What Was Punjab’s Land Pooling Policy and Why Did the Government Withdraw It After Farmer Protests?
Punjabi farmers are once again at the centre of a major policy reversal in the state, this time forcing the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government to withdraw its controversial Land Pooling Policy 2025. The development marks the second significant victory for Punjab’s farming community in recent years, following the repeal of the three central farm laws by the Modi government in 2021. In both struggles, the core issue remained the same: protecting farmers’ rights over their land and livelihoods.
The Land Pooling Policy, announced on June 2 this year, was intended to acquire 65,533 acres from 21 cities across Punjab for government-approved urban residential and industrial development. Of the total targeted land, 43,983 acres were to be designated for residential zones and 21,550 acres for industrial projects. The AAP government claimed it would help curb the growth of illegal colonies, dismantle the land mafia, and facilitate organised urban expansion. The projects were to be implemented by development authorities such as the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA), Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA), and Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA).
The Punjab cabinet had approved the policy with the assertion that not a single yard would be forcibly acquired from landowners. Instead, the government promised to develop the land pledged voluntarily by owners and, in return for one acre, provide 1,000 square yards of residential plot and 200 square yards of commercial plot.
Under the original scheme, landowners who gave up their land would receive allotments scaled to their contribution. For instance, one kanal (about 0.125 acres) would yield a 125-square-yard residential plot and a 25-square-yard commercial booth. Larger contributions meant proportionally larger allotments, with entitlements going up to seven kanals. Initially, small farmers were excluded, but following criticism, the Punjab cabinet amended the scheme to include them and raised the annual compensation from ₹30,000 to ₹50,000 per acre. Another key change was an annual livelihood allowance of ₹1 lakh until the land was developed, with a 10 percent yearly increment. The government also promised to issue Letters of Intent (LOIs) within 21 days, which could be sold or used to obtain loans. Officials presented these changes as evidence of responsiveness, but the farmers did not budge from their demands.
Despite the long history of land pooling in India as a tool for organized urban growth, the Punjab policy sparked significant backlash due to its disregard for farmers' actual needs and local socio-economic realities. Instead of fostering genuine development, it appeared to prioritize rapid urbanization at the expense of agrarian communities. Many villagers felt marginalized, as their traditional way of life, tied deeply to agriculture and community bonds, was overlooked in favor of industrial and residential projects that primarily benefited urban centers.
One of the major issues fueling farmer protests was the policy’s dismissal of key protections enshrined in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act of 2013. By sidestepping this law, the government avoided essential processes such as obtaining majority consent from affected landowners and conducting thorough social impact assessments, which are critical to understanding how land acquisition disrupts local livelihoods, ecosystems, and cultural practices. This neglect led to confusion and resentment, especially in areas like Chamkaur Sahib and Mattewara, where affected communities felt excluded from meaningful consultation.
Furthermore, procedural ambiguities in the policy created uncertainty among farmers regarding property rights after land pooling. The reduced objection period from 30 to 15 days and unclear roles between administrative officers left many unsure about how to address grievances or manage their plots post-development. Financial obligations imposed by the policy, such as the disproportionate cost-sharing for road construction and restrictions on small-scale residential development, exacerbated these tensions, imposing burdens that many landowners deemed unjust.
Collectively, these flaws demonstrated a lack of adequate stakeholder engagement and foresight, revealing why the policy failed to gain farmers' trust. The pushback culminated in widespread protests, reflecting the deeper agrarian distress and resistance to policies perceived as one-sided urban agendas rather than inclusive rural development, leading to deep mistrust in farmers’ unions.
That mistrust quickly translated into protests. By July 30, the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) and Kisan Mazdoor Morcha (KMM), two umbrella organisations representing farmers and labourers, had organised tractor marches across Punjab. From Amritsar to Bathinda, hundreds of farmers rolled through towns and villages with banners denouncing the plan as a land grab in the name of urban development.
In an interview with the Indian magazine The Wire SKM leader Darshan Pal questioned why the government needed to acquire more land when “many residential colonies and industrial plots are lying vacant in the state.” For him, the plan was neither good for Punjab nor for its farmers. “By imposing it, the AAP government will come under crisis, and they should not forget that assembly elections 2027 are not far away,” he said. Pal alleged that the policy appeared to be “a system to gather money controlled by AAP’s Delhi team” and claimed it had been designed to benefit real estate interests in Ludhiana while ignoring farmers’ concerns.
The resistance was not limited to farmer unions. On July 27, Malwinder Singh Kang, AAP MP from Anandpur Sahib, publicly expressed reservations about the policy on social media platform X, tagging the Punjab government in his post. “The objections raised by farmer unions on Land Pooling Policy must, in my view, be heard with empathy and addressed through meaningful dialogue. In the last three years, our government has ensured uninterrupted agri-power, pushed canal water to every field, fast tracked mandi reforms and promoted crop diversification. On this too, trust must be earned, not assumed, before any policy takes root,” he wrote. The message was widely shared, but by July 28, Kang had deleted the post, fuelling speculation about internal dissent within the party.
On August 8, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed the policy, adding judicial weight to the farmers’ movement. The stay order came on a petition filed by a Ludhiana-based farmer who argued that the policy was purported to be under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. However, he pointed out that this Act contained no provision empowering the state to frame such a policy. The only enabling legislation, he argued, was the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995.
The petitioner also said no social impact assessment report had been prepared or published, as required by law, and that neither gram panchayats nor gram sabhas were consulted before the policy was introduced. This, in his view, was a clear violation of the 2013 Act’s provisions.
Speaking to the Indian newspaper The Hindu on condition of anonymity, a senior Punjab government official admitted that the court’s intervention had not come as a surprise. “There was a feeling that the policy was formulated in haste. We should have got the social impact assessment and environment impact assessment done. This was questioned by the high court too,” the official said.
Meanwhile, on the ground, farmers’ opposition was growing more direct. In many villages, they passed resolutions rejecting the policy outright and banning the entry of AAP leaders and government officials. In Jalandhar’s Kot Kalan village, two AAP workers who arrived at night to discuss land acquisition were confronted by locals, who seized their promotional material and set it ablaze. Such incidents underscored the depth of rural anger and the determination to resist the policy at the grassroots level.
Farmer leaders argued that ignoring such opposition would be politically costly. Pal warned that moving forward with the scheme would only strengthen the farmers’ movement in Punjab. He also noted that in earlier instances, such as the removal of protesting farmers from the Shambu and Khanauri borders, pressure from Ludhiana’s industrialists had influenced Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s decisions. This served as a stark reminder of how corporate interests can influence government policies, much like the concerns raised during the controversy over the three farm bills passed by the Modi government.
By this stage, the combination of legal, political, and grassroots pressure had pushed the policy to the brink. Farmers maintained tractor rallies, road blockades, and public meetings across districts to sustain momentum. The agitation had become a test of the government’s ability to push through contested land-use reforms in a state where agricultural land remains deeply tied to identity, security, and political power.
Three days after the High Court stay, the AAP government announced it was withdrawing the Land Pooling Policy, avoiding what could have become a prolonged and politically damaging confrontation. The withdrawal came not only because of the legal setback imposed by the court, which criticized the policy for being rushed and lacking mandatory social and environmental impact assessments, but also due to mounting opposition from farmers, political parties, and civil society. For the farmers, the rollback was a powerful reaffirmation of their ability to mobilize and protect the land that sustains them. For the government, it was a sobering reminder that in Punjab, land is never just an economic asset. It is heritage, livelihood, and political power, and any attempt to reshape its use without full trust and consensus will be met with resistance strong enough to rewrite policy.
