May 23, 2025
By Rehan Piracha & Ahmed Saeed
LAHORE
On May 21, 2025, the Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly passed the much-awaited Gilgit-Baltistan Land Reforms Act 2025, marking what the government calls a significant milestone in the region’s governance and land ownership framework. However, the legislation, which sailed through with a majority vote after opposition members abstained, has generated fierce debate about land rights, local ownership, and resource management in Pakistan’s northernmost region.
While the ruling party celebrates the act as historic legislation that will protect local land ownership rights, the opposition has mounted significant resistance, arguing that the law could fundamentally undermine traditional community rights and concentrate power in the hands of bureaucrats rather than local communities.
Land scarcity in a mountainous region
The opposition to the Land Reforms Act must be understood within the context of Gilgit-Baltistan’s unique geography and resource constraints. As Opposition Leader Kazim Maisam points out, the issue of land reforms carries enormous significance for the population because only four percent of the region’s 72,000 square kilometers comprises cultivable land.
This scarcity makes every decision about land allocation, ownership, and management critical for the survival and prosperity of local communities who have depended on these resources for generations. In such a context, any legislation that potentially alters traditional land relationships becomes a matter of existential concern for residents
Breaking from colonial-era framework
The passage of this act represents the culmination of years of legislative efforts. According to Chief Minister Haji Gulbar Khan, drafts of similar legislation were prepared during both PML-N and PTI terms, but previous bills failed to reach the assembly floor. The current government successfully navigated the complex stakeholder consultation process to bring this landmark legislation to fruition.
The act fundamentally challenges the existing “Khalisa Sarkar” framework established in 1979, under which lands in Gilgit-Baltistan were classified as state property. This colonial-era approach to land management had long been criticized for failing to recognize local communities’ traditional rights and relationships with their ancestral territories.
Comprehensive land classification system
The act establishes a sophisticated land classification framework that distinguishes between different types of common lands based on their potential for development and distribution. The legislation defines “Common Land” broadly to include lands, pastures, and nullahs described or recorded in revenue records as Khalisa Sarkar, Shamilat Deh, lands recorded as Banjar Qadeem, and pastures over which grazing or firewood rights have been established.
Common Impartible Land cannot be apportioned to any individual and includes:
Natural features: Natural forests, rivers, lakes, nullahs, streams, glaciers, ponds, common wells and their pathways
Geographic areas: Mountains, uninhabitable high-altitude seasonal pastures, and areas that are unapportionable under specific legal provisions
Public infrastructure: Roads, thoroughfares, playgrounds, graveyards, places for religious worship and congregation, archaeological and heritage sites, and places designated for common use
Protected areas: Areas identified for collective benefit in consultation with village verification committees, and lands designated by the Gilgit-Baltistan Land Apportionment Board for reservation due to their collective value or potential environmental risks
Common Partible Land can potentially be distributed among eligible community members, including:
Undeveloped lands: Thangs, dasies, or undeveloped land not owned by the government.
Traditional Khalisa Sarkar: Lands described as Khalisa Sarkar according to revenue records or customary laws.
Partially occupied lands: Lands that are partially occupied, apportioned, or developed but lack legal or customary legitimacy
Culturable waste lands: Culturable waste land and naturally occurring usable land not in legitimate ownership that can be developed without causing natural disasters
Reclassified areas: Common impartible land that has been identified as partible by the Land Apportionment Board through proper consultation processes
Institutional framework
The act establishes a comprehensive institutional framework for land management through the creation of the Gilgit-Baltistan Land Apportionment Board (GBLAB), chaired by the Chief Minister and including Assembly members nominated by the Speaker.
The GBLAB’s key functions include issuing policy guidelines to District Land Apportionment Boards for apportioning partible common lands among eligible community members (Haqdaraan-e-Arazi), reviewing and approving apportionment plans submitted by District Boards, and resolving difficulties in formulation or implementation of apportionment plans.
The opposition’s core concerns
1. Transfer of power from people to bureaucracy
The opposition’s most fundamental criticism centers on what they see as a shift in power from local communities to government bureaucrats. Opposition Leader Kazim Maisam argues that “the Land Reforms Act 2025 basically takes away control of ownership rights of the land from the people into the hands of the bureaucracy.”
Under the new framework, district collectors have been given significant powers to decide ownership rights of the local population. While representatives of the people are included in land apportionment boards, opposition members contend they have little meaningful say in crucial decisions affecting their constituents.
2. Lack of transparency in previous land allocations
The opposition has raised serious concerns about the government’s failure to address historical land allocation issues. Kazim reveals that the opposition demanded the government cancel allotments of government lands made to individuals prior to the enactment of the Land Reforms Act, but this did not happen.
More troubling, according to the opposition, is the government’s refusal to publicly list allotments of government lands made to individuals, institutions, and government functions in previous years. “The people should know how much government land was available for public welfare,” Kazim argues, suggesting that the government’s reluctance to disclose these figures is an attempt to protect what he calls “the usurpation of land by the establishment.”
3. The 10 percent allocation: a disguised land grab?
One of the most controversial provisions in the act allocates 10 percent of common lands to the government. While the government presents this as necessary for administrative, developmental, or other governmental purposes, the opposition views it with deep suspicion.
Kazim characterizes this provision as “a disguised attempt by the government to dole out further lands to institutions instead of the local population.” This concern reflects broader worries that the government will use its allocation not for genuine public purposes but to benefit connected individuals or organizations at the expense of local communities.
4. Bureaucracy-heavy dispute resolution mechanism
The act establishes a four-tier dispute resolution mechanism that the opposition argues is heavily tilted toward bureaucratic control rather than community input. According to Kazim, “Even after going through four tiers of dispute resolution, a local could be deprived of rights of ownership of land by the bureaucracy.”
This concern highlights the opposition’s broader worry that the new system, despite its consultative elements, ultimately concentrates decision-making power in government institutions rather than genuinely empowering local communities.
5. The 15-day eviction notice: a threat to settled communities
Perhaps the most immediately concerning provision for many residents is the act’s establishment of a 15-day notice period for eviction of unlawful occupants. While this may seem reasonable in principle, Kazim warns it could cause “severe backlash in settled areas like Gilgit where local settlers had bought and developed lands 30 years ago but it could not be properly documented in land revenue records due to lack of proper mechanism.”
This provision threatens to displace families who have lived on and developed land for decades but lack formal documentation due to historical inadequacies in the revenue recording system. The opposition sees this as potentially punishing communities for the government’s own administrative failures.
The government’s claim of extensive stakeholder engagement
The bill was moved by Chief Minister Haji Gulbar Khan and introduced by PPP’s GB chapter president and Assembly member Amjad Hussain. The government frames the legislation as a historic achievement that will protect local land ownership rights and rectify decades of inadequate land protection under the previous system.
CM Khan emphasized that the act was developed through extensive consultation with multiple stakeholders, including public representatives, legal experts and lawyers, civil society organizations, and local community stakeholders.
Village-level governance recognition
The act recognizes traditional village governance structures through Village Verification Committees, which are authorized by the Haqdaraan-e-Arazi of each Haqdar Mouza or Village. These committees play crucial roles in verifying permanent resident status, participating in land apportionment consultations, identifying areas for collective benefit, and ensuring compliance with customary laws.
Clear eligibility framework
The legislation establishes clear criteria for land rights through several key definitions:
Permanent residents: Persons descended in patriarchal lineage from forefathers who lived permanently and possessed ancestral lands in any Mouza or Village of Gilgit-Baltistan, authenticated under customary laws and verified by village verification committees
Haqdaraan-e-Arazi: Permanent residents of a Haqdar Mouza or Village who are entitled to a share in common partible land according to applicable customary law
Local Settlers: Permanent residents who have migrated from one Mouza or Village to another within Gilgit-Baltistan
The legislative battle
Despite the government’s claims of comprehensive consultation, the opposition mounted significant resistance to the legislation. Opposition Leader Kazim Maisam, along with members Sohail Abbas Shah, Javed Manwa, Wazir Saleem, and others, raised multiple concerns about the act’s potential impact.
The opposition argued that the legislation could deprive local people of their traditional rights to common lands, limit access to mountains, pastures, and natural resources, and fail to adequately protect community interests.
Opposition members proposed 12 amendments to address their concerns, but only three were incorporated into the final version. This limited success in modifying the legislation reinforced opposition concerns that their voices were not being adequately heard in the legislative process.
Ultimately, opposition members abstained from voting rather than providing legitimacy to legislation they viewed as fundamentally flawed, allowing the bill to pass with the ruling party’s majority.
Implementation challenges ahead
The act’s implementation will likely face several significant challenges, including defining the precise boundaries and extent of common impartible versus partible lands, establishing effective mechanisms for community-based management through Village Verification Committees, and resolving conflicts between traditional customary laws and formal legal frameworks.
These challenges are compounded by the opposition’s concerns, which suggest that the legislation may face resistance from local communities who feel their traditional rights are being undermined rather than protected.
The Gilgit-Baltistan Land Reforms Act 2025 represents a significant policy shift that attempts to reconcile local community rights with modern governance structures. While the government celebrates it as a landmark achievement in recognizing local ownership, opposition concerns about potential negative impacts on traditional land use patterns highlight the complex challenges involved in reforming land tenure systems.
The opposition’s rejection of the act stems from fundamental concerns about power concentration, lack of transparency, and potential displacement of established communities. Their arguments reflect broader questions about whether the legislation genuinely empowers local communities or simply creates new mechanisms for state control over scarce land resources.
The act’s success will ultimately depend on its implementation and the extent to which it genuinely protects and empowers local communities while preserving the region’s unique environmental and cultural heritage. As Gilgit-Baltistan moves forward with this new legal framework, the opposition’s concerns serve as important warnings about the need for careful monitoring and adaptive management to ensure the legislation achieves its stated objectives of protecting local land rights and environmental resources.
Whether the Land Reforms Act 2025 proves to be the community-empowering legislation the government promises or the bureaucratic power grab the opposition fears will depend largely on how authorities implement its provisions and respond to the legitimate concerns raised by community representatives. The stakes, in a region where land scarcity makes every policy decision critical for local survival and prosperity, could not be higher.