Home » Does G-B Land Reforms Act Have Constitutional Legitimacy?

Does G-B Land Reforms Act Have Constitutional Legitimacy?

The recent passage of the Gilgit-Baltistan Land Reforms Act 2025, by the region’s Assembly (GBA) has sparked mixed reaction. The Act ostensibly aims to repeal the Nautor Rule of 1978, an executive order that empowered the state to classify and lay claim on vast swathes of uncultivated and community land as Khalsa Sarkar (state land). While some view this move as a redressal of historical colonial-era injustices, the reaction on the ground has been far from unanimous.Legal experts, community leaders, political activists, and ordinary citizens have raised serious concerns about the bill’s ambiguity and potential for bureaucratic overreach. Key terms such as “community land,” “encroached land,” and “uncultivated land” remain poorly defined, leaving room for arbitrary interpretation by the bureaucracy. This vagueness has created widespread fears that, rather than empowering local communities, the law could further entrench control in the hands of an unaccountable administration.Under the proposed framework, District Boards—comprising deputy commissioners and revenue officers—would wield sweeping authority to define, demarcate, and even reclaim land. Critics warn that such unchecked power could lead to abuse, favouritism, and protracted legal disputes, particularly since the decisions of these boards cannot be challenged in any court of law. For a region already skeptical of bureaucratic fairness, this raises alarming prospects of further marginalization, especially for vulnerable communities.A constitutional quandaryBeyond the bill’s contentious provisions lies a more fundamental question: Does the GBA even possess the constitutional authority to repeal the Nautor Rule or legislate on such a critical issue?The answer is entangled in Gilgit-Baltistan’s protracted constitutional limbo. Unlike Pakistan’s provinces, GB remains a disputed territory without full constitutional recognition. Its legislative powers derive from federal executive orders, not from a constitution, meaning crucial subjects, including land, natural resources, border trade and law enforcement, fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan.The Nautor Rule was never a parliamentary enactment but an executive directive, meaning its repeal would require either federal endorsement or a counter-order from the same authority that instituted it. This renders the GBA’s attempt at land reforms symbolic at best and legally untenable at worst—unless formally ratified by Islamabad.There’s more to it than meets the eye. This debate transcends land reform; it is a clash between colonial-era legacies, federal dominance, and local aspirations. Gilgit-Baltistan’s constitutional ambiguity has long left it vulnerable to external control and internal colonial administrative excesses.If the federal government is genuinely committed to mainstreaming GB and upholding its people’s rights, it must move beyond cosmetic measures. The Islamabad government should take concrete steps including formally revoking the Nautor Rule through the MoKGB; amending the 2023 Governance Order to expand GBA’s legislative autonomy; convening a Constituent Assembly to draft a constitution for GB, transferring full legislative powers to it, and abolishing the MoKGB’s overarching control; and reintroducing the Land Reforms Act in the Constituent Assembly for thorough debate, ensuring participation from local governments, legal experts, and civil society.Above all, the principle that land belongs to the people, not the state, must be upheld.The controversy over the GB Land Reforms Act 2025 is more than a legislative dispute—it is a litmus test for Gilgit-Baltistan’s quest for dignity, self-determination, and justice. The region’s people have waited too long for genuine ownership of their land. But if this “reform” merely replaces one form of control with another, the promise of justice will remain unfulfilled.The Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly lacks the constitutional and administrative authority to unilaterally repeal the Nautor Rule of 1978, as it was imposed via executive order by the MoKGB. Unless the ministry issues a formal counter-notification, the Land Reforms Act 2025 remains legally unenforceable—a well-intentioned but constitutionally hollow gesture.