Timely action against encroachments matters. Kurigam Qazigund example shows why

By Mohammad Amin Mir

The demolition drive at Kurigam, near Qazigund railway station, offers an important lesson for the Revenue Department: preventing an alleged encroachment is far better than demolishing a structure after it has been built. Timely intervention, accurate land records and lawful enforcement can protect public property while sparing families avoidable distress.

The incident involved a widow with three daughters who had constructed a single-storey concrete building on land alleged to be Shamilat land. When she began adding a room and bathroom to the structure, the village Lambardar and Patwari reportedly intervened and stopped the work. However, construction allegedly continued, and the additional structure was completed.

The Tehsildar, accompanied by the Naib Tehsildar and other officials, subsequently reached the site and initiated demolition proceedings. A portion of the newly constructed structure was demolished before the widow and her daughters arrived, pleading with the authorities to stop.

The situation took another turn when the woman’s relatives claimed that the land belonged to their family and was private property. The Tehsildar ordered fresh demarcation to establish the land’s actual status and boundaries, making further action subject to the findings and applicable law.

The episode raises a fundamental question: why should a suspected encroachment be allowed to reach the stage of completed construction before decisive administrative action is taken?

Prevention is better than demolition

If construction is suspected on Shamilat, public or otherwise protected land, the authorities should investigate promptly. An early inspection, proper demarcation, written notice wherever required and a reasoned decision can prevent a minor dispute from becoming a costly and emotionally charged confrontation.

Had the land’s status been established conclusively at the appropriate time, the present situation might have been avoided. If the construction was unauthorised, timely intervention could have prevented further investment and hardship. If the land was private property, early verification could have protected the owner’s legitimate rights.

The principle is straightforward: allegations must be examined promptly, and action must follow evidence rather than assumption.

Strengthening the village revenue machinery

The Patwari and Lambardar occupy important positions in the village-level administrative system. They are often among the first to become aware of fresh construction, changing land use and possible encroachments.

Their responsibility is to report suspected violations, maintain and verify relevant records, and assist competent authorities in lawful proceedings. They are not expected to determine contested ownership claims on their own or resort to coercive measures.

When construction continues despite an objection, verbal warnings may not be sufficient. A written report, timely inspection and a request for formal demarcation can establish a clear administrative record.

Supervisory officers must respond without unnecessary delay. Field officials should not be left waiting indefinitely for instructions while disputed construction progresses.

Protect public land, protect private rights

Shamilat land, depending on its legal status and applicable revenue records, may serve common or other legally recognised purposes. Where unauthorised occupation is established, it can deprive the community of land to which it is entitled and encourage further encroachment.

However, a complaint describing land as Shamilat cannot substitute for verification. Officials must examine the relevant revenue records, including the Record of Rights and Jamabandi, consult the village map or Massavi where necessary, and establish the boundaries through prescribed demarcation procedures.

The Kurigam family’s claim of private ownership must therefore be assessed on its merits. Equally, if the land is established to be Shamilat and the construction unauthorised, the law must take its course.

The widow’s distress deserves compassion, but neither vulnerability nor public pressure should determine ownership. Humane administration means respecting people’s dignity while ensuring that lawful rights are protected and violations addressed through due process.

Equal enforcement builds public confidence

The credibility of a demolition drive cannot be measured merely by how quickly a structure is removed. It depends on the fairness of the procedure, the accuracy of the findings and the consistency of enforcement.

The same legal standards must apply to influential individuals, ordinary citizens and economically vulnerable families. Selective enforcement undermines public confidence, while transparent and impartial action strengthens it.

The Revenue Department should also establish mechanisms for promptly examining complaints, conducting demarcations and monitoring disputed construction. Where violations are proved, action should follow the law. Where ownership is contested, the dispute must be resolved through the appropriate procedure before irreversible action is taken.

The Kurigam incident is a reminder that effective administration requires both vigilance and restraint.

Nip the evil in the bud—but let the law, not assumption, determine what the evil is.