JAIPUR — The BJP-led Rajasthan government is moving to introduce a new property law that Muslim organisations and rights groups say could sharply restrict land access for Muslims and Adivasis, weaken property rights, and give the state sweeping powers to block buying and selling in selected areas.
The draft legislation, cleared by the cabinet chaired by Chief Minister Bhajanlal Sharma on January 21, 2026, is titled the Rajasthan (Prevention of Transfer of Immovable Property in Disturbed Areas and Protection of Tenants from Eviction) Bill, 2026. If passed during the upcoming budget session, it will empower the government to declare any locality a “disturbed area” and impose strict controls on property transactions there. Violations could attract prison terms of three to five years and financial penalties.
The government says the law is meant to protect residents during riots or periods of tension, arguing that people are often forced to sell homes at throwaway prices. It has also claimed that rapid changes in population in certain localities threaten social harmony. Muslim leaders strongly reject this reasoning, saying the bill gives legal cover to politically charged narratives such as “land jihad” and “demographic imbalance”.
After the cabinet meeting, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Jogaram Patel said, “In some areas, the population of a particular community is increasing rapidly. This disturbs social harmony and creates problems for permanent residents. During riots and public disorder, a special law is required.” He added that the draft is modelled on a similar law in Gujarat and is intended to maintain social order.
Under the proposed law, the state can declare an area “disturbed” based on past incidents of violence, existing tension, or a perceived risk of population imbalance. In such zones, property transfers would be subjected to close scrutiny, transactions deemed coercive could be halted, and tenants would be offered protection against forced eviction.
Muslim organisations say the language of the bill grants unchecked discretion to authorities and will be used primarily against Muslim localities. A senior community leader in Jaipur said, “This law can freeze property sales in Muslim areas and prevent Muslims from buying homes elsewhere. It strikes at economic freedom and the fundamental right to own property.”
BJP MLA Balmukund Acharya defended the proposal, saying, “People talk about love and brotherhood, but we must ask who is buying houses in Jaipur. This issue concerns social balance, faith and the city’s culture. If one community buys properties at high prices and takes over areas, it is harmful for society and the nation. This is not about religion, but about population balance.”
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad welcomed the move. Its state minister, Suresh Upadhyay, alleged, “In Civil Lines, a VIP area, more than 40 illegal mosques have come up and 40 per cent of Hindu homes have been sold. Their aim is conversion. Since 1947, those who should have left did not, and the problem has continued.”
Muslim leaders have strongly disputed these claims. All India Muslim Jamaat president Maulana Shahabuddin Barelvi said, “There is no land jihad on the ground. Such bills are meant to target Muslims. The chief minister should focus on employment, education and development instead.”
Legal experts have also raised concerns over the bill’s vague terminology. A Jaipur-based lawyer said, “There is no clear legal definition of ‘demographic imbalance’. Granting officials the power to halt private property transactions opens the door to misuse and will create fear among minorities.”
The Congress has attacked the draft legislation as divisive. State Congress chief Govind Singh Dotasra said, “This reflects the BJP’s communal mindset. It will create insecurity, damage investment and give limitless powers to the bureaucracy. The Gujarat model is being copied to stay in power.”
As the bill heads to the Rajasthan Assembly, Muslim groups say they will intensify their objections, arguing that laws should target criminals and land mafias rather than single out an entire community. They maintain that fair policing and timely justice, not sweeping restrictions on property rights, are the real safeguards against social tension.
