Selective Demolition in Jammu & Kashmir: Political Storm Over Governance, Fairness and Human Impact
By: Javid Amin | 01 January 2026
A Politician’s Rebuke: NC MP Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi on Government’s Anti-Encroachment Drives
In a rare and sharp public critique, National Conference Member of Parliament Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi visited the site of a highly contentious demolition in Jammu’s Transport Nagar and raised pointed questions about the Union Territory government’s handling of anti-encroachment actions. Mehdi described recent demolition drives as “selective,” “unfair” and lacking appropriate relief mechanisms for affected families, particularly those with long historical ties to the land in question.
Speaking to reporters, Mehdi said that the administration had failed to uphold its commitments to the people, and that political accountability and procedural fairness are being compromised. He urged Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to summon officials responsible for the actions — especially those connected with the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) — to explain who ordered the demolition and why no prior notice was given.
His intervention has stirred robust debate within Jammu & Kashmir’s political ecosystem, shining a spotlight on governance, due process, and the humanitarian costs of urban anti-encroachment campaigns.
What Happened: The Transport Nagar Demolition
On November 27, 2025, bulldozers knocked down a modest, three-marla home in Jammu’s Transport Nagar, displacing the family of local journalist Arfaz Ahmad Daing. The demolition was executed by the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) during what authorities described as an anti-encroachment drive to reclaim government land.
Daing and his family have claimed they had lived on the land for more than four decades, with the house originally built by his father nearly 40 years ago, and that no notice was served prior to the demolition — a serious point of contention that legal experts argue violates basic principles of due process.
Daing himself has alleged that this was not merely an enforcement action, but a retaliatory measure against his reporting on sensitive issues, including alleged cross-border drug trafficking — a claim the government has firmly denied.
Voices From the Ground: The Family’s Side of the Story
The media and social platforms captured emotional reactions from Daing and his family as their home came down. Eyewitness accounts and local reporting indicate that heavy police and security presence accompanied the demolition, and that Daing was prevented from recording the action as it unfolded — stirring further questions about transparency and civil freedoms.
Daing’s own remarks have resonated widely across local communities, resonating with those who see the action as disproportionate and targeted. “Is my house the only illegal one in all of Jammu city?” he said in reaction to the demolition, underscoring the lingering sense of injustice in neighbourhoods where similar properties remain untouched.
He also contends that the demolition notice bore his name even though the property was legally registered in his father’s name, pointing to administrative irregularities in legal procedure.
Communal Harmony Amid Crisis: A Neighbour’s Gesture
Amid the controversy, a powerful act of solidarity has drawn widespread attention: Daing’s Hindu neighbour, Kuldeep Sharma, publicly gifted a five-marla plot of his own land to the journalist and his family so they can rebuild their home — a gesture that has been widely praised and shared across social media.
Sharma reportedly told local media that the donation was driven not by sectarian considerations but by a sense of shared humanity and community unity, highlighting the deep traditions of inter-faith solidarity in Jammu.
This gesture, while uplifting, has also introduced another layer of public discourse around social cohesion in J&K, offering a counterpoint to political criticism and reinforcing narratives of communal harmony that resist attempts to polarize the situation.
Political and Legal Implications: Selective Enforcement or Standard Procedure?
The demolition has triggered strong reactions from a wide range of political actors:
-
Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi (NC MP) has called the action selective and unjust, demanding accountability and relief for affected families.
-
Omar Abdullah (Chief Minister) has distanced the elected government from the bulldozer action — suggesting that officials posted by Raj Bhavan acted independently without consultation.
-
Opposition figures, including former BJP and Congress leaders, have criticized the demolition on procedural grounds, calling for due process and fair application of the law.
-
Civil society advocates and legal experts argue that proper notice — a constitutional requirement — was missing, raising serious concerns about the legality of the action.
Some critics have also connected the event to Daing’s journalism, claiming that his work exposed political sensitivities — an allegation government officials have rebutted by framing the demolition strictly within urban planning protocols and anti-encroachment policy.
The exchange reveals layers of trust deficit between elected representatives, administrative functionaries and the civil public, complicating governance and raising critical questions about how public authority is exercised in contested urban spaces.
Due Process and Legal Standards: What the Law Requires
The principles of fairness and due process in land enforcement actions are deeply embedded in India’s legal system. Official policy typically requires:
-
Prior notice to occupants, especially when long-term residence is claimed.
-
Documentation of ownership and consultation with legal stakeholders, particularly in cases involving family homes.
-
A clear and public record explaining why certain structures are targeted while others are not.
Legal critics assert that these requirements were sidestepped or inadequately fulfilled in this instance — intensifying perceptions of arbitrariness and undermining confidence in administrative fairness.
The JDA, for its part, maintains that the structure was an encroachment on government land, and that its mandate is to remove illegal constructions as part of routine governance. However, residents and advocates point out that the scale and nature of enforcement seem disproportionate when compared with other encroachments that remain untouched.
Humanitarian Fallout: Families Left Homeless, Winter Concerns
The demolition occurred in late November — a period when Jammu experiences colder weather, exacerbating hardships for displaced families. With elderly parents, children, and no immediate shelter, the Daing family’s situation highlights the often-overlooked human cost of enforcement actions.
Humanitarian experts stress that relief provisions, temporary accommodation, and welfare support should accompany any demolition, especially when long-standing residents are affected — aspects Mehdi specifically urged the government to address.
Without structured relief mechanisms, critics say such actions risk deepening social distress and feeding narratives of neglect and disenfranchisement.
Political Ramifications: Eroding Public Trust and Polarization
Mehdi’s critique is not merely procedural; it has broader political implications. By publicly challenging his own government and calling for accountability, he is tapping into a wider sentiment of frustration among sections of J&K’s population — particularly those who see government actions as uneven or lacking empathy.
His remarks dovetail with other political controversies, including debates over reservation policies and student protests, which have further strained relations between the administration and public stakeholders.
The situation underscores a fractured political landscape where trust between citizens and public institutions is increasingly fragile. If citizens feel that enforcement actions are wielded without fairness, officials risk eroding confidence in governance and creating fertile ground for political polarization.
Editorial Perspective: Governance, Ground Realities and the Path Ahead
The episode involving Arfaz Ahmad Daing’s demolished home is more than a single-family dispute or planning enforcement; it has become a symbol of deeper tensions in Jammu & Kashmir’s evolving governance narrative.
On one hand, authorities assert a mandate to uphold land use norms and remove encroachments. On the other, the lived realities of communities — with decades of settlement and documented historical occupancy — demand justice, transparency and humane approaches.
Mehdi’s intervention crystallizes this tension: the balance between state authority and citizen rights must be upheld with clarity, fairness, and respect for the rule of law.
To restore public confidence, several steps are vital:
-
Transparent reporting of demolition criteria across the territory.
-
Independent review of due process compliance for the Transport Nagar case and similar actions.
-
Government-funded relief and rehabilitation support packages for displaced families.
-
Open dialogue platforms bringing administrative officials, political leaders, legal experts and affected citizens together.
These measures could help ease tensions, ensure fair governance, and prevent further erosion of public trust.
Conclusion: From Rubble to Re-Examination of Governance Values
The Transport Nagar demolition and the subsequent political uproar leader by Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi have revealed fault lines in how public authority, legal norms, and human dignity intersect in Jammu & Kashmir.
While anti-encroachment drives are part of urban governance, procedural fairness, prior notice and empathetic relief are non-negotiable if the rule of law is to be upheld. The solidarity shown by a neighbour’s gesture of land donation stands as a testament to enduring human values amidst institutional failure.
What is urgently needed is not just a political debate, but systemic reforms that ensure equitable governance — one that respects both the law and the lived realities of the people it serves.
