Illegal constructions, shrinking water bodies and unauthorised land conversion expose administrative failures. The real challenge is not merely removing encroachments but holding accountable those who facilitate, protect or deliberately overlook them.
The growing menace of illegal constructions, encroachments on water bodies and unauthorised conversion of agricultural land in Srinagar has raised serious questions about administrative accountability and the effectiveness of regulatory institutions. Whether under the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC), Lakes Conservation and Management Authority (LCMA) or the Revenue Department, violations of established norms have become increasingly visible. Such activities, often involving substantial financial interests, cannot continue unchecked for years without examining the role of enforcement agencies, supervisory authorities and those entrusted with protecting public assets. Illegal construction is rarely an overnight development. It involves land, labour, materials and considerable investment. Permissions, inspections and regulatory mechanisms are expected to prevent violations. When unauthorised structures emerge openly, the question must extend beyond the individual encroacher. Who failed to act? Were complaints ignored? Were safeguards bypassed? Did influential interests interfere with enforcement? These questions deserve institutional answers rather than routine explanations. The recent construction of a shed near Ghanta Ghar, Lal Chowk, offers a significant example. One of Srinagar’s most prominent landmarks, the area has undergone extensive beautification under the Smart City project and remains an important tourist destination and venue for public events. The reported emergence of a structure at such a sensitive location warrants an explanation. If it was unauthorised, how did it escape scrutiny? If permission was granted, who approved it and under what provisions? An independent examination of permissions, CCTV footage and the circumstances surrounding its construction would help establish responsibility. The larger concern, however, is the environment in which officers are expected to enforce the law. An official taking action against influential encroachers may encounter political recommendations, telephone calls, administrative pressure and attempts to undermine professional credibility. While every complaint against a public servant must be examined fairly, genuine enforcement efforts should not become grounds for intimidation, isolation or retaliatory transfers. An administration cannot expect integrity from its officers while leaving them institutionally vulnerable. The reported removal of a KAS officer from the position of Vice-Chairman, LCMA, after approximately seven months also deserves objective scrutiny. It would be premature to attribute the decision to any particular pressure or enforcement-related disagreement without examining the facts. Nevertheless, the circumstances of the appointment, tenure and removal merit transparency. Were regulatory decisions supported by the institution? Were there differences over enforcement priorities? Did external considerations influence the decision? Public confidence requires clear answers, not speculation.
“True governance in Srinagar isn’t measured by demolishing the homes of the powerless while letting influential encroachers walk free. Protecting our shared lakes, public land, and agricultural heritage requires due process, consistent oversight, and the administrative courage to hold both powerful violators and complicit officials accountable.”
Accountability must travel upwards. Suspending a junior employee or demolishing a few unauthorised structures cannot address a problem rooted in prolonged administrative failure. The government should undertake a time-bound review of major encroachments on water bodies, illegal constructions and unauthorised agricultural land conversions. The exercise must identify when violations began, which officials were responsible, whether complaints were received, what action followed and whether permissions were improperly granted. Responsibility should extend to supervisory authorities and anyone found to have facilitated violations, irrespective of position or influence. At the same time, officers acting lawfully must receive institutional protection. Transfers and administrative changes are legitimate instruments of governance, but they should never be used to discourage impartial enforcement. A transparent grievance mechanism and clear instructions against undue interference can strengthen the confidence of officials working in sensitive regulatory departments. The Government must also recognise that enforcement cannot be selective. Ordinary citizens should not face disproportionate action while influential violators escape scrutiny. Equally, no construction should be demolished without following due process, verifying ownership and permissions, and providing legally required opportunities to affected parties. The rule of law demands both firmness and fairness. Public land, agricultural property, lakes and water bodies are not private assets. They are resources held in trust for future generations. Protecting them requires more than occasional demolition drives and declarations of zero tolerance. It requires consistent monitoring, transparent decisions and consequences for both violators and officials who fail in their duties. Ultimately, the encroachment crisis is a test of governance. The real measure of administrative integrity is not how effectively authorities act against the weak, but whether they possess the courage to enforce the law against the influential as well. Honest officers must not be left to fight powerful interests alone, and public office must never become an instrument for private gain. The question confronting the administration is therefore larger than the number of illegal structures standing across Srinagar: who is allowing them to come up, who is benefiting from their existence, and who will finally be held accountable?
