Srinagar- The Jammu and Kashmir Assembly on Tuesday witnessed a stormy session marked by uproar and sharp exchanges as multiple opposition parties clashed with the government over regional discrimination, flood losses, and controversial bills on land ownership and corruption oversight.

Noisy scenes erupted in the House soon after proceedings began when Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather rejected an adjournment motion moved by BJP MLA Pawan Gupta. Gupta had sought to suspend the Question Hour to discuss the“humanitarian crisis” caused by recent natural calamities in the Union Territory.

The Speaker ruled the motion out, stating that the issue was neither recent nor urgent as it had already been discussed in the House.“There are many questions admitted on this subject. Yesterday also, this subject was discussed, and the Chief Minister gave a detailed answer,” Rather said.

However, BJP legislators stood up, shouting slogans of“Jammu ke saath insaaf karo” (Do justice with Jammu) and demanding a debate. The Speaker maintained that his decision was final and reminded members that a resolution on the same issue was already listed for discussion the next day.

After repeated interventions and reading out the relevant procedural rule, the Speaker managed to restore order, and the House resumed normal business.

The Jammu and Kashmir government on Monday had pegged the flood-related losses to agriculture and allied sectors at ₹209 crore, saying a detailed report would be sent to the Centre with a request for financial assistance.

The calm was short-lived as BJP MLA from Doda West, Shakti Parihar, accused the government of regional discrimination in education department transfers, claiming that while Kashmir-based employees were transferred, those in Jammu had been ignored.

The remark led to heated exchanges between treasury and opposition benches.

Education Minister Sakina Itoo firmly rejected the charge, saying the BJP was“habitual of crying discrimination.”

“There is no discrimination,” she asserted, clarifying that 860 appointments were made in Jammu against 350 in the Kashmir Valley.“Transfers were initiated from Poonch and Rajouri but had to be paused due to objections,” she said.

Ittoo accused the previous administration of paralyzing the department.“There was a blanket ban on recruitment and 1,500 posts were frozen. The department was on the verge of being defunct. I thank the Chief Minister for de-freezing 50 percent of the posts,” she said.

After brief disruptions, the House returned to order.

A more serious confrontation followed when PDP MLA Waheed Para introduced a private member's bill seeking to grant proprietary rights to residents who had constructed houses on government, kacharia, or shamilat land.

Para argued that the bill was aimed at recognizing the“right to shelter” under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the government strongly opposed the move, with Chief Minister Omar Abdullah warning that such legislation would“open floodgates for land grab.”

“On the surface, it looks simple - someone builds a house on government land, give it to him. But we saw what happened with the Roshni scheme. It started as a way to convert leasehold into freehold, but was later distorted, leading to massive controversy and court intervention,” Omar said.

He noted that the original 2002 Roshni Act, introduced by Farooq Abdullah's government, was meant to regularize legal leases and use the revenue for power generation.“The PDP-Congress coalition removed the pre-militancy clause, and the scheme collapsed. This proposal goes even beyond that - it doesn't have any cut-off timeline,” he said.

Rejecting Para's attempt to invoke Sheikh Abdullah's“Land to the Tiller” legacy, Omar retorted,“Land to tiller gave rights to tillers, not land grabbers. There's a huge difference between the two.”

He clarified that the government was already helping the landless under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY).“We will give land to those who have none, but we cannot reward illegal occupation,” he said.

When Para claimed the bill would also benefit Omar's relatives, the CM shot back,“My relatives were not illegal occupants. They had leases which were violated. I would not bring such a bill even for my relatives.”

MENAFN28102025000215011059ID1110262346