In this article we will discuss about:- 1. Nature and Objectives of Land Reforms 2. Implementation of Land Reforms 3. Ceiling on Land Holding.
Nature and Objectives of Land Reforms:
In the current ideology, in its widest sense, agrarian reform is thought of as including, apart from redistribution of land, many other measures, tenancy and other land management reform, agricultural extension, etc.
The basic objective of land reform in India has been the creation of a system or peasant proprietorship. “Land to the tiller” has been the motto. Through the redistribution of land by applying ceilings on land holdings the idea has been to build up a vigorous independent peasantry consisting of small farmers and them to aid this farmer class with extension of credit and distribution facilities, largely through a network of co-operative service organisation.
The objectives of land reforms policy were set out by the Planners as, “the removal of such institutional and motivational impediments to the modernization of agriculture as were innate in the agrarian structure inherited from the past and the reduction of gross inequalities in the agrarian economy and rural society which stemmed from unequal rights in land.”
These objectives were translated into the following programmes of action:
(a) The abolition of the prevalent intermediary system between the state and the tiller of the soil;
(b) The conferment of ownership rights on the cultivating tenants in the land held under their possession;
(c) Imposition of a ceiling on agricultural land holdings as a measure contributing to the modernization of agriculture and to eliminate parasitic absentee landlordism;
(d) Rationalisation of the record of rights in land so as to make reflect the rights of tenants, sharecroppers and other categories of insecure landholders; and
(e) Consolidation of holdings with a view to making easier the application of modern techniques of agriculture.
In the traditional sense land reform is “the redistribution of property rights in land for the benefit of small farmers and agricultural labourers.” This is a narrow definition but this is what it has meant in practice, past and present. A broad definition would mean “any improvement in institutions of land tenure or agricultural organisation.” The land reform policy should include not only the redistribution of property rights in land but also measures such as the improvement of the conditions of tenancy, agricultural credit, co-operative organisation, agricultural education, marketing and advisory services.”
It may be noted that land reform, in its larger context, is a social change affecting the lives of farm people in the developing and under developed countries. The ultimate objective is often the democratisation of the rural social order with a rational distribution of agricultural income and the growth of higher agricultural productivity. The release of unused sources of land labour is also a significant factor to reckon with. Greater social and economic equality is implicit in all land reform policies. Thus, a levelling art of the gross disparities in income between rich landowners and the peasants and farm labourers is involved in the idea.
Broadly speaking the agrarian reforms have the following main purposes, viz:
(i) To change those aspects of the antiquated land ownership systems that clearly stood in the way of stepping-up farm production;
(ii) To do away with-exploitation and injustice and provide for the tiller of the soil some security and more equality of status and opportunity;
(iii) To eliminate the defects in the constitutional frame work and evolve a system which would promote rapid growth of the agricultural economy;
(iv) To remove such impediments in the way of agricultural production as arise from the character of the agrarian structure; and
(v) To create conditions for evolving, as speedily as possible an agrarian economy with high levels of efficiency and production by a better system of land management;
Thus, land reforms aims at not only redistributing ownership holdings from the viewpoint of social justice but also of reorganising operational holdings from the viewpoint of optimum utilization of land. It also aims at providing security of tenure, fixation of rents and conferment of ownership. The entire concept of land reform aims at the abolition of intermediaries and bringing the actual cultivator in direct contact with the state so that a congenial atmosphere is created in which the cultivator feels sure of reaping the fruits of his labour.
Implementation of Land Reforms:
Land Reforms have actually been undertaken on the following lines:
(a) Abolition of zamindars and other intermediaries (jagirdars inams, etc.) between the state and the cultivator.
(b) Tenancy reforms and the reconstruction of the land system (i.e. regulation of fair rents, provision of security of tenure to the tenants and a right to purchase for the tenants).
(c) Fixation of ceilings on holdings and distribution of surplus land among the landless.
(d) Reorganisation of agriculture through consolidation of holdings and prevention of their further fragmentation.
(e) The development of co-operative farming, and co-operative village management.
Abolition of Intermediaries:
The first step in the direction of ensuring proper use of land was to eliminate intermediary tenures like zamindari, jagirs, inams, etc., which existed over 40 per cent of the country at the time of Independence. The progress for the abolition of intermediaries has been completed. These measures have brought more than 2 crore of tenants and subinfendatories into direct relationship with state and became owners of land. Over 1.6 crore hectares of cultivable wastelands and private forests had been distributed in different states to landless agriculturists.
About 6 million tenants or share-croppers have acquired ownership of more than 7 million acre.
As a sequel to legislation prescribing ceilings on land holdings, over 10 lakh hectares of land have been declared as surplus, about half (5.1 lakh hectares) of which has been actually taken over by the State, a little over 3.5 lakh hectares have so far been distributed among 6.1 lakh allottees. The work of implementation is still in progress.
The basic rate of compensation varied from state to state. Compensation was fixed at a multiple of net income of the proprietor, at the time of expropriation as in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, West Bengal, Delhi, Bihar, Orissa, Rajasthan, Manipur and Tripura. This multiple was high in the case of lower income brackets and smaller in upper income brackets.
In some states, a uniform multiple of net income was introduced as compensation, but proprietors with small income were paid rehabilitation grants in addition. In some states, compensation was a multiple of the revenue assessment, as in Assam, Gujarat, M.P., Maharashtra, U.P. and Himachal Pradesh. In yet some Other states, compensation was related to the market value of land, as in Kerala.
The compensation was to be paid in cash or in bonds. A large number of states like Andhra Pradesh, Assam, M.P., Orissa, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal followed the principle of cash payment in compensation. But Rajasthan, U.P., Bihar, Gujarat, and Maharashtra adopted the principle of payment in cash as well as in bonds. The big proprietors were to be given bonds but the smaller ones were to be paid in cash. The bonds were to be redeemed in equal instalments spread over a period varying from 20 to 40 years. The ex-intermediaries have been given compensation amounting to Rs. 670 crores in cash and Bonds.
Economic and Social Effect of Abolition of Intermediaries:
The economic and social effects of abolition may be stated as follows:
1. Heavy Burden of Compensation:
Intermediaries have been abolished in nearly all the states and this has created the possibility of transferring a large part of the rent to the state. But the compensation to be paid to the landlord has been very big amount compared to which the additional revenue that accrues to the states is ‘pitifully low’ (being only Rs. 29.52 crores, against a total compensation of Rs. 670 crores, i.e., only 3.5 per cent of the compensation). This means that the old feudal burden on the community has been very heavy.
Besides, the question of revenues, rents and compensation, there are other social consequences of the charge. Daniel Thorner has summarised them thus- “First of all the new laws took away from intermediaries their right to collect rents as lands which they did not themselves ‘cultivate’. The same laws relieved the intermediaries of the responsibility for paying land revenues on such lands……….. In U.P. the vast majority of intermediaries were transferred by the Act into a class of specially privileged agriculturists.”
2. Increase in the Number of Feudal Landlords:
The Acts abolishing zamindaris and jagirdaris have not divested the feudal landlords of their large areas of agricultural land provided it was let out to tenants but cultivated by employing hired labour in any form. The state has acquired only the rent-receiving interests. In consequence, the rent-receiving zamindars have been converted into landholders, with superior rights in land, employing agricultural workers or share-croppers and have swelled – the ranks of ‘owner cultivators’ without being tillers of the soil.
The sub-tenants, tenants-at-will and crop-sharers do not still have the security of tenure and the rest because most of the state legislations have failed to take note of this fact. “A close study of these disparities reveals a rather significant and pointed conclusion, namely, that the smaller tenant has received much less protection and has suffered more than the bigger one.”
The feudal landlords are permitted or rather encouraged to shift their position from rent-receivers to self-cultivators, the tenants of a certain category are entitled to acquire ownership on payment of a purchase-price the intermediaries can legally resume land from the tenant for self-cultivation and can even illegally evict the tenants in order to extend self-cultivated area. As the combined result of these processes, owner cultivation has increased and tenant cultivation has decreased. In this pattern, the old zamindars, jagirdars and other intermediaries have retained a significant position as owner cultivators.
Prof. Baljit Singh’s survey of U.P. has also revealed that in this respect the old zamindars have benefited even more than the actual tillers. He has stated that 57.7 per cent of the bhoomidhars in U.P. are the old zamindars who have been converted into bhoomidhars under the provisions of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act of U.P.
3. Large Scale Eviction:
The statutory measures for the abolition of intermediaries permit the latter to resume land for self-cultivation. In certain states (as in Assam, Punjab, A.P.) this right of resumption is subject to an upper limit upto which a landowner is permitted to resume. In certain other States resumption is permitted provided a specified maximum area is left to the tenant (as in Maharashtra, Rajasthan, H.P. and the Punjab).
The limitations and the restrictions put to the landowner’s right of resumption has failed to offer the tenants any effective protection from eviction. This is evident from the magnitude of evictions in Maharashtra and A.P. It is a general phenomenon throughout India. Whereas in vast majority of the cases no recourse to law was held and the tenants surrendered their land because the landlord wanted it back. Thus, the right of resumption granted to the landowners not merely deprived many tillers of the benefits of land reform but they have also become victims of evictions.
Feudalism has been curbed but not eliminated. Even absentee landlordism has not disappeared. According to the N.S.S. (8th Round), about 31 m. acres of land is under absentee land owners, i.e., land leased by rural household from non-rural households. It represents 50 per cent of all land leased. The central question of land reform is, therefore, one of taking surplus land of the big landlords and of giving the same to the actual tillers. Daniel Thorner’s observations are very important on this point.
In his opinion, the following are the ‘central elements’ in India’s agrarian problem:
(1) A peculiarly complex property structure topped by state claiming what amounts to a proprietary right to ‘rent’.
(2) The survival, despite land reforms and abolition of intermediaries, of a class of non-cultivating proprietary right- holders who continue to take substantial rents from the working peasantry-tenants, tenants-at-will or crop-sharers, where these proprietors cultivate by hiring labourers, they pay low wages.
(3) The consequent persistence, after land reforms of a considerable gap between proprietary right-holding and the physical cultivation of land.
The principal tenancy reform measures concern 3 F’s to the tenants, (i.e., Fixity of tenure, Fair rent and Free transferability), the regulation of rents, providing security of tenure, and enabling more tenants to become owners. These measures ensure the protection to the tenants from eviction, a minimum period of tenure and fixity of tenure.
The progress made in these directions is outlined below:
Prior to the First Five Year Plan the customary level of rents commonly paid by tenants-at-will, non-occupancy tenants and share-croppers over the greater part of the country was one-half of the produce or more. In addition to rent, very frequently there were other payments which enhanced the burdens borne by tenants. The situation was reviewed at length in the First Five Year Plan which suggested a rate of rent not exceeding one fourth or one-fourth or one-fifth of the produce.
Over the past few years, all states have enacted legislation for regulating rents accordingly, viz., in Gujarat, Maharashtra the maximum rent now stands at one-sixth of the produce or 3 to 5 times the land revenue, whichever is less. In Assam, Manipur and Tripura maximum rents vary between 1/4 to 1/5 of the gross produce. In Orissa and Bihar 1/4 of gross produce has been fixed as rent. In Kerala maximum rent varies between 1/4 to 1/2. In Punjab, 1/2 per cent. In Rajasthan, fair rent is fixed at 1/6th of the gross produce but in case of cash rents, at twice the land revenue assessment.
In Andhra Pradesh, in Andhra area, the rent is not to exceed 30 per cent of the gross produce for irrigated lands and 25 per cent of produce as dry lands. In the Telangana the rent is not to exceed one-fourth of the gross produce for irrigated lands, one-fifth in other cases or 3 to 5 times the land revenue according to the class of soil, whichever is less. In J. and K., a landlord whose holding exceeds 12 ½ acres is entitled to receive as rent one-fourth of the produce for wet land and one-third of the produce for dry land.
Smaller land-holders can receive upto half the produce as rent. In Kerala, for paddy lands the rent is normally one-fourth of the gross produce. In M.P. the rent is not to exceed 2 to 4 times the land revenue; in Tamil Nadu it is not to exceed 40 per cent of the produce for irrigated land 35 per cent where irrigation is supplemented by lift irrigation and 33.33 per cent in other cases.
In Punjab and Haryana, it is not to exceed one-third of the gross produce. In U.P. the crop share is not to exceed 50 per cent of the produce if the landlord contributes the cost of cultivation, and 40 per cent if he does not. “In Delhi and Himachal Pradesh, the rent is not to exceed 1/5 of the gross produce or four times the land revenue.”
It may be noted that owing to the weak position of the tenants and the prevalence of widespread land hunger, the law regulating rents is observed more in its breach than in its compliance. The Third Five Year Plan asserted. When there is a pressure on land and the social and economic position of tenants in the village is weak, it becomes difficult for them to seek the protection of law. Moreover, resort to legal processes is costly and generally beyond the means of tenants.
Thus, in many ways, despite the legislation, the scales are weighed in favour of the continuance of existing terms and conditions. For example, in a village situated only about 32 kms. from Bangalore it has been found that the share-croppers were invariably given one-half of the produce to the land owners though under the law the maximum rates of interest were 20 to 25 per cent of the gross produce.
These facts show that the provisions regarding fair rent have remained largely un-implemented in most parts of the country as far as share-cropping tenant is concerned.
The security of tenure is correctly brought out by the remark of Sir Arthur Young, who observed, “Give a man the secure possession of a bleak rock and he will turn it into a garden- give him a nine years’ lease of a garden he converts it into a desert.” Therefore, unless the cultivator takes a personal interest in the land, much improvement in production cannot be expected. That is why he needs to be given security in the tenancy rights.
The first Three Plans emphasised that “tenants should be accorded permanent rights in the lands leased in by them subject to a limited right of resumption to be granted to land owners.” In accordance with this, legislation providing for security of tenure has been enacted in all States and Union Territories.
This legislation has three essential aims- firstly, that ejectments do not take place except in accordance with the provision of the law; secondly, that land may be resumed by an owner, if at all, for ‘personal cultivation’ only and thirdly, that in the event of resumption the tenant is assured of prescribed minimum area.
The Fourth Five Year Plan stated that the “rents as fixed by law are still high in Andhra area, J. and K., Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and West Bengal and these should be brought down to the level recommended in the Plans to 1/4 or 1/5 of the gross produce. Beside produce rents which are difficult to enforce should be abolished and replaced by fixed cash rents so that the uncertainties arising out of annual fluctuations in rents may be eliminated and the tiller assured of the full benefits of his investment.”
The measures adopted in different States, where comprehensive legislation has been enacted, follow broadly the following three patterns:
(i) In Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, all tenants in cultivating possession of land have been given full security of tenure (permanent and heritable rights) without land owners having any right to resume land for personal cultivation.
(ii) In Assam, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Orissa, M.P. and Karnataka, land-owners are permitted to resume a limited area for personal cultivation, subject to the condition that a minimum area or a portion of the holding is left with the tenants.
In Maharashtra an owner may resume for personal cultivation from the tenants land not exceeding three economic holdings (i.e., 12 to 48 acres). Every tenant is entitled to retain half the area leased to him. In Punjab the limit of resumption is 30 standard acres- each tenant is entitled to retain upto 5 standard acres until alternative land is provided by the State Government. In Rajasthan, the land owners are permitted to resume land held by tenants in excess of a minimum holding with a net annual income of Rs. 1,200.
It varies from 15.6 acres in Ganganagar area to 12.5 acres in Jaisalmer. The excess land held by a tenant can be resumed by the landlord. In Himachal Pradesh, the limit of resumption is fixed at 5 acres and each tenant is entitled to retain three-fourths of his tenancy land. In Assam the landlord can resume land upto a maximum of 33 1/3 acres provided that a tenant is left with a minimum areas of 3 1/3 acres, until he is allotted alternative land of equivalent value in the locality.
(iii) In West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, and Tripura a limit has been placed on the extent of land which a land owner may resume, but the tenant is not entitled to retain a minimum area or a portion of his holding in all cases.
In West Bengal a landowner who owns less than 7 ½ acres is permitted to resume the entire area from a bergadar (crop-sharer). Bigger landowner can resume two-thirds of the area. In the case of tenants (other than crop-sharers) no right of resumption is allowed. The tenants have been made raiyats holding directly from the state. In the former State of Hyderabad the landowner is entitled to resume land up to 3 family holdings (12 to 180 acres) subject generally to the condition that the tenant is left with a basic holding (1 1/3 acres to 20 acres) or half his tenancy land. Small owners, however, resume the entire area.
In Kerala, the limit of resumption is 5 acres of double crop paddy land or its equivalent. A person owning more than this limit is not entitled to resume any land. Small owners are permitted to resume half the area. Resumption is not allowed in the Cochin and Malabar areas where most tenants have already acquired full security of tenure under previous laws.
The present position is like this:
(a) The law provide for a minimum area being left with tenants as absolutely non-resumable.
(b) The laws in Karnataka and U.P. now do not permit any resumption even for personal cultivation.
(c) The right of resumption for personal cultivation in most states was limited for a given period, which has now expired.
(d) The laws of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, Punjab and West Bengal, the right to resumption is a continuing one.
Legislation provides for bringing tenants of non-resumable lands into direct relationship with the state in the following three ways:
(i) By declaring tenants as owners and requiring them to pay compensation to owners in suitable instalments, responsibility for recovering unpaid instalments as arrears of land revenue being accepted by the State Government. This method was adopted by Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.
(ii) Through the acquisition of rights of ownership by the State Government on payment of compensation and transfer of ownership to tenants, compensation being recovered from them in suitable instalments. This course has been followed in Delhi and in respect of under-raiyats (other than Bargadars), without payment of compensation in West Bengal.
(iii) Through the acquisition by the State Government of the landlords’ rights and bringing tenants into a direct relationship with the State, option being given to tenants to continue as such on payment of fair rent to the government or to acquire full ownership on payment of the prescribed minimum. This has been done in Kerala and Uttar Pradesh.
Considerable progress has been achieved in regard to the conversion of tenants and sub-tenants of non-resumable lands into owners. Noteworthy progress has been made in U.P. benefiting 1,500,000 tenants with 810,000 hectares, Gujarat benefiting 462,000 tenants with 970,000 hectares and Maharashtra benefiting 800,000 tenants with 613,000 hectares of non-resumable land.
The corresponding figures for Rajasthan are 199,000 and 382,000, respectively, for Delhi 29,000 and 16,000 respectively, and for Punjab 22,000 and 60,000 respectively. About 3.7 million tenants and sharecroppers have acquired ownership rights on non-resumable lands. The area involved amounted to about 3.67 million hectares.
The measures relating to security of tenure restrict the ground on which a tenant shall be liable to ejectment.
These grounds are:
(i) Non-payment of rent;
(ii) Performance of an act which is destructive or permanently injurious to the land;
(iii) Sub-letting the land;
(iv) Using the land for purposes other than agriculture; and
(v) Resumption of land for personal cultivation by the landlord.
Ejectment is to take place through the order of the Revenue Court and in the case of first four conditions, the land owner, after getting his tenant ejectment, can put another tenant in his place. In the case of the last condition the landlord after ejecting his tenant has to cultivate his land personally.
In Andhra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Orissa, apart from the conditions stated above, the tenants are liable to ejectment from their entire area after the expiry of minimum period of lease prescribed under the law. The period of interim protection is extended from year to year and in some cases, for every 6 months. This creates uncertainly in the minds of the tenants. In Bihar, even interim protection has not been given to tenants.
The provisions relating to right of resumption also carries from state to state. While in states like U.P. and Delhi where no resumption was allowed for personal cultivation, there are States like Jammu and Kashmir, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal wherein certain legislation permits ejectments of tenants or crop-sharers from the entire area if the landlord wants to exercise the right of resumption.
Many a landowner circumvented the tenancy laws and regained possession of tenanted land by persuading ‘his tenants to give up tenancy rights voluntarily’.
The persuasion was often accompanied by threats and even use of brute force. The Third Plan, therefore, laid down that- (1) Voluntary surrenders should not be regarded as valid unless they were duly registered with the revenue authorities; (2) even where the surrender was held to be valid, the land owner should be entitled to take possession of land only up to his right of resumption permitted by law.
But these suggestions did not prove successful and the Fourth Plan suggested that “no land owner should be allowed to regain possession of surrendered land that the Government should have the power to allot such land to eligible persons.” The suggestion of the Fourth Plan was not fully implemented by the states till August 1975.
“No provision for regulating surrenders has been made in Haryana, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and U.P. Provision has been made for the scrutiny of surrenders by the revenue authorities in A.P., Bihar, Assam, Gujarat, J. and K., Karnataka, Kerala, M.P., Maharashtra, Manipur, Orissa and Tripura. However, suggestion that all surrenders should be in favour of the Government, has only been acted upon in Gujarat, H.P., Kerala, Orissa, Karnataka and West Bengal.”
Thus, in several states, the provisions made for regulation of surrenders are inadequate and ineffective.
Security of tenure and reduction of rents are the first stage in tenancy reform. The ultimate goal is to confer rights of ownership on as a large body of tenants as possible.
More than a dozen states have enacted laws conferring ownership rights on the cultivating tenants. Notable among them are Maharashtra, Gujarat, Kerala, Karnataka, Assam, H.P., J. and K., Rajasthan, M.P. and Orissa. In three or four other states (like Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab) the tenants have been given the optional right to purchase the land held under their cultivation by paying to the landlord a premium fixed by the appropriate authority according to the terms of the law.
Everywhere the premium is so fixed as not to be beyond the paying capacity of the tenant. Steps are being taken for persuading all the remaining states to enact laws automatically conferring ownership rights on the cultivating tenants. In Uttar Pradesh all tenants and subtenants have been brought into the direct relationship with the state.
The table given below show the number of tenants conferred ownership rights accrued to them:
Evaluation of Tenancy Reforms:
Dr. Desai undertook a study in the implementation of tenancy abolition law in the former Bombay area of Gujarat. It revealed that “out of the 10,45,305 tenancy cases that existed on April 1, 1957, only 8,90,758 cases had been disposed of by April 1, 1964. In 3,14,838 cases, the existence of tenancy was denied. The latest information shows that there were in all 12.97 lakh tenants and ownership rights were purchased by 7.73 lakh tenants.”
After considering all the aspects of the matter Dr. Desai reached this conclusion- “The results of tenancy abolition, however, were not as expected. About half the year previously (under passed) tenancy into the ownership of their respective tenants, about 12 per cent of the land held by 9 per cent of the tenants continued under recognized tenancy. A little over 2 per cent of the lands of tenants slipped from them in default of payment of compensation amounts. The rest were the cases in which the tenants either denied tenancy, surrendered their lands to the land owners or kept away from the heritage of the tribunals and, therefore, missed of their own volition to be owners of the land they cultivated on lease. Thus, a sizeable tenancy escaped ownership under tenancy abolition.”
Tenancy legislation has been rendered ineffective because of the following reasons:
(i) The legislation has not gone far and has fallen short of fulfilling the objects laid down by the Planning Commission—For example, the fixation of statutory rent as high as customary rent (e.g. at one-half of the produce) may be of limited value to tenants and it may be natural to expect that tenants in these States would not be paying less than the statutory rent.
(ii) Legislation has generally been pursued in an unsystematic and uncoordinated manner and has been suffering from many technical defects and contradictions—For example, in Saurashtra the legislation was passed for prohibiting leasing in future except by persons suffering from a disability; and it was provided that leases made in contravention of the law shall be declared null and void and both the lessee and the lessor shall be liable to fine. This resulted in evasion of the provision through collusion between the lessor and the lessee.
In some states like M.P. and Rajasthan where legislation was enacted to give interim protection, no provision was made to fix maximum rents. Again, rents were fixed or tenants were given a right to purchase ownership without giving a right of adequate protection to tenants against ejectment Security of tenure with fixation of maximum rents is useless in as much as the landlord can enhance the rent to any extent and get the tenant ejected on non-payment of the rent so enhanced.
Further, in many states like Rajasthan, Punjab and Madhya Pradesh, no legal sanctions were provided against the landlord if a tenant was ejected unlawfully or the landlord realized more than statutory rent. Sometimes, while provision was made for penalty against unlawful ejectment the law did not provide for the restoration of the ejected tenant.
(iii) The term ‘personal cultivation’ has been defined in a loose way. Because of this defective definition, the lands, ostensibly resumed by the landlords on grounds of personal cultivation are cultivated through crop-sharing arrangements wherein crop-sharers are treated as labourers or as partners in cultivation. Statutory protection afforded to the cultivating tenants has in many cases proved illusory.
(iv) The Third Plan and the Nanda Committee Report drew attention to the administrative difficulties in the enforcement of land reform measures. The land reforms have been enacted very slowly and without arrangements to their administration and speedy implementation. The non-maintenance of correct and up-to-date land records has been a great lacuna, in as much as they do not provide information in respect of holdings of the tenants and crop-sharers.
As a matter of fact, absence-land-ownership and the widespread incidence of share-cropping characterized by insecurity of the tenure and extortionate rents continue to be the two main formidable obstacles to the modernization of agriculture in some parts of the country, particularly in Eastern Zone.
It needs hardly be emphasized that “the tenure system which secures the cultivator fair rewards for his efforts will promote the individual virtues of self-help, self-reliance, thrift and independence and at the same time the social virtues of tolerance, public spiritedness co-operation and mutual working for the common good.”
Ceiling on Land Holding:
Land reforms in India had envisaged that beyond a certain specified limit, all lands belonging to the landlords will be taken over by the state and allotted to small proprietors to make their holdings economic or to landless labourers to meet their demand for land hunger.
“Among all resources the supply of land is the most limited and the claimants for its possession are extremely numerous. It is therefore, obviously unjust to allow the exploitation of any large surface of land by a single individual unless other overwhelming reasons make this highly desirable. Further, in the light of the available supplies of land, labour and capital, it would be undesirable to encourage capital intensive method of production. Moreover, whatever the economies of large-scale management, they should, in the congested state of our countryside, accrue to collective or co-operative bodies of cultivators rather than an individual family. Lastly, in the context of current socio-political climate redistribution of land would rather appear to be impressive.”
About 94.42 per cent of the household, operational holdings are below 20 acres and 91.11 per cent are below 15 acres, the average operational holdings is in five fragments. The Nagpur Resolution of the Congress Party on Land Reforms therefore, declared that the States must enact legislation relating to ceiling on land holdings and that surplus land should vest in the panchayat and should be managed through co-operatives consisting of landless labourers.
The ceiling on agricultural holdings was intended to:
(i) Meet the longer hunger of the landless;
(ii) Reduce the glaring inequalities’ in land ownership so that the way to the development of co-operative rural economy could be proved;
(iii) Enlarge self-employment in owned land as distinguished from sub-letting and tenant cultivation.
The imposition of ceiling has two aspects, viz.:
(a) Fixation of upper limit for future acquisition in order to prevent accumulation of large areas of land in few hands in future; and
(b) Fixation of an upper limit on present landholdings in order to secure equitable distribution of land.
The land ceiling measures were initiated in many parts of the country in the late 50s and early 60s. However, except for Jammu and Kashmir and West Bengal the result was disappointing almost everywhere. By the turn of the last decade, about 26 lakh acres of land was declared surplus; but only a half of it could really be taken over and again, only a half of that could actually be distributed by the state among the landless agricultural workers and other categories of the rural population. In Bihar, Karnataka, Orissa and Rajasthan, no land was declared surplus on the imposition of ceiling legislation.
Obviously, the partitioning of land or benami transfer had taken place before the imposition of ceiling. Further, different states were following different definitions. For example, Assam, Bihar, Haryana, J. and K., M.P., Orissa, Punjab, U.P. and West Bengal used the “individual landholder” as the basis of ceiling but in other states, the level of ceiling was fixed with reference to the “family”, comprising of wife, husband and minor children.
Therefore, renewed efforts were made at implementing land ceiling measures from the late sixties. These led to the laying down of a new national policy on land ceiling which was evolved on the recommendations of the Chief Minister’s conference held in July 1972.
The following guidelines were approved for implementation:
(i) Taking into account the fertility of the soil and other conditions, the best category of land in a state with assured irrigation and capable of yielding at least two crops a year, the ceiling should be fixed between 10 to 18 acres.
(ii) In the case of land having assured irrigation for only one crop a year, the ceiling shall not exceed 27 acres.
(iii) In case of owners with holdings consisting of different types of land holdings after converting the better categories of land into lowest categories should not exceed 54 acres.
(iv) The unit of application should be a family of five members; where the number of members in the family exceeds 5, additional land may be allowed for each member in excess of five in such a manner that the total area admissible to the family does not exceed twice the ceiling limit for family of 5 members. Where both husband and wife hold lands in their own names, the two will have rights in the properties within the ceiling, in proportion to the value of land held by each before the application of ceiling. Each major child is to be treated as a separate unit for the purpose of application of ceiling.
(v) Exemptions were permitted in these cases:
(a) Exemptions in favour of plantations of tea, coffee, rubber, cardamom and cocoa;
(b) Lands held by industrial or commercial undertakings for non-agricultural purposes should be exempted from the ceiling law; and
(c) Sugarcane factories may be permitted to retain an area not exceeding 100 acres.
The main features of this policy were:
(i) A considerable lowered ceiling for a family of five;
(ii) Very few exemptions from the ceiling;
(iii) The provision for payment of compensation to the farmer land owners at rates considerably lower than the market rates so that the allottees of surplus land could pay them over a period of years without any difficulty;
(iv) The retrospective applications of the laws so that various transactions in land made by land owners with a view to evading or avoiding the effects of the impending ceiling could be set at naught and a clear announcement that most of the surplus land would be distributed to landless workers.
By now ceiling laws prevalent all over the country except in the North Eastern Region. Nagaland, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh where land is generally held by community and in the union territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and Goa Daman and Diu. Under land Ceilings Act of 1972, the total acres declared so far is less than two per cent of the total cultivated area.
Further, distribution of surplus land has been limited to several state because of institutional and legal rigidities. Through ceiling surplus land are very limited in India. But there is still considerable scope for redistributing Government wastelands, common lands, ceiling surplus land and Bhoodan land. It has been estimated that 12.4 lakh acres of land were under disputed pending in courts at the end of Eight Five Year Plan.
The table given below shows cumulative progress of the implementation of land ceiling laws by 1998:
Consolidation of Holdings:
Since land holdings in India are by and large, too fragmented and small to lend themselves to efficient cultivation, consolidation of holdings has, therefore, been accorded high priority.
Fifteen states of the country have enacted laws on consolidation of land holdings, upto the end of Sixth Five Year Plan the total area consolidated is 51.8 million hectare. It is about 33 per cent of the total cropped area in the country. Consolidation has been completed in Punjab and Haryana and is nearing completion in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa have also started consolidation operations.
Thus, consolidation holding has taken place in very few states. Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Pondicherry and North Eastern states do not have any laws for consolidation of land holdings. Several States like Bihar, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan have suspended the programme consolidation of holdings is helpful for efficient land use and water management. It leads to higher productivity. Therefore, it must be enforced wherever practicable. The involvement of Panchayat Raj institution would facilitate this process through a greater participation of the village people.
For the implementation of land reforms, up-to-date land records reflecting the rights of the actual tiller of the soil are absolutely necessary. Hence, efforts are being made for updating the record of rights and for ensuring that besides recording ownership, the rights of tenants, share-croppers and other insecure holders are also reflected in it. The state of the record has particularly been bad in the former permanent settlement areas and some of the southern states.
Tenancy, share-cropping and similar other arrangements are mostly entered into by word of mouth. This has resulted in a great deal of insecurity of tenants, etc. Therefore, legislative measures have been undertaken in most of the states for providing a statutory basis for recording the rights of tenants, share-croppers etc. either during the resurvey and resettlement of operations or otherwise through ad hoc measures.