Statute versus soil: The unfinished business of agrarian reform in J&K

By Mohd Amin Mir

In the lexicon of Indian land reforms, the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 holds a place of rare distinction. Enacted with the bold aim of dismantling feudal landlordism and redistributing land to the tiller, it was hailed as a transformative moment in post-Independence India—perhaps even more radical than the land reform movements in West Bengal or Kerala.

Nearly five decades later, the promise of that reform remains partially fulfilled. While many tenants gained possession of land through administrative action, a crucial link in the legal chain remains conspicuously missing: the transition from Section 4 to Section 8 mutations in revenue records.

What exists today is a fractured legacy: lands transferred in spirit, but not in full legal substance. This disjunction between ground reality and record is not merely bureaucratic oversight—it represents a fundamental breakdown in the execution of one of India’s most important socio-economic reforms

Legal Foundation: What Section 4 and Section 8 Really Mean

The 1976 Agrarian Reforms Act in J&K was intended to be self-executing:

Section 4 declares that all rights, title, and interests of landlords in lands under the cultivation of tenants would automatically vest in the tillers, subject to specific conditions.

Section 8 directs the formal recording of such transfer of ownership by attesting a mutation in favor of the tiller in the revenue records.

While Section 4 bestows the right, Section 8 legitimizes that right in the eyes of the law and the state. But in a vast number of cases, Section 4 was acted upon administratively, while Section 8 was never recorded, leaving ownership incomplete in the revenue books.

Legal Discontinuity, Real-World Consequences

This breakdown has had serious legal and economic implications:

Incomplete Ownership: Cultivators have possession and a Section 4 mutation in their (or their ancestors’) names, but without Section 8, they lack final legal title.

Digitisation Disruptions: As Jammu & Kashmir moves towards digital Jamabandis and e-fards, records without Section 8 are tagged as “incomplete” or “under legal review,” blocking access to many citizen services.

Compensation Gaps: In acquisition cases, government agencies often deny compensation due to absence of formal title, even if families have tilled the land for decades.

Ineligibility for Government Schemes: Programs such as PM-KISAN, crop insurance, or agricultural loans require legally verified ownership—something that these cultivators cannot produce.

Succession Paralysis: Legal heirs of deceased tillers are stuck in procedural limbo because mutation cannot proceed unless Section 8 is first entered.

Why This Gap Exists: Administrative Myopia and Legal Apathy

The reasons for this long-standing lacuna lie in a blend of historical overload, bureaucratic inertia, and policy neglect:

Initial Implementation Push, But No Follow-Up
The 1980s saw a bureaucratic sprint to record Section 4 mutations under political pressure. But Section 8, being more procedurally rigorous, was postponed and largely forgotten.

Lack of Policy Continuity
Unlike the clear directives that accompanied the initial phase of reform, successive administrations failed to issue time-bound, verifiable instructions for completing the second leg of the process.

Absence of Judicial or Executive Prodding
Courts have often acknowledged Section 4-based possession but hesitated to declare ownership in the absence of Section 8. The revenue machinery too has avoided proactive correction unless ordered by a court.

Decades of Neglect by Revenue Officials
Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars seldom undertake systematic reviews of mutation registers or Jamabandis to identify and rectify such omissions, unless prompted by specific complaints.

Deaths Without Documentation
Many tillers passed away before their names could be officially recorded under Section 8. With no mutation recorded, legal heirs are left with neither inheritance nor legal possession.

On the Ground: The Human Cost of Incomplete Reform

Qazigund, South Kashmir

Abdul Rasheed has cultivated five kanals of land inherited from his father, a registered tiller under Section 4. But when he approached the tehsil office for inheritance mutation, he was told his father’s title was “incomplete” in the revenue register. “We’ve lived on this land for three generations. But on paper, it’s still no one’s,” he says.

Sopore, Baramulla

A retired schoolteacher, Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din, has been unable to sell part of his ancestral orchard due to lack of Section 8 mutation. Prospective buyers, wary of title issues, walk away. “I have land, but no proof,” he remarks wryly.

Pulwama: The Digitisation Paradox

In the new digital portals used by revenue officials, entries based only on Section 4 show up as “pending verification,” effectively excluding them from e-services and online ownership validation

Beyond J&K: Lessons from Other States

While land reform efforts across India have faced challenges, some states managed to complete the process more thoroughly. West Bengal, under Operation Barga, recorded both possession and ownership in parallel. Punjab and Himachal Pradesh instituted periodic mutation drives post-reform to update ownership records.

In contrast, J&K’s reforms were declaratory—but not duly procedural. The lack of a conclusive mutation trail in thousands of cases reflects not a flaw in law, but a failure in administration.

Five Steps to Repair a Historic Reform

To bridge this gap and restore the integrity of the 1976 Act, urgent administrative action is required:

1. District-Wise Audit of Mutations
Deputy Commissioners should instruct revenue staff to prepare a detailed database of Section 4 cases without matching Section 8 entries, starting with tehsils where digitisation is complete.

2. Official Circular from Revenue Headquarters
A comprehensive order from the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) must mandate time-bound rectification of all such incomplete mutation chains.

3. Empower Ground-Level Officials
Patwaris and Girdawars should be tasked with proactively drafting mutation proposals where Section 4 is undisputed, with support from record assistants and NIC teams.

4. Digitised Workflow for Mutation Completion
Revenue software (such as Apna Khata or Landsoft) must include a built-in ‘Section 4 to Section 8’ transition module to allow seamless, verifiable processing of legacy cases.

5. Legal Lok Adalats for Mutation Settlements
Revenue Lok Adalats or special Gram Sabhas can be used to dispose of uncontested Section 8 mutations in bulk, especially in deceased tiller cases where family consent exists.

Reforming the Reform: A Matter of Justice

Laws may be passed with the stroke of a pen, but justice demands that they be implemented down to the last foot of soil. The failure to complete Section 8 mutations not only weakens the Agrarian Reforms Act’s legacy, but also perpetuates a hidden caste of “landless owners”—men and women who possess land without possessing paper.

As Jammu & Kashmir moves toward digitisation, e-revenue services, and modern land governance, this unfinished business could well derail citizen trust and legal certainty. A true reformer’s task is not just to draft legislation, but to ensure that its benefits reach the doorstep of the most invisible stakeholders.

It is time to reform the reform. And it begins by making Section 8 as real as Section 4—on paper, in law, and in every tehsil file that shapes rural destiny.

The writer is a land policy researcher and columnist based in South Kashmir. He writes on revenue administration, rural reform and goverence.