The Uttar Pradesh Nazul Land Bill has become a topic of significant discussion recently. This legislative proposal, which has already passed the Legislative Assembly, is currently under review by the Select Committee before being presented to the Legislative Council. Reports indicate that there is growing dissatisfaction within the BJP regarding this bill.
What is Nazul Property?
During British rule in India, there were over 550 princely states. These states either supported or opposed the British regime, leading to various outcomes for their rulers. Some kings, maharajas, nawabs, and nizams openly defied British rule and aided the revolutionaries. One notable example is Maharana Pratap Singh of Mewar, who fought fiercely against the British. However, when these rulers were defeated in battle, the British confiscated their lands.
The Origin of the Term ‘Nazul
When India gained independence from British rule on 15 August 1947, the British relinquished control over the lands they had seized. At that time, many princely states lacked the necessary documentation to prove ownership of these lands. Consequently, they were unable to assert their rights over the properties. The Indian government subsequently designated these lands as ‘Nazul Bhoomi’ and assumed control over them. Due to the widespread resistance against the British, Nazul land exists in almost every state across India.
Government Authority Over Nazul Property: Can It Be Sold?
Nazul property has often been converted into freehold land by the government. In addition, the government leases such land for specific purposes, including schools, hospitals, panchayat buildings, and dispensaries. These leases can range from 15 to 99 years.
State governments have the authority to reclaim Nazul land, cancel leases, or renew them as needed. While each state has its own set of rules and regulations regarding Nazul land, the Nazul Land Act of 1956 generally applies in most cases. However, the new law being introduced by the Uttar Pradesh government suggests that it may not be possible to exercise these powers in the state under the current framework.
