessed through orchard output alone. Food grains, vegetables, dairy products and other essentials each have distinct production and supply patterns.
A reduction in productive agricultural land does not automatically translate into an immediate food shortage. The consequences depend on the amount and quality of land lost, the crops cultivated, changes in productivity, imports from other regions and the capacity of farmers to maintain production elsewhere.
However, the cumulative conversion of fertile land can reduce the area available for cultivation, fragment agricultural holdings and make farming less viable in areas undergoing rapid urban expansion.
If productive land is lost faster than agricultural output can be maintained through productivity improvements or alternative cultivation, the region could become more dependent on supplies from outside.
That dependence is not necessarily harmful in itself. Interregional trade is a normal part of modern food systems. The concern is whether the loss of local productive capacity makes the supply of essential food more vulnerable to price fluctuations, transport disruptions or external shocks.
This is why agricultural land-use decisions need to be supported by reliable data on crop production, land conversion, productivity and food demand rather than assumptions about either inevitable shortages or unlimited replacement capacity.
What Do Ease-of-Doing-Business Reforms Actually Change?
The debate also requires a distinction between simplifying administrative procedures and changing the conditions under which land can be developed.
The Jammu and Kashmir administration has introduced digital systems intended to improve the processing of building permissions and change-of-land-use applications.
In March 2026, the Chief Secretary inaugurated unified digital portals for the Housing and Urban Development Department. One system uses automated scrutiny of building plans and integration with geographical information system-based master plans to assess compliance with applicable building regulations.
Such systems can improve efficiency by reducing paperwork, making applications easier to track and helping applicants identify whether their plans comply with prescribed standards.
But a faster approval process and permission to convert agricultural land are not the same thing.
Digital processing can make a lawful decision faster. It does not, by itself, establish that every proposed development is permissible or that environmental, agricultural, seismic and planning requirements can be ignored.
The effect of a particular reform depends on the legal provisions it changes, the categories of land covered, the applicable master plan and the safeguards retained during approval.
Consequently, any assessment of Mehbooba’s concerns needs to examine the specific provisions under dispute rather than treating every ease-of-doing-business initiative as a blanket authorisation for construction on farmland.
Agricultural Land Conversion Already Has a Legal Framework
Jammu and Kashmir’s land laws contain provisions regulating the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use.
Section 133-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1996, addresses restrictions on the conversion of agricultural land and provides for permission from the District Collector, subject to the applicable procedure. The legal framework also includes specific restrictions concerning certain categories of land and designated areas.
The existence of these provisions is important because the present controversy is not occurring in a legal vacuum.
The relevant questions include whether the applicable laws adequately protect productive agricultural land, whether the approvals granted in individual cases comply with the law and whether the authorities possess the information and capacity required to enforce the rules.
Other questions concern the relationship between land-use permissions and master plans, particularly in urban and peri-urban areas where commercial construction may compete with farming for land.
A transparent system should make it possible to determine what land has been converted, under which provision, for what purpose and after which approvals.
Without that information, it becomes difficult for the public to assess the scale of agricultural land conversion or determine whether safeguards are working as intended.
The Seismic Question: Construction Must Be Judged by More Than Height
Mehbooba’s warning also invokes earthquake-related risks and soil liquefaction.
This concern deserves separate consideration because agricultural land conversion and building safety are related issues, but they are not identical.
Jammu and Kashmir lies in a seismically active Himalayan region. The safety of a building depends on several factors, including local geological conditions, soil characteristics, foundation design, construction quality, building height, structural engineering and compliance with applicable seismic standards.
Liquefaction can occur in susceptible, water-saturated soils during strong ground shaking. The degree of risk varies by location and cannot be determined simply by identifying a site as agricultural land.
Similarly, a high-rise building is not inherently unsafe merely because it stands on land that was previously used for farming. Its safety depends on site conditions, engineering design, regulatory compliance and construction quality.
The appropriate response is therefore site-specific scientific assessment.
Before major commercial developments are approved, authorities should ensure that geological and geotechnical investigations are adequate, that seismic design requirements are enforced and that cumulative development does not exceed the capacity of local infrastructure.
Drainage, flood exposure, groundwater conditions and the availability of emergency access also require attention.
The broader principle is that development approvals should be based on verified site conditions and enforceable standards rather than commercial demand alone.
The Environmental Cost of Unplanned Expansion
The pressure on agricultural land is also connected to the wider pattern of urban growth.
As settlements expand, land on their outskirts may become attractive for residential complexes, warehouses, hotels, shopping facilities and other commercial uses.
Some of this expansion may be necessary to accommodate population growth and economic activity. The difficulty arises when development proceeds without adequate coordination between land-use planning, transport, drainage, utilities and environmental protection.
Fragmented construction can disrupt drainage channels, increase surface runoff, reduce permeable ground and make agricultural plots harder to cultivate.
In Kashmir, where flooding and waterlogging have already caused serious damage in the past, the relationship between construction, natural drainage and floodplain management requires careful scrutiny.
PDP MLA Waheed-ur-Rehman Para has raised concerns about the possible effects of the ease-of-doing-business framework on construction controls, drainage, wetlands and floodplains. These are political concerns that warrant examination against the relevant rules, approved plans and site-specific evidence.
Environmental safeguards should not be viewed simply as obstacles to investment. Proper planning can reduce the risk of expensive future damage, protect public infrastructure and make commercial projects more resilient.
Investment and Employment Remain Important
The case for protecting farmland does not eliminate the need for investment.
Jammu and Kashmir needs productive enterprises, better infrastructure, employment opportunities and a business environment in which lawful projects can proceed without unnecessary delays.
Commercial construction can create jobs, expand services and generate economic activity. Manufacturing, tourism, logistics and other sectors can provide livelihoods that complement agriculture.
The challenge is to distinguish investment that creates durable economic value from development that imposes long-term costs on the wider community.
A project should not be judged solely by its construction value or the number of permissions issued. Relevant measures include the quality and duration of employment created, local business participation, infrastructure requirements, environmental impacts and the project’s contribution to the regional economy.
Similarly, protecting farmland should not mean preventing every change in land use. Urban expansion and economic diversification sometimes require land to be used differently.
But those decisions should be made through a transparent planning process that considers alternatives, identifies the land’s agricultural importance and evaluates the wider costs and benefits.
The objective should be to make investment compatible with long-term economic resilience, rather than treating agriculture and development as mutually exclusive choices.
What a Balanced Land-Use Policy Should Include
Mehbooba has called for a more comprehensive approach to land use. Turning that demand into a workable policy would require several measures.
First, map and classify productive land. Authorities need reliable information on fertile agricultural areas, orchards, irrigated land, floodplains, wetlands and ecologically sensitive locations. Such information should inform development plans and be accessible for public scrutiny.
Second, publish land-conversion data. Regular disclosure of the area converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use, the location of approvals and the stated purposes would help the public assess the scale of change.
Third, protect high-value agricultural areas. Where land makes a significant contribution to food production or horticultural livelihoods, conversion decisions should require a clear justification and assessment of alternatives.
Fourth, strengthen building and environmental enforcement. Digital approvals are useful only when supported by accurate records, inspections, compliance checks and penalties for violations.
Fifth, require scientific assessments where risks warrant them. Major developments in vulnerable locations should be evaluated for seismic conditions, soil stability, drainage, flood exposure and infrastructure capacity.
Sixth, promote development on suitable land. Brownfield sites, underused commercial areas and properly planned urban zones may offer opportunities to accommodate investment without unnecessarily sacrificing productive farmland.
Finally, measure outcomes rather than announcements. The relevant indicators include jobs created, investment realised, agricultural output, land converted, environmental compliance and the long-term cost of infrastructure provision.
These measures would allow authorities to facilitate investment while making the consequences of land-use decisions easier to assess.
The Question for Jammu and Kashmir
Mehbooba Mufti’s intervention has brought attention to a policy dilemma that cannot be resolved through political slogans alone.
The administration has reasons to simplify business procedures and encourage investment. Farmers and agricultural economists have equally important reasons to seek protection for productive land and the livelihoods it supports.
The two objectives need not be incompatible.
The real issue is whether land-use decisions are transparent, scientifically informed and guided by a long-term assessment of public benefit.
If agricultural land is converted, authorities should be able to explain why the change is necessary, what alternatives were considered, what safeguards apply and how the wider economic and environmental consequences will be managed.
If a project promises employment and investment, the public should be able to assess whether those benefits are likely to materialise and whether they justify the use of the land concerned.
And if a development takes place in an area exposed to seismic, flood or other environmental hazards, the relevant assessments and safeguards should be documented and enforceable.
These standards would protect both public confidence and legitimate economic activity.
Conclusion: Development Must Protect the Foundations of Prosperity
Jammu and Kashmir’s development debate is ultimately about more than buildings, business approvals or the pace of construction.
Agriculture and horticulture remain important sources of income and employment. Investment and infrastructure are also necessary for a growing economy. The challenge is to pursue both without allowing short-term commercial gains to undermine long-term productive capacity.
Mehbooba Mufti’s warning has brought the issue into sharper political focus, but the decisive evidence will come from land records, conversion approvals, development plans, agricultural statistics and the enforcement of safety standards.
The administration should explain precisely how its reforms affect land-use decisions, what protections remain in force and how the public can verify compliance.
A credible development strategy must account for jobs and investment, but also for food production, environmental resilience, public safety and the livelihoods of rural communities.
The real measure of development is not simply how quickly land can be built upon. It is whether economic progress can be sustained without needlessly sacrificing the resources and safeguards on which future generations will depend.
