A house is more than a shelter. It is dignity, security, and citizenship. Let us not allow faulty paperwork, corrupted processes, and indifferent verification to take that away from those who need it most.
Launched with the ambitious goal of providing “Housing for All” by 2022, the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana – Urban (PMAY-U) was heralded as one of the flagship welfare schemes of the Narendra Modi-led government. With its promise to uplift the urban poor by helping them build or acquire a pucca house, the scheme quickly became a symbol of inclusive urban growth. Now, as the PMAY-U 2.0 phase advances, particularly in regions like all municipalities in Jammu & Kashmir, troubling cracks have begun to appear—not in concrete walls, but in the eligibility structure, implementation mechanism, and verification protocols.
On 21 July 2025, the concerned department at the tehsil-level authorities was directed to verify the Revenue Extracts and Income Certificates of hundreds of PMAY-U applicants across various components—Beneficiary-Led Construction (BLC) and Affordable Housing in Partnership (AHP). But beneath this bureaucratic urgency lies a deeper systemic concern: a significant number of applicants do not hold legal titles to the land on which they wish to build, while others exceed the income threshold prescribed by the scheme.
This article explores the policy framework, ground-level challenges, and the ethical dilemmas involved in implementing PMAY-U in Kashmir’s semi-urban belts—particularly when possession and poverty are both in dispute.
Understanding the Scheme: PMAY-U in a Nutshell
Before examining the eligibility gaps, it’s essential to understand the architecture of the scheme. PMAY-U has four primary components:
- In-situ Slum Redevelopment (ISSR)
- Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (CLSS)
- Affordable Housing in Partnership (AHP)
- Beneficiary-Led Construction (BLC)
The BLC component, which is the most active in areas like Kashmir and Jammu, targets individuals who already own land but lack the resources to construct a proper house. Beneficiaries receive central assistance of Rs 1.5 lakh, often supplemented by state or municipal funds.
The eligibility criteria for BLC include:
Ownership of land in the beneficiary’s name (or jointly with spouse)
Annual household income up to Rs 3 lakh for the EWS (Economically Weaker Section) category
Not having received central assistance under any housing scheme before
Not owning a pucca house anywhere in India
Yet, these criteria, intended to filter out ineligible candidates, are being routinely bent—sometimes unknowingly, sometimes wilfully.
The Title Trouble: When Legal Ownership Is Missing
In rural-urban transition zones like Qazigund and Doru Verinag, the concept of formal land title is often a legal fiction. Large numbers of residents live on ancestral land, oral family settlements, or unregularised parcels inherited through customary practices.
In fact, a quick scan of the 43 BLC forms submitted from Qazigund reveals that nearly 30% of applicants either lack formal land ownership or hold ambiguous land claims—such as oral gifts, unregistered family settlements, or possession without mutation.
This raises the fundamental question:
Can a housing scheme based on legal ownership succeed in regions where title itself is a disputed or evolving concept?
The answer is complicated. Under current rules, a “clear title” to land is mandatory. But local revenue records in Jammu & Kashmir are still catching up with digitisation, and many legitimate possessors have no formal mutation in their names. Even after decades, family divisions are not legally recorded, making rightful claimants appear as squatters in the government’s eyes.
This has led to two dangerous outcomes:
Exclusion of deserving poor families who have possession but not title
Inclusion of politically connected individuals who manage to manipulate records to show fictitious ownership
In both scenarios, the original intent of the scheme is being undermined.
The Income Ceiling Conundrum
Then comes the second issue: income eligibility. PMAY-U’s BLC component specifically targets Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), defined as households with annual income less than Rs 3 lakh.
However, in reality, this income verification is based on self-declared certificates often issued by local revenue officials without detailed scrutiny. Field reports suggest that in many municipalities, a large proportion of income certificates reflect figures well below Rs 75,000 per annum, even though actual household incomes exceed Rs 5 lakh in many cases—especially where family members are employed abroad or run small businesses.
This falsification occurs for several reasons:
- Lack of proper verification tools: There is no structured database linking income certificates to Aadhaar, PAN, or banking records.
- Local nexus and corruption: Some applicants use political or administrative influence to obtain income certificates fraudulently.
The end result is a reverse targeting problem—the relatively well-off receive benefits, while the poorest of the poor are left behind due to paperwork or procedural hurdles.
Verification or Formality? The Bureaucratic Disconnect
The recent order calls for urgent verification of Revenue and Income documents, but this too appears to be a formality rather than a fact-finding exercise.
In theory, revenue officers are expected to:
Cross-check land title through Jamabandi and Girdawari records
Verify possession through site visits
Assess income through local enquiry and available databases
In practice, however, spot verification is rarely conducted. Forms are passed around, stamps affixed, and “recommendations” issued without physical inspection. Patwaris are overburdened—often managing two to three halqas—and have no transport or digital tools to assist them in verifying hundreds of forms within deadlines.
Moreover, there is no penal mechanism in place for officers who approve forged documents or overlook ineligibility.
Real Stories, Real Injustice
Let us consider two actual cases (names changed for privacy):
Mohd Ashraf applied under BLC. He has been living on his father’s land for 15 years, but mutation was never done. His form was rejected due to “lack of ownership,” even though he has no other home.
This case highlights the structural unfairness embedded in the process.
Policy Gaps and Institutional Remedies
To address these problems, PMAY-U 2.0 needs urgent course correction, especially in regions like Jammu & Kashmir.
Recommendations:
- Possession-Based Eligibility for Certain Areas
In areas where a formal title is rare, possession backed by community affirmation and Girdawari entries should be temporarily accepted, followed by the regularisation of the title.
- Centralised Income Verification
Link income verification to PAN, Aadhaar, and banking transactions to prevent false declarations.
- Mandatory Spot Verification
All applications must include a site verification report signed by at least two officials—patwari and ward officer—along with photographic evidence.
- Digital Integration with Revenue Records
Real-time integration with the WALHARUS portal and Jamabandi data should be made compulsory to prevent fake ownership claims.
- Community-Based Grievance Redressal
Local housing committees with civil society representation must be set up to hear appeals from rejected applicants.
The Moral Question: Who Deserves a Home?
At its heart, PMAY-U is a social contract—an agreement between the state and its most vulnerable citizens that they will not be left behind in India’s march toward urbanisation.
But when land title becomes a privilege, and poverty is faked on paper, the entire purpose of the scheme is betrayed.
Should the poor be punished for not having land records, even if they’ve lived in the same house for decades?
Should those who game the system continue to receive taxpayer-funded benefits, while others are denied shelter?
These are not technical questions. They are moral ones.
Fixing the Foundation Before Raising Walls
The real measure of any government scheme is not in the number of houses built but in the justice it delivers to the poorest and most deserving. As PMAY-U moves into its second phase—especially in fragile zones like South Kashmir—policymakers must shift focus from paper compliance to lived realities.
A house is more than a shelter. It is dignity, security, and citizenship. Let us not allow faulty paperwork, corrupted processes, and indifferent verification to take that away from those who need it most.
Because if we build houses on broken systems, the cracks will one day reach the roof.
The writer is an independent policy analyst and columnist specialising in rural governance and land reforms in Jammu & Kashmir
Mohd Amin Mir
mi********@***il.com