Himachal Pradesh’s Article 118 Amendment: The Great Divide

Himachal Pradesh has traditionally been hailed as 'Dev Bhoomi' or the abode of the gods, with its unsullied yet extremely fragile Himalayan ecosystem defining its identity. This connects to a demographic setup characterised by tightly knit communities reliant on limited agriculture and mountain forests. Any policy relating to land, therefore, goes well beyond an economic transaction and touches the very core of the state's cultural and ecological existence. 

Section 118 is not just a revenue regulation, it is an act of historical and ecological protection which was enacted in 1972 under the leadership of Himachal’s first Chief Minister, Dr. Y.S. Parmar with its primary objective to prevent the estrangement of land from local small and marginal Himachali farmers to wealthy industrialists. With the state’s limited cultivable land and mountainous terrain, this law was very vital as a shield against the predatory outsiders, thereby preserving the state’s demographic structure. This law acted as a safeguard for local interests, a principle often upheld by the Supreme Court in its judgements. 

Himachal Pradesh is currently grappling with a seminal policy pivot that is the proposed amendment to Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. This provision, a cornerstone of “Himachaliat” for over five decades now, restricts the transfer of the agricultural land to the non-agriculturists. The state government, citing the need for the ‘Ease of doing business’, refers to simplifying certain transactions, which has ignited a debate on economic development against ecological and cultural preservation. 

These proposed changes largely aim at streamlining the cumbersome process of land acquisition. In simpler terms, the government’s motive is clear: to attract capital, foster industrial growth, boost tourism and generate employment, which would strengthen the state’s broken economy. 

Some key relaxations proposed are -

1. Exempting cooperative societies with 100% Himachal agriculturist membership from the Section 118 approval process.

2. Exempting the purchase of fully constructed flats/ buildings from non-agriculturists, particularly those developed by HIMUDA or private Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) developers. 

3. Allowing the short-term leases (up to 10 years) in rural areas for business activities, especially in tourism and agriculture respectively. 

4. Introducing a systematic framework for extending project completion timelines on payment of penalty, addressing all the major bureaucratic loopholes and sources of corruption. 

These changes are proposed as a solution to the bureaucratic delays, corruption and the flight of investment - aligning with both the state and national push for economic liberalisation.

These amendments viewed through a capitalist lens can be interpreted as that - the government is, in effect, selling Himachal to the “BIGS”- large corporations and wealthy non-Himachali real estate players. This is seen as a direct motive for the large-scale real estate development which could transform the fragile ecosystem into a profitable market for commercial establishments. Many local organisations and political opponents and other critics describe the move as going against Dr. Parmar’s vision, seeking a quick revenue generation over the long-term well-being of locals and the environment. 

As noted by Prof. H.C. Nain of IIT Roorkee, an expert on mountain ecology: “The Himalayas cannot sustain reckless construction”, directly challenging the proposition of unregulated development. Official data also underlines the scarcity: less than 10 percent of the state's total geographical area is classified as cultivable land, which explains why even small plots of land being alienated are seen as an existential threat to marginal farmers.

The main nucleus of the debate is the tension between ‘Vikas’ and ‘Virasat’ or development v/s heritage. The government cites the Vikas narrative as economic growth, jobs and infrastructure. Opponents including environmentalists and civil society groups stress on the paramount importance of Virasat, arguing the unchecked development in a fragile mountain ecosystem is a potential threshold of ecological upheaval. 

The local economies could become  mere dependents on the large capital influx rather than growing organically. The fear is that the locals will be reduced to just spectators in their own land, reflecting issues already witnessed in the Shiwalik region of the state (mainly Kasauli), where the approvals were allegedly obtained through ‘benami’ (proxy) transactions and the misuse of exemptions for tourism and residential purposes. The Himalayan region is tectonically very unstable and increasingly vulnerable to climate change, as demonstrated by the devastating landslides and floods of 2024 and 2025. By allowing these faster land transfers and over-construction, particularly the multi-storey constructions that often push the limits of existing environmental safeguards and then building norms, severely compromises the state’s ecological balance. 

Other hill states like Uttarakhand also have protective land laws but many of those have undergone dilutions over time which resulted in complex land markets and environmental degradation. The experience of other states serves as a lesson, while the economic activity may increase, the flow of money will be high but the long-term cost to the social fabric and ecology can be irreversible. Recent calamities and interventions by the judiciary are starkly indicative of the rationale for such strict safeguards. 

A recent incident that illustrates the aftermath of constructing rapidly without consideration for geological stability is the Joshimath crisis of 2023 in Uttarakhand, its lessons are relevant for all Himalayan states. Thus, this history validates the concerns of the opponents that relaxing Section 118 does not merely promise growth but opens a gateway to turmoil - a turmoil which the NGT has repeatedly tried to avoid.

The solution is not to completely stop development but to find a smart, regulated way to do it that protects the environment. Instead of weakening the law, the government should strictly protect the most sensitive areas like steep slopes and mark specific, safe zones where the construction is allowed. There should be a compulsory provision for the large companies to partner with local Himachalis (giving locals a share of the ownership and profits). This will turn local people from simple employees into active partners who would benefit directly and have a reason to ensure the project is sustainable as well.

The approvals should be made public and digitalized to stop corruption, ensure both smoothness and transparency during the process. This approach can somehow help to ensure that Vikas (development) benefits the locals and respects the Virasat (heritage and ecology), securing the state’s future without risking its unique character as well.

The fact that Section 118 represents a seminal policy pivot is the ultimate test of the state's commitment to its founding principles. The government cannot afford to treat the environment and demography as externalities in the pursuit of GDP. The challenge for the current administration lies in demonstrating that 'Ease of Doing Business' will not become a euphemism for 'An Avenue for Ecological Risk.'