THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

964538

THE INDIAN JOURNALOF AGRICULTURALECONOMICS

(Organ of the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics

Vol. VIII MARCH 1953 1

CONFERENCE NUMBER

/ PROCEEDINGS

of the

THIRTEENTH CONFERENCE

held at Trivandrum, December 1952 /

SUBJECTS

No. I

1. Problems in the Implementation of the Agricultural Plan in the Five Year

Plan.

2. Role of, Agricultural Economics in the Development of Agriculture.

3. Critical Review of Land Reform Legislation since 1945 in various States.

Rs. 6-8

CONTENTS

PAGE

Welcome Address-SIR A. RAMASWAMY MUDALIAR . . • • • • • 1

Presidential Address-PROF. C. N. VAKIL • • • • • • • • 4

Problems in the Implementation of the AgriculturalPlan in the Five Year Plan A

T(1) M. SRINIVASAN • • • • . . • • . • • • .. 19

fl(2) C. W. B. ZACHARIAS . . • . • • • • • • • • • . 24

I](3) R. S. SHIWA.LKAR • • . • • • • • • • • • . • . . 30

(4) B. S. BHANAGE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . 33

ARole of Agricultural Economics in the Development of Agriculture

n

(1) G. D. AGRAWAL • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 41 tc

(2) P. N. DRIVER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 48 rl

(3) S. THIRUMALAI • • • • . . • • • • • • . . 58

(4) M. SRINIVASAN . • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • 66C

(5) S. V. DURAISWAMI . . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • 70S

(6) R. C. HEATH • • • . • • . • • • • . • • • • 73 7(7) S. B. MAHABAL . . • • • • • • • • • • • • 83 tc(8) A. SUBBIAH • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 85

(9) S. D. MEHTA • • • • • . • • • • • • 87

(10) R. K. HAZARI . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 92 il

b

Critical Review of Land Reform Legislation since 1945 in various States

(1) M. L. DANTWALA . . . • • • • • • • • • . . . • 95 0(2) G. B. AGRAWAL . . • • • • • • • • • • • . 99 P(3) B. NATARAJAN • • . • • • • • • . • • • . . . 106 I_

(4) S. KESAVA IYENGAR • • • • • • . • • • . . 114 C

(5) M. SRINIVASAN • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . 119

(6) N. N. NATARAJAN • • • • • • • • • . . . • . 128

(7) K. G. SIVASWAMY • • , • • • • • • • • • • • 133

(8) V. R. PILLAI • • • • • • • • . • • • . . 143

(9) G. B. PATEL • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 155 1(10) GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR . • • • • • • • • • . • 159

(11) B. R. PATEL • • • • • • • .- • • • • • • • . . . 165

(12) DOOL SINGH • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 171 •

(13) LAND REFORM LEGISLATION IN ASSAM, WEST BENGAL, HIMACHALPRADESH, PEPSU AND MADHYA BHARAT • • • • • • • . 182

Appendices • • •,• • • • . • • • • • • . 192

P REFA CE

This issue of the Journal contains the Proceedings of the Thirteenth

Annual Conference of the Society held in December 1952 at Trivandrum.

The Conference was attended by nearly 60 members and delegates

from the Central and State Governments, Universities and Research

Institutions.

A large number of papers were read on 'Land Reforms' and 'Role of

Agricultural Economics in the Development of Agriculture'. The

mingling of academicians and administrators provided a healthy frame

to the discussions. It is our regret that we are not able to record and

report these discussions to our readers.

We were happy to welcome in our midst at the Conference Prof.

Giuseppe Medici and Prof. Giuseppe Orlando the President and the

Secretary respectively of the Italian Institute of Agrarian Economics.

Their valuable report on land reforms in Italy provided a new dimension

to the discussion on the subject.

As promised in the Preface ,to the previous Conference Number, a

monograph titled 'Problems of Farm Costs in Indian Agriculture' has now

been published by the Society.

We take this opportunity of expressing our thanks to the University

of Travancore under whose auspices the Conference met. We specially

place on record our gratitude to Shri M. Sankara Menon who acted as

Local Secretary to the Conference and to the members of the Reception

Committee for their generous hospitality.

MANILAL B. NANAVATI

President.

15th March, 1953.

/THE BASIC APPROACH TO LAND REFORMS*

by

M. L. Dantwala

The basic fact with which planning in an under-developed economyhas to grapple is that of paucity of resources in relation to the popu-lation. Given this basic disequilibrium all that planning can do is (a)Put the admittedly inadequate resources to most rational and efficientuse, and (b) (if one subscribes to the egalitarian philosophy) equalisethe burden of backwardness. There is one further extremely importantconsideration. How much of individual freedom are we prepared tosacrifice in achieving the most efficient use of resources. Apart fromthe basic question whether such a sacrifice is justified or not in the inte-rest of other equally cherished ends judgments of course are bound tovary as to what constitutes curtailment of freedom or its effective exis-tence in the alternative methods of resource use. There is a dominantschool of thought which holds that force, compulsion, regimentation donot necessarily vitiate their concept of social justice. On the other handthere are people who believe egalitarianism is not a necessary ingredientof social justice. In the context of these contending forces, the task ofpeople who believe both in equality and individlial freedom is ratherunenviable, especially if it has to convincingly prove that an arrange-ment which is neither totalitarian (involving rejection of individualfreedom) nor capitalistic (involving rejection of equality) can be bothefficient and just.

My point in raising these rather abstract issues of social philosophyat the very outset is that unless there is a fair amount of clarity—if notunanimity—on these basic questions, we may find ourselves discuss-ing the problem of land reforms at cross purposes. Unless the plannerand his critic can be made to take up a stand on these fundamentals itwould become impossible even to agree to differ. For example whatcan you say to a critic who when 'registered farms' are suggested talksof social justice, when redistribution is recommended bemoans loss ofefficiency and when collectivisation is recommended talks of individualfreedom!

The starting point of this discussion is the hypothesis that it is notalways possible to reconcile all the three basic tenets governingthe formulation of land tenure policy, namely equality, individual free-dom and efficiency. If the three could be reconciled there will not bemuch of a problem. It is only when the three cannot be reconciled thatthe question of choice and priority and the measure in which one maybe sacrificed for other arises. Instead of formulating the details andthen debating their merit with divergent frames of reference (involvingcriteria and values) it is necessary first to clarify one's basic approach.Similarly the critic should also be requested—in fairness to him andothers—to indicate his approach in terms of the three basic considera-tions before he proceeds to evaluate the details.

Thus by the very hypothesis the problem is to suggest an optimumcombination of the three principles and of balancing the sacrifice of oneagainst the gains in the other. The point in the discussion is not the

* This paper was written before the publication of the Final Draft of the First FiveYear Plan.

96 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

fact of the sacrifice which is implicit in the hypothesis but its extent andthe counterbalancing advantages.

From an overall point of view and judging the ethos of the dyna-mics of the world situation and our. own I would give first priority toequality. When resources and the resulting wealth and income are ad-mittedly inadequate for a socially acceptable standard of living for allglaring inequality in ownership is intellectually and morally indefen-sible. At the most consideration of efficiency may be allowed to slightlyrelax the rigidity of absolute equality but a very strong case would beneeded to justify it. The next problem is to reconcile individual freedom and efficiency. I would at once state I would be prepared to sacri-fice quite a bit of efficiency if the loss of freedom involved in achievingit is total or substantial. But if the sacrifice of individual freedom suchas is involved say in co-operative farming gives large returns in thefield of efficiency, such a proposition may be considered on its merit.All this undoubtedly involves judgment, the measuring rods for whichI admit are not universally accepted. If this enunciation is not to beconveniently vague, it will be necessary to translate it into concreteproposals and let the critic judge the degree of faithfulness with whichprofessions are converted into patterns for action.

For people having different set of priorities, the details I give beloware irrelevant. Some choices are well known and have distinct politicalor ideological label. I have no intention of indulging in this very enter-taining pursuit beyond pointing out a striking similarity of the choiceof efficiency as the first priority both by the capitalist and the com-munist. The former sacrifices equality in his quest for efficiency, thelatter individual freedom. It may be added that in the absence of equa-lity individual freedom is illusory and that in the absence of individualfreedom, equality becomes a token of regimentation and loses its merit.If that is so, even the one distinction made above between the two tendsto disappear.

In discussing the details the pattern of recommendations made bythe Planning Commission has been kept in view.

(a) Ceiling on Holdings: The Planning Commission has rightlydivided the discussion on this question under three headings; ceiling forthe purpose of resumption of lands from tenants; ceiling for futureacquisition; and ceiling for existing holdings. It is a matter of greatsatisfaction that for the first two, the Planning Commission has accept-ed the desirability of the ceiling and have more or less accepted thelimits already imposed by the existing legislation in some of the Statessuch as the Bombay Tenancy Act and the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act,.With regard to the third, it draws a distinction—which has some vali-dity—between owner-cultivators and cultivators whose lands are withthe tenants. In a way the latter category is covered by restriction onresumption. All that is needed is a well thought-out and earnestly im-plemented scheme of tenant purchase which of course is easily saidthan done. In regard to lands under personal cultivation the PlanningCommission appears reluctant to impose a ceiling, obviously in view of

b

the difficulties involved in providing compensation. It therefore sug-gests that lands (under the category) which are efficiently managedshould not be subjected to a ceiling. In doing so I feel it has ignoredits own previous statement that "the question of ceiling has to , beanswered in terms of general principles" and I take it that those general

THE BASIC APPROACH TO LAND REFORMS 97

principles refer to the need for doing away with glaring inequality. Ifit was intended that in doing so the standard of efficiency should not beimpaired, the test should have been not whether the large self-cultivat-ed holdings are efficiently managed but rather whether as a result of aceiling regulation and redistribution the aggregate efficiency is likely tobe jeopardised. It is not, correct to take such an outcome for granted. Abreak up, of say, a 500 acre efficiently managed farm into 4 to 5 farms willnot necessarily lead to an aggregate fall in efficiency. I would thereforesuggest that this recommendation should be amended in a manner thatwould permit the continuation of a large owner-cultivated farm withoutthe application of the ceiling regulation only if it can be demonstrativelyproved that the application of the regulation will seriously diminish effi-ciency. This would satisfy the consideration of "public interest" andwould also be in conformity with the "general principles" of equality.Whether this would be consistent with the provisions of the Constitutionis an important question, but I submit that if we all are convinced thata particular step is essential for social and economic betterment, weshould say so and leave the rest to the political machinery.

(b) Equally important is the question of the minimum unit of culti-vation, since it is here that the issue of "public interest" or, less euphi-mistically, of efficiency is most relevant. Personally, I would worrymore over the problem of bringing the dwarf farms to at least a reason-able level of efficiency rather than over the problematic loss of efficiencythrough the break-up of large farms. The bulk of our agricultural pro-duction takes place on these dwarf farms which are palpably unecono-mic by any token—even the one accepted by the Sarvodaya group. Herethe recommendations of the Planning Commission are less definite andfirm and are mixed up with their favourite nostrum of co-operative vil-lage management. It contents itself by suggesting that "the generalaim of policy should be to encourage and assist these owners to developtheir production and to persuade them to organise their activities, asfar as possible, on co-operative lines". To a problem of such vast mag-nitude and significance this is hardly a fitting answer. The problem nodoubt bristles with numerous practical difficulties, and the -more youthink of them the less sure you become regarding the solution. But itis also in such cases that clear thinking and determined action are need-ed. There can be no doubt whatsoever that as long as the bulk of ournational agricultural production is carried on in units which by anytoken are palpably uneconomic, neither the needs of efficiency nor thoseof social justice will be met. This should lead us to a decision that withthe least possible delay production on such units must be banned. Tobe able to cope with the administrative problem we may keep the limitfairly low and incidentally give a chance to the near margin cases toelevate themselves to the economic category by technological (irriga-tion) and economic (supplementary co-operation) devices. Severalalternatives may be offered to cultivators affected by the ban. Theymay sell out their land (or surrender their lease) and take to non-farmemployment. This Swill be in keeping with the apt observation of thePlanning Commission that "care should be taken to ensure that mea-sures for the protection of small and middle owners do not operateseriously to reduce the movement of the people from rural areas (occu-pations?) to other occupations, whether in towns or villages."

Alternatively they may merge their holding with those of theirneighbours and agree to a joint cultivation. Thirdly, if as recommend-


ed by the Planning Commission the programme for consolidation andrealignment of holdings is given priority, palpably uneconomic holdingsmay be grouped into blocks of suitable size in order to make co-operativejoint farming possible. The one consequence of this arrangement wouldbe to bring into open the disguised unemployment inherent in owneroperated dwarf farms. The co-operative will soon be faced with theproblem of surplus labour. This 'isolation' of the phenomenon of sur-plus labour is a necessary step in the programme for its reabsorption innon-farm occupations.

After the problem of the ceiling and the floor is tackled, only twocategories of farming will prevail: family farming for the middle farmer(owner-operated or leased) and co-operative farming for the uneconomicone. The former should be aided by an adequate extension service andsupplementary co-operative organization for credit, marketing etc.

(c) Tenancy: The first step in tenancy reform should be to recog-nise only one type of tenancy with occupancy rights akin to the Pro-tected Tenancy in the Bombay legislation. 5 or 10 years lease may berecognised for the transitional period after which all tenants should beconsidered as protected tenants. Multiplicity of tenancy relations—fromfull fledged occupancy to share cropping—is a fruitful source of exploi-tation and evasion of the law. Any operator who shares in the risks ofproduction must be considered a tenant and should be entitled to all therights and protection conferred by the prevailing tenancy legislation.There should be no distinction between the tenants of a larger holderand those of a small one. The distinction drawn by the Planning Com-mission between the two is valid only upto a point; but the limit andthe sliding scale provided in regard to the owner's rights of resumptionwould safeguard the position of small holders. In the matter of otherprovisions such as those for reasonable rent, security of tenure etc. thereshould be no differentiation. Even in the matter of resumption, non-cultivating owners should be given a time limit—say 5 years—withinwhich they should make up their mind whether they want to exercisetheir right of resumption, after which resumption should be permittedonly on exceptional and special considerations.

A word may be said in regard to the problem of implementation.There is hardly any phrase under which more sins of ommission andcommission are committed than under "our conditions are different".Unfortunately the Planning Commission too has thought it necessary topreface its recommendation with a similar phrase. I beg to submitthat the basic conditions under which poverty crisis and exploitationgo on are surprisingly similar. If anything the names are differentand practices vary.

The sine-qua-non of successful implementation of the Plan is theunderscoring of this basic uniformity of the problem in every state. Ineed not be reminded that even the tenurial systems are different. Forit was long ago that I realised the ability of basic realities to pierceand spill over the juridical frame; the extensive prevalence of• absenteeownerships under ryotwari tenures is an instance in point.

The basic agricultural situation is the same all over India; therational ordering of agrarian relations must therefore also be the same.Local traditions and customs may be respected as long as they do' notconflict with the rationally determined principles and practices. The

REVIEW OF LAND REFORM LEGISLATION IN U.P. 99

moment the Land Reform Organization accepts the existence of ir-relevant differences, ways and means will be found to circumvent thepolicy decision. In brief it should be made clear to all the States thatat the end of the Planning period—or some such suitable period—

(1) No landholder will own and operate more than a specifiednumber of acres.

(2) No category of tenancy—in which risks of cultivation areshared—other than that of a protected tenant will be recognised.

(3) No cultivation will be permitted on farms of acreage below aspecified minimum.

CRITICAL REVIEW OF LAND REFORM LEGISLATIONSINCE 1945 IN U. P.1

by, 7/-7 A

Dr. G. D. Agrawal,Agricultural sconomist, Uttar Pradesh,

Government Agiicultural College, Kanpur.

The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950(Act No. I of 1951)

The Act came in force on 26th January, 1951, the second anni-versary day of the Indian Republic. It is a historic Act in the sensethat it has been a precursor to similar land reform measures in severalother States, and that with its enactment has ended the long drawnbattle between the. State and the zamindars beginning from the BengalTenancy Act (X of 1859)—the first Indian tenancy legislation to safe-guard the interests of the actual tiller of the soil against exploitation bythe landholder intermediaries. Certain changes have been made inthis Act through an Amendment Act in 1952.

Basic Features of the ActNo intermediaries. The title to the land and the right to possess

it cannot be held separately. Both of these must be possessed by oneand the same person. Hence the zamindari system which involved inter-mediaries between the actual tiller and the State has been abolished.With the issue of vesting order on July 1, 1952, all the estates in theUttar Pradesh now vest in the State free from all encumbrances. Sub-letting is completely banned except in the case of certain landholders spe-cified as disabled. Mortgage with possession is disallowed. It is, there-fore, not possible for the intermediaries now to raise their head. again.

Classes of tenure. The complex land system in the U.P. withmore than 15 kinds of landholders has been considerably simplified.There remain now only the following three classes of tenure.

(i) Bhumidhar(ii) Sirdar(iii) Asami

1. The views expressed in the paper pre the author's own.


Under the bhumidhari tenure the right in land is transferable. Thebhumidhar has the right to bequeath by will the holding or any partthereof. He can put the land to any use. He enjoys freedom from eject-ment as against the provisions relating to ejectment applicable to theremaining classes of tenures.

The remaining tenures do not have the right of transfer in land.The sirdars represent mainly the former hereditary and occupancytenants. The tenants on sir land of those intermediaries who were pay-ing land revenue of more than Rs. 250/- have also been declared sirdars.The asamis are mostly the former non-occupancy tenants. The sirdarand the asami can use the land only for agriculture, horticulture or ani-mal husbandry purposes. Both are liable to ejectment. A sirdar canpartition his holding but not the asami. The sirdar may surrender hisholding in full or in part but an asami can surrender only the whole of it.The interest and rights of an asami extinguish with the extinction of theright of his landholder. He can be ejected on the suit of his landholderson a number of grounds mentioned in the Act, e.g. an unsatisfied decreefor arrears of rent, the expiry of lease and when the landholder wishesto bring the land under his personal cultivation.

The tenants of sir land of those intermediaries who pay as landrevenue Rs. 250/- or less and the former sub-tenants constitute adhivasis.This is a class of tenure during the transitional period and will disappearafter some time. The adhivasi can be ejected for arrears of rent or whenhe transfers his holding or when he uses it for non-agricultural purposes.

The payment for land by the bhumidhar and sirdar is known asrevenue and that by the asami and adhivasi as rent. The rent cannotnormally be varied and in case it is not already fixed, the Act providesfor its fixation at 133-1/3% of the hereditary rates applicable to the land.

Reduction in rent. The sirdar and the adhivasi, on the acquisitionof the bhumidhari rights, will pay to Government as revenue only 50%of the rent payable by them prior to their being bhumidhar. This sumwill not be enhanced for a period of 40 years from the commencement ofthe Act.

Power to carry out improvements. The changed definition of land'includes also improvements necessary for efficient agriculture. Thus allclasses of tenure now possess right for effecting improvement on theirholdings.

Ceilings on the size of holding. No one is allowed to purchase landif the area of his holding thereby exceeds 30 acres.

• Minimum size of holding. Holdings below 61 acre cannot be parti-tioned. Through an amendment of the Act, the lower limit is likely tobe further reduced to 3-1/8 acres or 5 standard bighas.

In agriculturally undeveloped areas or, dry tracts, e.g. Bundelkhand,the lower and upper limit fixed on the area of the holding is double ofthat mentioned above.

Exchange of land. The Act provides liberally for the exchange ofland in connection with the consolidation of holdings and for the esta-blishment of co-operative farms or between the bhumidhar and, thesirdar.

a


Facilities to landless. (i) All the landless people residing in a vil-lage have become full owners of their houses, house sites and appertu-nent land, their wells and trees.

(ii) Along with other members of the village community they haveequal rights in all non-cultivable land transferred to the Gaon Samaj.

(iii) They are given the top position, in order of merit, for the pur-pose of allotment of the vacant land by the Gaon Samaj. The unecono-mic holder whether a bhumidhar or a sirdar occupies the second position,the co-operative farm comes third according to the U. P. Zamindari Abo-lition and Land Reform Amendment Act, 1952.

Guarantee of net income. The net income accruing to all religiousand charitable trusts and waqfs is guaranteed in perpetuity.

• Ejectment for not cultivating the land. Where a sirdar or asamifails to cultivate his land for two consecutive agricultural years, the landwill be considered as abandoned and will pass under the possession ofthe Gaon Samaj.

Ejectment from lands of public utility. All sub-letting or personalcultivation or "plantation over the common pasture land, cremation orburial ground, tank, pathway or khaliyan, on or after 8th December, 1946is declared illegal.

Uneconomic holdings. The limits below which the holdings will becalled uneconomic is to be declared through a notification.

Accrual and Acquisition of "Bhumidhari" RightsAll landholders possessing transferable rights in land whether as

proprietors or as tenants have been declared as bhumiclhars outright intheir khudkast land. A sirdar can become bhumidhar on paying anamount equal to 10 times the rent payable by him if paid in a lump sumor 12 times of the rent in four six-monthly instalments. The right tobecome bhumidhar would cease after three months from the date of sucha notification to be issued by the Government. An adhivasi can alsobecome bhumidhar after a period of 5 years from the commencement ofthis Act or earlier with the written concurrence of his landholder by pay-ing to the Government 15 times the rent at hereditary rates or at ordi-nary rates as the case may be.

Gaon Samaj and Gaon SabhaThe Act provides for the establishment of a Gaon Samaj—a body

corporate having perpetual succession. Its membership consists of alladults residing in its jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Gaon Samaj iscalled' a circle in the Act. All land whether cultivable or otherwise notcomprised in the holdings, all forests within the village, all trees out-side the holding or grove or abadi, public wells, fisheries, hats, bazars,tanks, ponds, pathways and abadi sites vested in the State will vest inthe Gaon Samaj. The land will come under the possession of the GaonSamaj in the following cases:

(i) Holdings left heirless.(ii) Land from which sirdars and asamis have been ejected for

unauthorised transfers or for putting the land to non-agricultural usesor for not cultivating the land for two consecutive - agricultural years orfor arrears of revenue or rent.


(iii) Holdings surrendered by a sirdar or an asami.(iv) Land acquired by the Gaon Samaj under the acquisition law.All these lands shall be under the superintendence, management

and control of the Gaon Panchayat, the executive of the Village Com-munity. The Gaon Panchayat shall establish a Land ManagementCommittee for each Gaon Samaj. In as much as several Gaon Samajswill be represented in a panchayat, the Land Management Committeefor each Gaon Samaj will consist of all those members elected to thevillage panchayat. The committee shall carry out the duties relatingto the settlement and management of the land and such other functionsas may be prescribed.

Compensation and Rehabilitation GrantsThe Act provides for payment of compensation to intermediaries

at eight times the net assets calculated according to prescribed rules.Compensation shall carry a rate of interest of 21 per cent per annum.The bonds are non-negotiable but transferable like any other property.

Except the intermediaries whose aggregate revenue assessmentsexceed Rs. 10,000/-, the rest will be paid rehabilitation grants varyingfrom 1 to 20 times of their revenue assessments in inverse ratio of thelatter.

Provisions relating to Land Revenue1. All bhumidhars and sirdars in any village are jointly and several-ly responsible for the payment of land revenue.2. The land revenue payable by a bhumidhar shall not be enhancedwithin 40 years next after the commencement of the Act.3. The land revenue will be assessed on the aggregate area of aholding in a village.4. The principle of fixing the land revenue as certain percentageof the average surplus produce on holdings has been accepted. Theactual percentage is to be fixed by the State legislature through a reso-lution.

5. The revenue is to be collected by a Government agency orthrough the Gaon Samaj.6. Provisions exists for the attachment of village or any area there-in in respect of which the revenue is due and for placing it under themanagement of the collector or his agent for a period not exceedingthree years.

Co-operative FarmsA co-operative farm can be started by any 10 or more members ofa Gaon Samaj holding between them bhumidhari or sirdari rights inthirty acres or more in a circle. On the registration of the co-operativefarm, all the land held by the members shall be deemed transferred toand held by the co-operative farm until its liquidation.

• Special provision exists for the establishment of a co-operative farmon uneconomic holdings. If not less• than two-thirds of the total num-ber of persons holding bhumidhari or sirdari rights in uneconomic hold-ings in a circle and holding between them not less than two-thirds of


the aggregate area comprised in all such holdirTgs in the circle, applyjointly for the formation of a co-operative farm, the uneconomic holdingsbelonging to bhumidhar or sirdar unwilling to join as members will betransferred to the co-operative farm and they will be paid compensation.for their land. Consolidation of land held by a co-operative farm is pro-vided for by exchange of land within the circle. The State Governmentshall advance loans to co-operative farms for payment to persons whoseuneconomic holdings have been acquired.

The Zamindari Abolition FundThe total compensation to be paid to zamindars wd's estimated at,

Rs. 137 crores by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Commit*. The effec-tive duration of the Zamindari Abolition Fund drive all over the Statedid not exceed 9 months. About Rs. 33 crores were collected from thetenants. This shows how popular the drive has been and. also the keen-ness of the tenants to acquire the bhumidhari rights.

A CritiqueThe enactment of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act

1950 constitutes a landmark in the history of agrarian reform not onlyin the U.P. but in the Indian Union as it has provided inspiration andbasis to similar piece of legislation in many other States. In fact, theAct has the basic provisions necessary to the implementation of theland policy -recommended by the Planning Commission in the FinalReport. The Act aims at establishing family farms with economicholdings. The existing disparity in land holdings is also intended tobe lessened. With a view to achieve these ends, the floor and ceilinglimits of 61 acres and 30 acres respectively have been placed on theholdings.

The effective implementation of the provision banning the partitionof holdings of 61 acres or below, in so far as it concerns the subdivision ofholdings in accordance with inheritance laws, is beset with a numberof difficulties in view of the very limited scope for non-agricultural em-ployment in the country. In actual practice the ban may either leadto (i) the heirs being forced to cultivate their holding jointly as one unitor (ii) the holding may actually be partitioned without a mention of it,in the land records, thus making the ban ineffective. Both the situa-tions are not very desirable. If the ban on partition is effectively en-forced, the number of persons thrown out from the land will not hesmall. This brings to the forefront the need of simultaneous action fordeveloping the alternative opportunities of non-agricultural employment.'

Another difficulty will arise in regard to finding out the necessarycapital to buy out the shares of other heirs. The earnings from agricul-ture being quite small, it is difficult to accumulate the necessary fundsfrom savings. In case the payment on account of the land shares of theheirs is from the working capital, agricultural production and efficiencywill suffer. This make necessary the provision of special credit facili-ties to the heirs who retain the possession over the landed property.The reduction in the minimum limit to 31 acres through an amendment,of the Act shows that the Government are quite alive to practical diffi-'culties in the actual enforcement of the minimum limit.

The basic principles underlying the ban on partition and the Bhudan,Yag?Va of Acharya Vinoba Bhave, for which the State Government are-


enacting a special legislation to legalise the land gifts and their trans-fers, are contradictory to each other.

Security of tenures has been provided to all classes of tenures includ-ing even the adhivasis. As is the common experience, this providesa congenial climate for the growth of co-operatives. The confermentof bhumidhari rights on a very large number of tenants improves theircredit and so their ability to raise agricultural finance. It has ,alsocreated a favourable atmosphere for the development of land mortgagebanks in U.P.

The landholders have been notorious for litigation. The complexland laws had so far been a very potent contributory factor to it. Withthe simplification of land tenures, litigation which has ruined many ruralfamilies and which has been a significant cause of rural poverty, willvery much decline.

Gaon Samaj has been constituted to fill up the vacuum created bythe disappearance of the landlords. This step accords well with thedemocratic set up of the Government and restores the village communi-ties to their rightful place. By empowering the Government to dele-gate to any person or authority and for such period and subject to suchrestrictions as may be specified, the duties, powers and functions of theGaon Panchayat or the Land Management Committee, the framers ofthe Act have shown full aliveness to the realities of the situation. TheGaon Samaj is yet an experiment. Its functioning has, therefore, tobe watched carefully in the early stages and where necessary an alter-native authority has to be established for taking over its functions.

Under the zamindari tenure, the unit of settlement was the village.The experience of more than two centuries is against the individual owner,i.e. the landlord managing the common village property in the best socialinterest. In the beginning, the Gaon Samaj or the Land ManagementCommittee may not be found very effective as an alternative institutionfor the efficient management of such common land. The active associa-tion of officials with the land management committee may be foundnecessary. The extension agency should prove the appropriate body forbeing entrusted with such a task.

In spite of the pressure of political groups to abolish zamindariwithout the payment of any compensation and difficulties in raising therequisite amount of finance, provision has been made for the payment,of compensation and rehabilitation grants. This is certainly a whole-some compromise between acquisition without compensation and acqui-sition at market price.

The assessment of revenue in future is to be based on a scientificprinciple. The revenue is to be a percentage, of the average surplusproduce.

In matters relating to partition and exchange of holdings, determi-nation of net asset, compensation and rehabilitation grants, ejectments,recovery of rents and revenue, and acquisition of holdings under theprovisions of the Act or for co-operative farms, suitable safeguards havebeen liberally provided for by way of notifications to and appeals by•the aggrieved party.

For purposes of compensation and rehabilitation grants under thisAct, all the members of a Joint Hindu family are to be treated as sepa-rate units but if the father is alive, he together with all his male lineal

d

ci

111

P(

ti

di.pzCt

P1th

thdiarth

fe:baa.heprhclaticsictoor

arm(

fa(re

aspoPaCostiAcextaiha

Ti

Coticticticofth(to

REVIEW OF. LAND REFORM LEGISLATION 114 U.P. i 05

descendants is to constitute one unit. It would have been certainlymore rational if the creation of separate units would not have been de-pendent on the mere eventuality of the father being alive or dead. Thecreation of separate units on the basis of married male lineal descendentswould have been probably more in conformity with economic considera-tions. As an explanation, it is mentioned in the Act that any arrange-ment whereby a person is entitled to a right merely to share in the pro-duce grown on the land in consideration of such person assisting orparticipating with the tenure-holder in the actual performance of agri-cultural operations is not a "lease". To avoid any misuse of this inter-pretation in favour of Batai tenure, it was desirable to have made it clearthat Batai tenure constituted a lease and was, therefore, prohibited.

The provision that exchange of land should not result in increasingthe size of holdings of either party above 30 acres, might cause somedifficulty in cases where due to difference in the quality of land thearea of good land exchanged with poor land may result in increasingthe holding of a party by a few acres above 30 acres.

It has been provided that all the land of a landholder will be trans-ferred to the co-operative farm on his enrolment as its member. Pro-bably the contingency has not been taken into consideration that manya farmer wants to retain some land for individual cultivation even whenhe is willing to transfer the rest of it to the co-operative farm. The Actprovides that, on the application of a certain minimum number of land-holders of uneconomic holdings all the uneconomic holdings in the vil-lage will be transferred to a co-operative farm. In this regard no excep-tion has been made for those small-holders who follow farming as sub-sidiary occupation. The case of a part-time farmer before forcing himto join a co-operative farm merits special attention. Will he be an assetor a liability to the co-operative farm? Will his holding be utilizedmore productively after its merging in the co-operative farm? Theseare weighty questions on which information is lacking at present. Infact, the topic of part-time farming presents interesting problems forresearch and scientific examination.

But for a few minor points stated above, the Act may be said to beas perfect a piece of land legislation in our existing social, economic andpolitical set-up as human mind could devise. It, together with thePanchayat legislation, makes the village, as visualised by the PlanningCommission, vital, progressive and largely self-governing base of thestructure of national planning. After the transition period is over theAct is sure to build up a stable and prosperous peasantry free from theexploitations of the intermediaries and the petty officials. The impor-tance of healthy peasantry as a bulwark to the edifice of democracy canhardly be over-emphasised.

The U.P. Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act, 1952It was considered sound and equitable by the Zamindari Abolition

Committee, U.P. that the landlord's debt should be reduced in propor-tion to the reduction in the value of his land consequent upon the aboli-tion of zamindari. The Government have therefore, enacted a legisla-tion for the scaling down of secured debts of the zamindars at the timeof decreeing a suit or of a decreed debt before execution thereof. Afterthe scaling down of the secured debts the reduced amount shall bearto the original debt the same proportion as - the multiple of net assets


fixed for calculating compensation for the acquisition of zamindari rightsconsequent upon their abolition plus the multiple of rehabilitation grantadmissible to the debtor will bear to the multiple prescribed under theU.P. Encumbered Estates Act for the area in which the zamindari issituated. In the case of attachment and sale of the zamindari compensa-tion bonds for the recovery of unsecured debts, the Act provides for thereduction of unsecured debts also. It is also provided that a sum equalto one-fourth of the compensation and rehabilitation grant is saved tothe debtor. There is no denying the fact that the provisions of thisAct are very favourable to the landlord class. No doubt the landlordsafter the abolition of zamindari needed such support, nonetheless it isalso true that this assistance has been made available to them at theexpense of the money-lenders.

Consolidation of HoldingsOn the recommendations of a special committee the Government

have decided on a scheme of compulsory consolidation of holdings. Thescheme is to be started from the middle of next year in the communityproject areas and in villages selected for intensive development in otherdistricts. It is gradually to cover the entire State in six to eight years.

LAND REFORMS LEGISLATION IN MADRASSTATE SINCE 1945 x-.4/ by

Dr. B. NatarajanEconomic Adviser to the Government of Madras.

Land Tenure Pattern in 1945The land-tenure pattern in Madras State as set by the early British

administrators like Lord Cornwallis and Sir Thomas Munro, about acentury and a half ago, was a complex mosaic of three broad categoriesof ryotwari, zamindari and whole inam tenures, intermingled with minorinams and bordered by Malabar and Muli tenures of regional signi-ficance. Although there have been minor adjustments in the tenurialrelationships in this long period these have been insignificant in theireffects and the pattern had virtually remained unaltered.

The most dominant type was of course the ryotwari or the peasantproprietorship tenure covering 48,387,000 acres or 60.1% of the total areaof 80,530,000 acres of the State. Next in importance was the zamindarior the landlord type tenure, the product of the Permanent SettlementAct of 1793, prevalent in 16,423,000 acres or 20.4% of the total area.Third was the whole inam or beneficial tenure (arising from the customin Hindu, Moslem and early British period of granting assignments freeor at low quit rents for meritorious services and to temples and charitableinstitutions) accounting for 4,746,000 acres or 5.9%; the rest of the area10,974,000 acres or 13.6% was covered by Government owned reservedforests and hills. Excluding the last, the extent under the ryotwaritenure formed 69.54% and the zamindari and whole inam tenures 30.44%

ofthME

thinU.prStinihobrith(

tivth(pr(ThowSO

Re

thEinthisinrerth(beofthrwathEofEsiceithrofref

Re

toofasspoirerdoipie

,sLt

.eii

is

isLe

3h.aesorLi-aljr

tateaLri

nt!a.rneedeeaedtri.°70

LAND REFORMS LEGISLATION IN MADRAS STATE 107

of the remaining area. The latter two types of tenure were alike from.the tenurial point of view in respect of the fairly large estates, inter-mediaries vested with rights to collect rent and large bodies of tenantstilling the soil. The only significant difference between them lay inthe fiscal arrangement of zamindaris paying peshkash and the wholeinams paying only nominal sums. Both resembled the estates in Bengal,U.P. and Bihar with their hierarchy of proprietors, sub-proprietors, under-proprietors, tenure holders and intermediaries who stood between theState and the peasant. On the other hand in the ryotwari tenure, sub-infeudation was not rampant; land was widely distributed. In largerholdings the systems of tenantry as well as hired labour had developedbringing in their train problems of rent, wages, terms of contract andthe conditions of service.

Twin Objectives of Land Reform

Land reform legislation in the State therefore has had two objec-tives: (1) the elimination of the intermediaries between the State andthe peasant in the zamindari and whole inam tenures, and (2) the im-provement of relations between the owners, tenants and farm labourers.The one was calculated to bring about a uniformity in the system of landownership and the other healthy relations in the "agricultural ladder"so necessary for further reforms.

Repeal of the Permanent Settlement and Introduction of RyotwariTenure

The first objective of the land reform has already been attained bythe abolition of the zamindaris and the whole inams and their conversioninto ryotwari tenure. It is hardly necessary to trace now the chequeredhistory of this part of legislation from the appointment of a Committeein 1938 (popularly known as Prakasam Committee) to enquire into andreport on the conditions in the zamindari and other proprietary areas tothe final legislation. The World War II intervened and action had tobe postponed. But once legislative action was launched, this measureof land reform was completed with remarkable celerity. The first of thethree pieces of legislation The Madras Estates (Reduction of Rent) Billwas introduced in the legislature on the 9th October 1947, the second,the Madras Estates, Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibitionof Alienation) Bill on the 15th October 1947 and the third the MadrasEstates (Abolition of Zamindari and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act re-ceived the assent of the Governor-General on 2nd April 1949. All thethree pieces of legislation were placed on the .Statute Book in the spaceof 18 months. The stagnation of 125 years in the matter of agrarianreform has been ended.

Reduction of Rent

The first Act had the definite object of granting immediate reliefto the tenants in the zamindari areas. It provided for the reductionof the rent of occupancy holdings in estates to the level of the ryotwariassessment prevalent in the neighbourhood. A special staff was ap-pointed to accomplish this enormous task and within two years the higherrents were scaled down all over the affected areas. It is these scaleddown rents which will be in force until the ryotwari settlement is com-pleted.


Prevention of Alienation, etc.The second measure had the object of preventing the alienation of

estate land and destruction of forests by the proprietors with a view tomaking immediate gains and thwarting the principal objective of thelegislation. These two measures were essentially precautionary innature and paved the way for the major change. They were auxiliaryto repeal the Permanent Settlement Act and to usher in a homogeneoussystem of ryotwari tenure throughout the State.

Zamindari Abolition ActThe main piece of legislation is the Madras Estates Land (Aboli-

tion of Zamindari and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. It providedfor the acquisition of the rights of land holders in permanently settledareas and certain other estates and the introduction of ryotwari settle-ment in them.

The implementation of this Act was made fairly simple and easy.The experience in Madras is that the Act worked quite smoothly unlikein some other States. From the date of notification, the Act made itpossible for the specified estates in entirety—including all communallands and porambokes, non-ryoti lands, waste lands, pasture lands, lankalands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanksand irrigation works, fisheries and ferries—to be transferred to theGovernment. With it, the lands in the estates came under the fulloperation of all the enactments applicable to ryotwari areas. That thechange-over from the zamindari to ryotwari tenure was speedily effectedcould be seen from the fact that in two years after the enactment of theprincipal Act, no less than 1,724 out of the 1,938 notified estates havebeen completely taken over by Government, in four batches of 77, 587,601 and 450 estates. There are 214 more estates pending before theHigh Court yet to be taken over. On the whole, the Act has been fullyimplemented so far as the adoption of the ryotwari system goes. Thesurvey and settlement might take a few more years to be completed, butthe major change has been accomplished. The erstwhile tenants of thezamindari areas have become full-fledged owner-farmers and Governmenthave begun collecting the ryotwari assessment in the place of the oldzamindari peshkash. So great a reform has been achieved in so short aperiod that the ghost of Lord Cornwallis might well turn in its grave.

Fiscal EffectsFrom the fiscal point of view, Madras Government measure should

be deemed a success. The area under the zamindari tenure was pav-ing in the aggregate a peshkash of Rs. 47,49,958 to Government in 1945-4.At the same time, the zamindaris were collecting an estimated revenueof Rs. 1,99,53,538. After the reduction of the rent and the abolition ofthe zamindaris, the revenue is estimated to have declined by about Rs. 50lakhs and still yielding about Rs. 1.5 crore. This works out to a net ad-ditional revenue of nearly a crore of rupees to State Government. Asagainst this, Government have undertaken the obligation to pay a com-pensation of Rs. 17.15 crores to the proprietors of the estates and otherswho had rights in land vested in them. Viewed as an investment, Govern-ment are earning a dividend of roughly 5.5% of the compensation amounteven if it were paid in a single lump. But it is being paid in instalments,interim payments alone being paid pending the completion of the ryotwari

•sepesicthM,bypethsuaffZa

-wlre!fu]fu]re]cr(beofthza]fix

Pa

nusalsaioro-r(ofthisegr(inirrre.de:thoquadestim

Juab-palesre(

Sci

Gc

,oLefl

is

e-

y.ceital

k-sieillheedheye

heElyhe,uthe!nt)1dLa

ildiv-

46.Lueof50ad-As,m-ersrn-intits,an


settlement. This would mean that dividend may work out at a higherpercentage than 5.5. On the other hand, Government are incurring con-siderable expenditure on survey and ryotwari settlement. Under the Actthe ryot is obliged to pay only that amount specified in section 8 of theMadras Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, while the rest has to be borneby Government. If this item of expenditure is added to the total com-pensation amount, the dividend on the total investment might be lessthan 5.5%. Accurate estimate of expenditure to be incurred on thesurvey and ryotwari settlement has not been available but that does notaffect the general conclusion that from the fiscal standpoint, theZamindari Abolition Act has been a sound proposition.

This situation is in striking contrast to the position in U.P. and Biharwhere the amounts of compensation are pretty heavy in relation to theirrespective State revenues. Nor is there any great prospect of tappingfunds from the agricultural sector to meet the compensation charges. Thefund raised for bhoomidhar rights through voluntary contributions isreported to be about one-fifth of the total compensation payment of Rs. 140crores. The fiscal advantage derived by the Government of Madras maybe attributed to (1) the smaller portion, about one-third of the total areaof the State, that had been under Permanent Settlement Act. Obviouslythe burden would be proportionately less than in the States where thezamindari area was of larger proportion and (2) the relatively low ratesfixed for compensation payable to the zamindaris.

Payment of Compensation—"Basic Annual Sum"

The magnitude of the compensation depends on two factors: the an-nual net income of the estate and the multiple thereof fixed as compen-sation. In Madras, the former defined as "basic annual sum" is not thesame as the "net income" of Assam, Bihar, Orissa and Madhya Pradeshor the "net assets" of U.P. which are arrived at by deducting from thegross income of the estate land revenue, cess, cost of management worksof benefits to the cultivators etc; on the other hand in Madras it is one-third of the gross annual ryotwari demand (the total Of the ryotwari as-sessments imposed on the lands occupied in the estate) minus 5% of thegross ryotwari demand "on account of establishment charges, deficienciesin collection and the like" and 3-1/3% on account of the maintenance ofirrigation works in the estate. Thus the basic annual sum is not the netrevenue realised by the zamindar, nor even the whole of the ryotwaridemand as would be computed by the Settlement Officer, but one third ofthe latter minus certain deductions and it actually amounts to only aquarter of the gross annual ryotwari demand. This is the general principleadopted for the determination of the basic annual sum in most of theestates, although slight modifications have been introduced in the case ofinam estates, the under tenure estates (granted before the date of per-manent or temporary settlement of the principal estate or before 13thJuly 1802) and the inam estates held by religious, educational and charit-able institutions. Thus "the basic annual sum", the basis of all com-pensations in Madras is so defined and worked out as to be considerablyless than any of its counterpart in the other states. This method ofreckoning confers an initial and lasting advantage to the public fisc.

Scale of Compensation

With the net annual income thus stringently calculated, the MadrasGovernment proceeded in a liberal manner to fix the multiples of this sum


allowed as compensation. The basic annual sums computed for the oestates are classified into six class intervals and the multiples fixed as t]shown below: A

tlGroup Basic Annual Sum Multiples allowed h1. Upto Rs. 1,000 30 lc2. Exceeding Rs. 1,000 but not Rs. 3,000 25 si3. Exceeding Rs. 3,000 but not Rs. 20,000 20 tl

4. Exceeding Rs. 20,000 but not Rs. 50,000 17i-b5. Exceeding Rs. 50,000 but not Rs. 100,000 15 e]

6. Exceeding Rs. 100,000 12-1 ccoIn the fifth and sixth groups, a ceiling has been placed on the com-

pensation irrespective of the sum calculated on the basis of the multiple.It is Rs. 8,75,000 for the fifth and Rs. 15,00,000 for the sixth basic annual a]sum groups. The multiples fixed for each income group are definitely bhigher than the corresponding figures in the other States. However the ototal amount of compensation payable to all the estates that would be a]taken over has been reduced to manageable proportions. It is only rriRs. 17.15 crores or 28% of the revenues of the State compared with 224% bin Uttar Pradesh, 479% in Bihar and 330% in Madhya Pradesh and 85%in Orissa. A

No Rehabilitation GrantAnother factor contributing to the relatively low figure of the total

compensation is the absence of any provision for paying rehabilitationgrants to proprietors of estates yielding basic annual sums below a pre-scribed minimum. It is yet too early to assess whether lack of rehabilita-tion grants in Madras land reform would be causing hardship to the smallestate owners. The advantage to the public fisc is however indubitable.

Compensation per AcreThe average amount of compensation per acre also works out to be

the least in Madras compared with other States. The total area under thezamindari and whole inam tenures as stated earlier, is 21,169,000 acres,the total amount of compensation Rs. 17.15 crores and the averageamount of compensation per acre is Rs. 8/- as compared with Rs. 27 inUttar Pradesh, Rs. 38 in Bihar, Rs. 17 in Madhya Pradesh (excludingmerged territories), Rs. 20 in West Bengal, Rs. 10 in Orissa and Rs: 30in Assam (vide Financial Aspects of the Abolition of Zamindari by A. N.Vij in Reserve Bank of India Bulletin, June 1950, page 384).

Viewed from whatever angle—the basic annual sum, the multipleadopted for working out the amount of compensation, the rehabilitationgrant or the average amount of compensation per acre—Madras, com-pared with other States, has made the most advantageous and leastburdensome financial arrangement for the abolition of the permanentlysettled estates of all kinds.

Social Consequences of the Zamindari AbolitionThe social consequences of this great reform cannot however be

easily assessed. The intermediaries now dispossessed are relativelysmall as total number of estates notified is only 1938. Among them the

cr

B.inbE

la

n-le.,alilyhehely

-alDn.e-a-allle.

behe

geinag30N.

de

n-istly

beilyhe


owners of the larger estates may get sufficient compensation to enablethem to engage themselves in gainful activities without much hardship.Already there has been a search for industrial investments. Most ofthem in this group also possess personal lands in their estates whichhave been left intact and untouched by the reform. The middle and thelower groups could not be so well off compared with their pre-reformstatus, position, and income. However the higher multiple fixed forthem should meet the ends of justice and equity.

As between the tenants of the various estates, the legislation esta-blished much needed uniformity. In some estates rents were lowenough to need any great scaling down but in the rest the relief wasconsiderable, which is not adequately conveyed by the overall reductionof Rs. 50 lakhs in the entire zamin and inam areas.

The social effects of the reform on the erstwhile occupancy tenantsare truly significant. For nearly three quarters of a century they hadbeen looking upto tenancy legislation as the only solution for protectionof their rights. But now they have been once for all raised to the rankand status of owner farmers with pattas granted to them by Govern-ment. This change in status is not, however, capable of being measuredby any precise economic calculus.

Advance Compensation in Cash and BondsAnother merit of this Madras land reform is the arrangement for

payment of advance compensation partly in cash and partly in bonds.Without waiting for the ryotwari settlement of the estates Governmenthave also proceeded to allot every year in the budget specified amountsfor melting this compensation charge as• shown below:

Amount deposited withZamindari Abolition Tri-bunal for payment ofcompensation to Zamin-

Year dars. Rs. in lakhs.

1949-50 • • • • • • • • 132.161950-51 • • • • • • • 117.871951-52 (Preliminary Accounts) • • 168.501952-53 (Budget Estimates) • • 70.00

488.53

Originally the amount of compensation was estimated at Rs. 12.5crores half of which was proposed to be paid as advance compensation.Recently Government have decided in consultation with the ReserveBank of India to pay half the advance compensation in bonds and halfin cash. The terms on which the bonds will be issued have not yetbeen settled.

Final Settlement DelayedThe only snag in this financial arrangement is the inevitable time

lag between the date of resumption of the estates and the date of pay-ment of 'compensation. This is due to the interval, estimated at eight


to ten years, that would be taken for completing the survey and ryot-wari settlement of the resumed estates. It is on the basis of this settle-ment that amounts of compensation have to be finally fixed. Untilthen the erstwhile owners of the estates have to depend on interim pay-ments. The number of instalments in which compensation is payablehas been fixed as one for estates yielding a basic annual sum uptoRs. 3,000, as three for estates yielding more than Rs. 3,000 and uptoRs. 50,000 and as five for the estates yielding incomes exceedingRs. 50,000. This might cause hardship to the smaller estate owners whodo not have supplementary sources of income. Such hard cases are ofcourse bound to present themselves in the course of any great reform. Therigours of the measure can however be softened by the diligence, careand human sympathy on the administrative side. This the Governmentcould do by concentrating the available "survey and settlement" techni-cal personnel on smaller estates and by instructing the Zamindari Abo-lition Tribunals to give a priority to smaller estates in their order ofdisposal. These are the lines on which Government of Madras are try-ing to smoothen out the peculiar problems stemming from hard casesin the period of transition. This measure of attention to the dispossess-ed zamindars is due from considerations of equity, if not expediency.

Economic Consequences

The ultimate objective of all land reform is that (1) it should bringabout a better distribution of the available land; (2) it should improvethe lot of the peasants and (3) it should provide incentives to efficientagriculture resulting in increased production. There is hardly anydoubt that the first part of the objective has been attained with theabolition of the intermediaries. The transformation .of the occupancytenants into full fledged owner farmers has been attended by improvementon social conditions. As for the change in economic conditions, it can beassessed only by an appropriate economic enquiry in a sample of villagesselected on a random basis. The third part of the objective, increase inproduction, is of vital significance from the point of view of the society.If the dictum of Arthur Young that the magic of property turns sandinto gold is true, the erstwhile tenants of the zamindari areas shouldhave become enthusiastic agriculturists after the reform. Here too with-out a special enquiry, it will not be possible to determine the extent towhich the reform has provided incentives for increased production; forthere may be other adverse factors at work like lack of capital, techincalknow-how etc. This is particularly so in a period of adverse monsoonswhen the total production in the State, despite Grow More Food aids, ison the downgrade.

Payment of Compensation and Beneficiaries of the ReformIt is only on the basis of the findings Of enquiries conducted on thelines suggested that the question of whether the compensation to zamin-dars and inamdars should be paid entirely out of the general revenuesor a part of it should be collected from the beneficiaries in the zamindariareas can be settled. If the enquiries reveal that the lands in zamindariareas have appreciated in value on account of the reform measure, acase would be established for a special levy on these lands for building

u]a]iftl-

Tri

sa01

111

ce

hi15ex

indi]agPragStbaofFi

TA

lorshWE

th(Orofurco:fixla'

thhatotoanticAbyini

)t-Le-tily-)l etotorighoofhe.reatii-)o-of.y-;esss-

ngye!ntfly,heLey!ntbecesinty.ndildth-toForcal>nsis

,hein-lesanan, ang


up the zamindari abolition fund. At present, the benefits of the measureare enjoyed by the erstwhile tenants of the zamindari area while themajor cost of the measure is borne by the ryots in other areas to whomthe measure has no direct relevance.

Improvement of Relations in the Agricultural Sector

The abolition of the intermediaries between the State and the pea-sant in the zamindari and inam areas is the first lap of the major pro-gramme of land reform. It has brought about a large degree of unifor-mity in the tenurial structure of the State. But land problems are inceaseless flux. Every generation finds that new problems emergewhich it has to think out anew and solve. Sir Thomas Munro beganhis Ryotwari system as a genuine peasant proprietorship; but that was150 years ago. During these 150 years far reaching economic changes,exerting a continuous pressure on land, have thrown up a tenant classwhich is increasing in size and strength from day to day. This hasin turn created an inequitable distribution of land, multiplication ofdiminutive holdings, and in places shaky relations in the steps of theagricultural ladder. Among the diverse lines on which reform has toproceed, the problem of improved relations among the partners of theagricultural industry has got to take precedence over the rest in MadrasSlate. The Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act 1951 is applied to Mala-bar and portions of the South Kanara and Nilgiris districts. The objectof this type of legislation is the enforcement of the 3 Fs — Fair rent,Fixed tenure and Free transferability.

The Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act, 1952

Generally speaking the agricultural population is subject to an age-long social stratification of landowners, tenants and labourers. Relation-ship between these classes had cleteriorated in recent years and therewere signs of agrarian unrest in the district of Tanjore, the granary ofthe South. To improve the conditions, this Act, promulgated as anOrdinance in August 1952, was passed in November 1952. The causesof unrest were the eviction of tenants by landowners and low wages andunsatisfactory living conditions of agricultural labour. The Act hasconferred on the tenants security of tenure for a period of 5 years andfixed minimum wages for pannaiyals or farm servants engaged by thelandowner or tenant to do work in an agricultural year. The rent hasalso been fixed on the basis of 60: 40 of the gross produce betweenthe landowner and tenant. The share of the tenant in the "catch crop"has been fixed at four-fifths. The Act has also provided a machineryto settle agrarian disputes. The main objective of the Act has beento remove the basic causes of friction between the landowner, tenantand labourers. Legislation has been based generally on customary prac-tice in respect of rent, wages and sharing the costs of cultivation. TheAct, hailed as a "new deal" in the agriculture of this State, is inspiredby human .considerations and its working is being watched with greatinterest by students of social affairs.

/LAND REFORMS IN THE HYDERABAD STATE

by

S. Kesava Iyengar,Ex-Economic Adviser, Government of Hyderabad.

One of the first acts of the Military Government established inHyderabad after the Police Action in September 1948, was the incor-poration of Serf-e-Khas (Crown) lands into the diwani (Government)area. Except personal lands, all the territory held by the Nizam wastaken over and merged into Government lands. A lump sum compen-sation was fixed at Rs. 50 lakhs per annum. This amount is being paidby the Hyderabad Government while the privy purse of Rs. 50 lakhsis being met by the Central Government. Then came the Abolitionof Jagirs Regulation of 1948. The Tenancy and Agricultural LandsAct of 1950 was promulgated with a view to improving conditions inryotwari areas. Here and there, small areas are being granted to hail-jans and distressed muslims out of Government lands. The Social Ser-vice Department is working some small schemes for rehabilitatingthe aboriginal tribes. The campaign launched by Acharya VinobaBhave brought forth considerable voluntary gifts from big landholders,and more than that, improved the mutual relations as among tand-holders, tenants and landless workers. Another attempt is still in pro-gress of influential citizens visiting villages and bringing about tenantpurchases through pursuasion and conciliation in appropriate cases.Land reform policy has not yet been finalised in any part of India. Thedraft proposals by the Planning Commission in this respect may beexpected to bring about re-adjustments in Hyderabad as well as in otherStates.

Abolition of JagirsThe jagirs of Hyderabad covered an area of 25,600 square miles,

or 30.9 per cent of the total area and comprised 6,355 villages, or 29.5per cent of the villages in the State. Except in the caSe of the Samas-thans, the jagir villages were nowhere to be found in contiguous blocks.The annual income of a jagir ranged from Rs. 500 of a small maqta toRs. 25,00,000 of a great paigah. The main sources of income of thejagirs were land and excise revenues. Most of the large jagirs main-tained miniature administrations of their own, consisting of differentdepartments. In all jagirs the collection of revenue was the sole res-ponsibility of the jagirdars.

Because of these features, the standard of administration variedconsiderably in different jagirs. The new regulation which aimed atraising the standard of administration in the jagirs and at providingamenities to the ryots, completed the process of emancipation of thepeasants of Hyderabad from feudal landlordism. This far-reachingmeasure brought the administration of all areas in the state under oneunified control—a control which had for its aim the welfare of the people.

The Abolition of Jagirs Regulation provided for the payment tojagirdars and hissedars, of certain interim maintenance allowances,

leathEdivapiauttheofjagthetheallcdet

tiorGo)forthe

ofthepov

dietbya jzlawbe ;

absianc

Con

134'edbasi

perIf itthefurt

was

LAND REFORMS IN THE HYDERABAD STATE 115

leaving the question of commutation open for consideration later. Forthe administration of the jagirs, pending their assimilation with thediwani, a jagir administrator (and assistant jagir administrators) wasappointed by the Military Governor. Civil courts replaced the Atiyatauthority. Separate accounts were maintained for each jagir. To meetthe cost of administration, Government took over 25 to 58-1/3 per centof the gross revenue of each jagir, depending upon the income of thejagirs. After making certain deductions under Guzaras and other heads,the balance was distributed between the jagirdars and hissedars underthe new law. These payments constituted the interim maintenanceallowances payable until such time as the terms of commutation weredetermined.

In the case of jagirs granted to temples, mosques and other institu-tions established for religious or public purposes, the amount payable toGovernment did not exceed ten per cent and the balance was availablefor the maintenance of the institutions concerned in accordance withthe wishes of the grantor and in consonance with custom and usage.

The personal property of a jagirdar or hissedar, and the home farmof a jagirdar, were not touched. To settle the claims of jagirdars aboutthe size of their home farms, the Jagir Administrator was invested withpowers to determine the size and boundaries of the farms.

;. Another feature of the regulation was the substitution of the juris-diction of civil courts for the authority exercised under the Atiyat rulesby different officers. The Regulation laid down that the successsion toa jagirdar or hissedar should devolve in accordance with his personallaw, and that disputes regarding succession and ancillary matters shouldbe adjudicated by competent civil courts.

Officials in the employment of jagirs who were competent were3,

5 absorbed in Government service, while a pension or compensatory allow-ance or gratuity was paid to others if they had earned them.

Commutation Calculation.e

On the basis of the audited figures of 10 years gross revenue from1347 to 1356 F. (1936 to 1945 A.D.) the average annual income was work-ed out which, in terms of the Commutation Regulation was called "grossbasic sum".

When the gross basic sum was arrived at, it was reduced by 60It per cent in case of ordinary jagirs to arrive at the 'basic annual revenue'.Lg If it was jamiat jagir, at first a reduction of 20 per cent was effected andLe the resultant sum which was 'otherwise called 'net basic sum' was

further reduced by 60 per cent to come to the 'basic annual revenue'.Lee. To determine the commutation sum, the 'basic annual revenue'

was multiplied by the figures specified for the various categories of jagir


varying from 30 to 10 as tabulated below.

Basic annual revenueFigure by Alterana-which tive summultiplied

Rs.

1. Rs. 2,000 or less 302. More than Rs. 2,000 but not more than

Rs. 5,000 25 60,0003. More than Rs. 5,000 but 'not more than

Rs. 25,000 20 1,25,0004. More than Rs. 25,000 but not more than

Rs. 50,000 17 5,00,0005. More than Rs. 50,000 but not more than

Rs. 1,00,000 15 8,75,0006. More than Rs. 1,00,000 but not more than

Rs. 2,00,000 121- 15,00,0007. More than Rs. 2,00,000 10 25,00,000

Other ConcessionsRecently, a competitive examination was held for the educated J

children of the jagirdars. and the first 12 were taken into gazetted (administrative services. 'A Debt Settlement Commission is busy going 1into the debts of jagirdars and settling them. The ex-tenants became (full-fledged occupants in all these areas. Land revenue rates were re- Iduced to the usual ryotwari rates. Generally intelligent and enterpris-ing, and with liberal compensation paid and other facilities created, it 1can be reasonably expected that the ex-jagirdars will soon become useful Icitizens, and the ex-tenants self-reliant and prosperous landholders. c

The other reforms mentioned supra in connection with harijans,muslims, aborginal tribes and 'gifts', are mostly of token value. Evenso far as they go, the tendency has been to increase microscopic holdingswhile the Planning Commission suggest the co-operative method for thebenefit of small tenants and landless workers. The slogan 'land for thetiller', although sound on principle, has been found unworkable by thatCommission. On the other hand, they would encourage the migrationof small tenants-at-will and landless workers to industrial areas andchange over to tertiary services.

Ryotwari TenanciesThe Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1950 was

given effect to from June 10, 1950. The main objectives were given asfollows.

(a) The elimination of intermediaries between the tillers of the soiland the State by abolition of tenancy as an institution in aperiod of 3-5 years;

(b) Amelioration of the condition of tenants in the meantime;(c) Prevention of accumulation of lands in the hands of a few, and

also of excessive sub-division of land into uneconomic units;(d) Preservation of agricultural lands in their hands by prohibiting

alienation to non-agriculturists;

01

pSWin

LAND REFORMS IN THE HYDERABAD STATE 117

(e) Establishment and encouragement of co-operative farming; and

(f) Insistence on personal and efficient cultivation, on paid orneglected lands being taken over by Government under theirmanagement.

No distinction was made as among jagirdars, substantial owners ofryotwari lands, and medium and small holders. The General Adminis-tration Report (1950-1951) says: "There are 5,86,505 tenants in 15out of the 17 Districts of the State, cultivating 68,01,280 acres in lease.If all the protected tenants exercise the right (of tenant purchase) asit was expected, they will become full owners to the extent of 68 lakhsof acres, resulting in the elimination of the intermediaries between thetillers of the soil and the state to this extent."

Whittling Down of TermsThe terms of the Act and rules were speedily narrowed down in

many respects. For example, the maximum holding fixed originally at,ten times the economic holding, was reduced to five times. The pur-chase price was reduced for the tenant from four times to thrice thatannual gross produce. At first protected tenants were distinguishedfrom other tenants. At a later stage all tenants on June 10, 1950 weredeclared protected tenants. Next, while the Act gave the right to thelandholder to resume his lands for personal cultivation under certainconditions, such applications by a later order, were to be held up inde-finitely. Some of them did not pay anything at all. The jagirdars,as a rule, were not cultivators while ryotwari substantial holders ofland were cultivators or non-cultivators sheerly by accident or for tem-porary reasons: it would be ridiculous to make water-tight compartmentsof cultivating and non-cultivating substantial ryotwari landholders.The Planning Commission are definite about allowing the present socialorder in rural India while the Hyderabad Government has been, ofcourse unsuccessfully, trying to abolish tenancy altogether in ryotwarilands. The Planning Commission confine the use of the term "inter-mediaries" to zamindars and jagirdars, but the Hyderabad Governmentmake no distinction between jagirdari on the one hand and ryotwarion the other, in the use of the term. On June 10, 1951, the then RevenueMinister said: "While, for one thing, all the agrarian legislation inother parts of India applied to zamindari areas only, and was confinedto the regulation of relations between the zamindar and his tenant, theHyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act extends to all jagirs,inams and ryotwari lands in the State without any distinction whatever."

. But the Planning Commission observe, "There is little to begained by treating the leasing of land by small and middle class ownersas examples of absenteeism to be dealt with along the same lines asland belonging to substantial owners, which are cultivated by tenants-at-will."

There have been panicky and impracticable generalisations andorders. All tenants evicted March 1952 onward, must be given backpossession, even without an application by the tenant concerned, evenwith standing crops. Lawyers have been prohibited from appearingin revenue courts, in connection with land disputes.


EvasionBut actually, evasion of the law is the general feature all over the

State. Tenants do not attach much importance to protected tenancycertificates. In most cases, the rents entered in such certificates by thetahsil office, are much in excess of maximum rents laid down by therules. No one is inclined to go to the tahsil office, and most of the evic-tions have been styled "surrenders". Anticipating probable troublelater on, many substantial holders are selling away their lands, mostlyto non-tenants, in small plots, at much higher rates than permitted bythe rules. Unrecorded partitions are on the increase with a viewto escape from the probable fixation of the upper limit in the nearfuture.

A special session of the Hyderabad Legislative Assembly has beensummoned on November 21, 1952, for finalising land reforms in Hydera-bad. By the time this paper is read and discussed, some changes wouldhave been adopted. It is hoped that the changes would be root andbranch. In objectives, methods and machinery, there are fundamentaldifferences between the proposals of the Planning Commission on landreforms, and steps taken so far by the Hyderabad Government. It mustbe hoped that this serious inconsistency will be removed by the Hyde-rabad Legislature.

Desirable ChangesFive suggestions by the Planning Commission are well worth adop-

tion in .Hyderabad. The 'family farm' is to be the unit for determiningthe upper and lower limits, on the basis of manageability by a cultivatingfamily of average strength, with the customary assistance during theseasons. Of course, the area covered by a family farm should vary verywidely as between region and region, and varying standards of culti-vation. But this would be a much more understandable concept thanan "economic holding" which, according to the Hyderabad Government,is expected to yield an annual income of between Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 3,600.Secondly, the abolition of tenancy as an institution in ryotwari landsfinds support nowhere in the proposals of the Planning Commission,and the sooner the Hyderabad Government limit their objectives to pro-viding as many facilities as possible to tenants as they are and will con-tinue, the better. Tenant purchase might be made compulsory beyondthe upper limit, but should be optional in the case of medium and smalllandholders. Thirdly, the Planning Commission have suggested thatthe State Governments should issue bonds for enabling tenant purcha-sers to pay the retiring holders, to be recovered in instalments alongwith land revenue. In Hyderabad, land mortgage primary societies areexpected to finance tenant purchase, but the scheme is very small andfunds are hopelessly small.

Fourthly, there are no restrictions on transfers of land as betweenagricultural and non-agricultural holders in the Planning Commission'sproposals, but in Hyderabad, any transfer of land requires the previouspermission of the Collector.

"In order to prevent agricultural land passing into the hands of non-agriculturists, the Act decrees that no transfers of agricultural land, whe-ther to an agriculturist or to a non-agriculturist, should be effected with-out securing permission in advance of the talukdar (collector) concerned."

LAND REFORM LEGISLATION IN VARIOUS STATES 119

This is bound to debar the element of enterprise from agricultureand thus force down land values and landholders' solvency.

Lastly, available data in connection with land reforms are very poorand unreliable in Hyderabad as in other states. No distinction is madebetween cultivated and uncultivated areas, and irrigated and unirrigatedareas. So many holdings are unrecorded that a census of holdings mustinvolve a re-survey. It would be very helpful for the Hyderabad Govern-ment to set up a State Land Reform Organisation and entrust that bodywith the census of holdings in 1953.

\YA CRITICAL REVIEW OF LAND REFORM LEGISLATIONSINCE 1945 IN VARIOUS STATES

by

Dr. M. Srinivasan,

Lecturer in Agricultural Economics, Agricultural College, Bapatla.

A consciousness of the primacy and importance of agriculture hasbeen gathering momentum since 1939 and burst into action after theachievement of Independence in the shape of land reform legislation.There was an enthusiastic and uncritical acceptance of the doctrine of"ringing out the old and ringing in the new" in the agricultural sector.This took five forms of which the most important was reform of the landsystem and tenancy reform followed by reform of the size of the holding,by prevention of fragmentation and encouragement of consolidation, re-form of land utilisation, reform of farming and reform of taxation. Whe-ther the reforms carried out with the best of intentions have in factachieved the objectives pursued is a moot point engendering heat andcontroversy.

A long proclaimed goal of the congress party included in the ElectionManifesto was to remove the intermediaries between the tiller of the soiland the State—in short the abolition of Zamindari and vesting occupancyrights in the tenants. The evils of Zamindari are well known and neednot be recapitulated here. Zamindari abolition measures have beenadopted in Bihar, Madras, the Uttar Pradesh and the Madhya Pradeshand are in course of adoption in West Bengal, Assam and Orissa. Evenin Bombay where tenure holders such as Khots, Talukdars, Maleks, Meh-wasdars, Bhagadars and Narwadars enjoyed certain special privileges andrights in matters of land and land revenue, but otherwise free from Zamin-dar, legislation has been enacted to liquidate the special privileges.Similarly laws have been passed or are in course of enactment in theformer Indian states as Jammu and 'Kashmir and Hyderabad.

Most of the land reform legislation seems to be uncoordinated andpiecemeal. An all-India problem of the evils besetting a national indus-try requires action on a wide front and on a country wide scale. Aregional or provincial remedy for a national disease has led to lack ofuniformity and an appearance of tinkering with the problem. Somestates have been relatively lenient to the intermediaries while othershave virtually confiscated their holdings without compensation. No--


where is this diversity more evident than in the payment of compensa- wit]tion to the erstwhile owners. In Bihar the zamindars are entitled to whicompensation on a sliding scale varying inversely with the size of hold- oldings from 3 to 20 times the net annual income. In Madras the compen- daysation is not based on the current net income of the zamindars. The willrents received by them are first brought down to the level of rents pre- reqrvailing in the neighbouring ryotwari tracts and only one third of this Maris considered as legitimate annual income. In the Uttar Pradesh by the ConU.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act. compensation amounts On 1to eight times the zamindar's net income. A rehabilitation grant is also 194given at a graded rate to zamindars paying annual revenue not exceeding menRs. 10,000. The Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Bill provides all 1for compensation varying from 3 to 15 times the net income depending app]on the income group into which the payee falls. Similarly in Madhya resoPradesh the compensation, varies from 2 to 10 times the net annual ceedincome with rehabilitation grants for the smaller zamindars.

Not only is the amount of compenation variable but the method fixit:of payment of this also varies from cash or bonds or both in Bihar to effeccash payments in all cases paid in a lump sum if the basic annual sumdoes not exceed Rs. 3000/- and instalments for larger amounts in Madras.

Lan(of "i

The payment will be by bonds in Uttar Pradesh. Some times the bonds of diare transferable and often non-transferable. if h(

Similarly the rights acquired vary in nature. In Bihar the rights canntaken over include interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, ferries, land.hats, bazaars, mines, and minerals while forests were taken over in mattMadras. Other states merely dispossessed the landlords of their lands ed a(or curtailed their special privileges as in Bombay. ing (

Another diversity lies in the disposal of the lands acquired. In TheBihar there is a provision for entrusting the management of the estates tamntaken over to gram panchayats with a State Land Commission at the agrictop to advise the Government on problems of agrarian policy. In Madras comrmanagers are being appointed to run these estates under the direct Corm

control and supervision of the district collectors. In Uttar Pradesh progi

there is, unlike in Bihar, a division in the method of disposal. The assur

tenants who pay 12 times their annual rent will be given occupancy 1(bhumidar's rights). There is also provision for establishing in each of a (village a gaon, samaj consisting of the entire adult population. Pro- Pradlvision is made of vesting of certain land; forests, public wells, fisheries,bazaars, abadi sites etc., in the gam samaj. A gaon sabha will be put

fixingother

in charge of general superintendence, management and control of these landand it will attend to development of agriculture and its improvement,forestry, communications, cottage industries etc. In Madhya Pradesh

thouenvis

proprietary rights -in an estate are vested in the State and occupancy musttenants can acquire Malik-Malbuza rights from the State on payment priceof an amount equal to 3 times the annual rent. In Orissa the manage- mustment of estates will be entrusted to village panchayats or co-operative loanssocieties. Thus mere abolition of Zamindaris seems to be the objective for ain certain states while others as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have tried a Rs. 1(hand at a more positive attitude of land management and rural recon- of pastruction. annul

As the above summary shows the problem of land reform is a many of .acrfaceted one requiring a uniform and constant approach in all states with and s'local variations to suit local conditions. The evils of indirect contact cattle;


with the ryots stemming from foreign rule, the vexatious exactions towhich they are subject and the neglect of land improvements are age-old and perennial problems of our agriculture. It is recognised now-a-days that a mere negative action implied in the abolition of Zamindariswill not create a heaven on our earth and a more positive attitude isrequired with an all-India approach. It may be the Co-operative VillageManagement of the Planning Commission or the creation of a LandCommission recommended by the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee.On the other hand we find diversity even in negative actions taken since1945 in land reform. The amount of compensation, the method of pay-ment, the rights taken over, the method of disposal of the land acquiredall vary from state to state. This betrays a hasty and lack of plannedapproach to the subject. The termination of maldistribution of landresources and of sub-infeudation is not an end in itself. What is to suc-ceed thereafter deserves serious cogitation.

Many states have also attempted tenancy reforms aimed to givefixity of tenure, fairness of rent and compensation for improvementseffected. Bombay leads the field with its Tenancy and AgriculturalLands Act laying down maximum rent payable and preventing evictionof "protected" tenants. Here again diversity is found in the legislationof different states. In Bombay the landlord can terminate the tenancyif he wants to use the land for any non-agricultural purpose and hecannot exercise this right if he is cultivating 50 acres or more of otherland. We find that in this statute decisions have been taken on threematters which are of all-India import and hence necessitating coordinat-ed action namely the conversion of land to non-agricultural use, the ceil-ing of 50 acres laid down and the continuance of tenancy cultivation.The Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee believes in order to main-tain the agronomic balance of the village conversion of land to non-agricultural use should not be done without the sanction of the villagecommunity or any other authority under the Land Commission. TheCommittee feared that in villages near big industrial towns and as India'sprogramme of industrial development got into stride this problem wouldassume more serious dimensions.

Lack of unanimity of opinion is also found regarding the impositionof a ceiling on holdings. The Zamindari Abolition Commission in UttarPradesh (1947) and the Famine Enquiry Commission (1943) were againstfixing any ceiling to individual holdings on various grounds. On theother hand the Kumarappa Committee recommended that a ceiling toland holdings should be fixed at 3 times the size of the economic holdingthough it has nowhere defined the extent of the economic holding itenvisages. The minimum area to be allotted to a middle class familymust be such as to enable it to maintain itself not only in times of highprices but also in times of economic depression and sufficient marginmust be provided for droughts, seasonal calamities, interest charges onloans etc. Considering the above facts the minimum area to be fixedfor a middle class family, some argue, should be an area fetchingRs. 10,000 per annum and calculating at the present rate of Rs. 2 a paraof paddy in Travancore-Cochin land fetching 5000 paras of paddy perannum should be allowed to be held by a single family. The numberof .acres allotted must be the area that is actually cultivated with paddyand so exemption must be given to the area covered by tanks, canals,cattlestand, labourhuts, seed beds and area for other agricultural opera--


tions complementary to the holding like thrashing floors, gardens orthopes or private forests attached to the lands. Some believe that 70acres of double crop land—if single crop the area to be increased cor-respondingly—may be fixed as an economic holding. The Madras LandReforms Committee has suggested 50 acres and the Travancore-CochinMinistry 30 acres. This goes to show that the whole concept of econo-mic holding, and consequently maximum holding is nebulous and cannotbe defined with precision.

•Land Reform legislation may have to vary to suit different partsof India owing to historical developments—what is applicable maydo injustice to another. Thus in this state of Travancore-Cochin thenature of land tenure in Travancore is different from that of Cochin. Thequality and fertility of the soils in both the places vary. Hence it isimproper to introduce and effect land legislation without a detailedscientific investigation by land and revenue experts. A danger of con-ferring proprietary rights on tenants so called who cultivated throughagents is shown by the settlement proclamation of 1080 M.E. in CochinState by which the Cochin Government has parted with all rights exceptthe rights to mines, minerals, treasure grove etc. to the tenantsabsolutely and made him a full proprietor subject to the payment of landrevenue. Thus tenants or agents working with hired labour may beenthroned as proprietors nullifying the objective namely that the actualtiller of the soil should own the land instead of non-cultivatinglandlords.

On the third point regarding the continuance of tenancy cultivationthe Kumarappa Committee was against the practice of subletting andrecommended personal cultivation except in the case of minors, widows,disabled persons etc. The Land Reforms Committee has agreed withthis view. Thus in the matter of resumption of cultivation by the land-lord, the size of holding, the continuance of tenancy and other vitalaspects of land reform we find a babel of recommendations and a welterof confusion. There is no unanimity in vital matters of land policy andreform.

Alienation particularly in favour of non-agriculturists is a curse tobe guarded against. The Bombay Tenancy Act of 1948 has provisionsregarding the transfer of lands. No sale, gift, exchange or lease of anyland shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist. Landcan be sold only at a reasonable price to be determined by a Tribunaland to persons in the following order of priority (sections 63-66 of theAct); the tenant in actual possession of the land, the cultivator of con-tiguous lands, a co-operative farming society registered under the BombayCo-operative Societies Act, 1925, any other agriculturist or a person whohas obtained from the regional authority a certificate that he intends totake to the profession of agriculturist. It is evident that the section doesnot apply to owner-cultivators but it applies only in case of sales of landseffected by landlords or lessors. Therefore, if the legislation has to reachthe bulk of the peasantry, the word "landlord" in the Section (64)(1)should be substituted by the word "landowner" in which case it wouldinclude both lessors and owner-cultivators.

The Tenancy Ordinance promulgated in Hyderabad in August, 1952provides that those who were evicted from their lands since March 21,this year would be restored possession of their lands by the districtcollectors. The Ordinance declares void the sale of all lands (with

celoYEw.PEvire

0]

JrID

SE

or70or-ndlinto-lot

rtsLay:he'heis

led)n-ghun

ptitsndbeLualng

ion.ndvs,

ithad-LtalterLn d

to

Lfl

LndnaltheDn-)ayrhotoDesidsich(1)aid

)5221,let

ith


certain exceptions regarding lands held by "protected tenants") by land-lords to any person other than a protected tenant after March 21, thisyear. From the date on which the Ordinance comes into force, no courtwill entertain petitions from landlords for eviction of tenants and suchpetitions now pending in the courts will be stayed. The Ordinance pro-vides punishment for such landlords who evict their tenants and eitherretain the land themselves or give it to others, with imprisonment notexceeding six months or fine not exceeding Rs. 200/- or both. TheOrdinance applies only to classes of lands to which the HyderabadTenancy Agricultural Land Act, 1950, applies. The Chief Minister in hisIndependence Day broadcast has announced that a new Tenancy Bill,more radical than the present Act, will be introduced in the Novembersession of the State Assembly.

The prohibition of alienation is a motive which deserves praise as thetransfer of land to absentee landlords and the reduction in the status ofpeasants to tenant-at-will is not conducive to healthy apiculture. Thereare alienation acts galore especially in the Punjab, Bihar etc.

Similarly provisions have been included in recent legislation for fixityof tenure and fairness of rent in order to give the tenant the incentive (theproverbial carrot) to increased production. The Zamindari Abolition andLand Reforms Act, 1951 of Uttar Pradesh provides for fixation of rents,regulation of ejectment and acquirement of bhumidari rights by adivasis.The Agricultural Ryots and Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act inMadhya Pradesh protects tenants from ejectment. Similarly WestBengal Bargadars (Crop-sharer's) Act 1950, the Mysore AlienatedVillages (Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1949,the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950, and Ordinances in thePunjab, Saurastra,_ Hyderabad etc., aim at protection of the tenants.Unfortunately these— admirable pieces of legislation as the CongressAgrarian Reform Committee has pointed out seem to be more honouredin the breach than in the observance and remain dead letters on thestatute book. Alienation is a bad thing and tenants ought to be pro-tected but the Acts do not tackle the root cause of the evil. The economicclimate needs change; mere tampering with the thermometer will notalter the temperature or the facts. The implementation of the laws isdifficult due to land hunger and population pressure. An inelasticsupply of land meets an ever-growing demand for it and lessees oftenhelp the violation of the laws designed to protect them. Hence a funda-mental remedy lies elsewhere beyond the ken of individual states. Apolicy of industrialisation, allocation of scarce resources to imports ofcapital equipment, diversion of man power from consumption goodsindustry and luxury trades and elimination of "spivs" has to be formu-lated by the centre to drain the pressure on land.

A fundamental lacunae in the land reform legislation of most stateslies in the absence of any provision for good husbandry. The evils ofrnaldistribution ought to be corrected, the land hunger assuaged and thetenants protected. But this alone will not lead to agricultural efficiency.Short shrift should be given to cultivators who offend the canons of goodhusbandry. .For the moneylender-landlord (King Log) one should not sub-stitute a peasant with vested interest (King Stork). The Congress Agra-rian Reforms Committee aptly remarks "the cultivator is more or less atrustee of the social asset. If he fails to discharge the obligation of thetrust it is only reasonable that he should be divested of the trust". Even


Manu enjoined on the King to inflict penalties on a cultivator who failedto maintain the standard of efficiency of cultivation. The 1947 Agri-culture Act of Great Britain lays down in Section 9 the responsibility tofarm the land in accordance with the rules of good husbandry on ownersof agricultural lands. Section 16 of the Act provides for the dispossessionof owners or occupiers on grounds of bad estate management or badhusbandry. The Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee suggests that theRegional Authority (to be set up according to its recommendations) at _the instance of the village community may enforce some test of goodhusbandry though it recognises the formidable nature of the task owingto the fact that agricultural statistics are not comprehensive enough.

To step up the efficiency of agriculture the Government of Madras in1948 introduced the Madras Agricultural Bill on the lines of the BritishAgriculture Act though it was allowed to languish. The objects of theBill were (1) to vest Government with power to compel owner of land toraise the crop required by the State (2) to assure landholders a fair priceand a good market for their produce (3) to empower Government to pre-scribe and enforce reasonable standards of efficient management and goodhusbandry and (4) to empower Government to take charge of the land andarrange for its efficient cultivation wherever cultivation fails to reach theprescribed minimum standard of efficiency. Efficiency factors may bedifficult to compute, time and motion studies are in their rudiments evenin industry yet productivity per man-hour should be increased if the foodproblem is to be solved.

A facet of this problem is the enormous rise in land values often in-flated by extraneous considerations which have taken place during andsince the war. The Rural Reconstruction Commission of Australia hasemphasised the dangers of such an artificial land boom. It is difficult foran industrious peasant to start mounting the "agricultural ladder" oreven to consolidate his holding. None of the states has undertakenlegislation to control land values though this inflation leads to evils ofoverborrowing, excessive capitalisation of land etc. In this connectionthe Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee has suggested that rea-sonable value of the rights in land should be determinedby the Regional Land Tribunal according to the principle of"capitalisation of the net income on the basis of the currentrate of interest". The village community was to take cogni-sance of any sale of land at a rate above the value determined by theLand Tribunal. Incidentally the Bombay Tenancy and AgriculturalLands Act, 1948 sets up an Agricultural Lands Tribunal for valuation of}ands concerned under Sections 32 and 64 of the Act and to dischargeother functions assigned to it. But this body determines only valuationfor purposes of compensation connected with the problem of the abolitionof the estates in order to assure justice to the satisfaction of all concerned.It has no power to check a rise in land values and hence is ineffective withregard to the problem posed above.

Mere reform of the land system is of no value in increasing theefficiency of agriculture unless accompanied by an increase in the size ofholdings. This involves prevention of further subdivision and con-solidation of fragmented holdings and co-operative farming. In January1948 the Government of Bombay passed the Prevention of Fragmentationand Consolidation of Holdings Act providing for determination of"standard" areas for the different classes of lands in different localities.

1

13

11

sc

n-oiirAezoftcal

Y(

pESi(

SU

TIE

cl

is

Leit)dLg

in

ie3h

toceie-odadhebeenod

in-ndlasforor:enofionea-iedof

ent

thetrialof

rge,ionAonied.rith

thee of2on-larytion

ofties.


"Standard" area was defined as area which could be cultivated economic-ally and all holdings smaller than the standard size thus determined areconsidered fragments. A fragment could not be transferred or leasedunless for consolidation with a contiguous survey number. Partition ofland which results in such fragments is prohibited. The Act providesthat Government may on its own initiative or on application undertakeconsolidation of holdings in any village in Bombay State. The Act laysdown the procedure for consolidation and provides for the creation ofsuitable machinery to carry out the work of consolidation. The ownerof any land who transferred or partitioned land contrary to the provisionsof this Act was liable to pay a fine not exceeding Rs. 20/- as directed bythe collector. This sum seems to be too low to be an effective deterrent.The scheme prepared by the consolidation officer was to provide for thepayment of compensation to any owner who was allotted a holding of lessmarket value than that of his original holding and for the recovery ofcompensation from any owner who was allotted a holding of greatermarket value than that of his original holding. The Ordinance promul-gated by the Hyderabad Government early in 1950 for the enforcementof the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Bill is framed on thelines of the Bombay Tenancy Act and provides for the prevention of ex-cessive sub-division of holdings and for registration of co-operative farms.

Similar legislation with the element of compulsion exists in EastPunjab (1948) where a plan was prepared in 1950 for completing the workof consolidation in the state in the course of 6 years, and in MadhyaPradesh. In Bombay the cost of consolidation work to the Governmentis Rs. 7/- lakhs a year but it has been estimated that the sum is triflingin comparison with the gains to the villages because efficient farming ispromoted and litigation and boundary disputes minimised. On Novemberof this year it was announced that the Uttar Pradesh Government hasdecided to launch consolidation in the 13 Community Project Areas andin villages selected for intensive development. In the Uttar Pradeshscheme the Land Management Committee of the village panchayat willdecide the valuation of holdings and allot consolidated plots to holders.Complaints against unfair awards will be heard by the District Consoli-dation Officers to be appointed by Government. Uttar Pradesh Govern-ment intends to finance the scheme by levying a cess of Rs. 4/- per acreon all landholders which may not be popular. The consolidation of hold-ings is not new to Uttar Pradesh as in 1940 the Consolidation of HoldingsAct was on the statute book but not much success was achieved by theseearlier efforts. The PEPSU Government has introduced a Consolidationof Holdings Act on the lines of the East Punjab enactment and a schemeto complete consolidation in 7 to 10 years. Only Madras has not takenany steps in this direction so far though Dr. Gilbert Slater as long as 35years ago pointed out the need for a thorough enquiry into the subject.

Apart from lack of trained officers, non-uniformity of soils as inMadras rendering consolidation ineffective, the undue attachment of thepeasant to inherited, uneconomic holdings and the objection to compul-sion expressed by democratic souls, the main obstacle to the success ofsuch legislation lies in the population pressure on land. The increasingnet reproduction rate finds no outlet in industrial avenues and tends to

1 26 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

concentrate on land. Unless the two fundamental and twin problems ofIndia are tackled on an all-India scale namely, family limitation andplanning (through the rhythm method or any other method) and indus-trialisation the surplus population will continue to live on land and makeholdings uneconomic. Owing to the disintegration of the joint family,legislation embodying principles of primogeniture may be considered,however repugnant to Indian feelings. Otherwise the "land clamour"will continue unabated irrespective of legislative enactments.

The problem of land utilisation has come into prominence after theGrow More Food campaign was launched. Even in England the Barlow.Scott and Uthwatt reports and the Stamp survey tried to tackle the sameproblem. In September, 1950 with a view to making the maximum utili-sation of all available waste and arable land in the state for food produc-tion the Madras Government under the Essential Supplies (TemporaryPowers) Act, 1946 issued the Madras Land Utilisation Order. Thisempowers the district collector, subject to appellate control of Govern-ment, to call upon the holder of any waste or arable land which has notbeen cultivated during the cultivation season immediately prsecedhngthe date of notice, to cultivate it with food crops either personally orthrough a lessee within a period of 3 months from the date of the notice.Food crops are defined to include all cereals, grams, pulses, vegetablesand such other crops as Government may specify. Failure to complywith the notice will involve the sale by public auction of the right tocultivate the land for a period of 3 years. The purchaser of the rightof cultivation is bound to cultivate the land with food crops and is liableto certain penalties if he fails to do so. Out of the proceeds of the auc-tion, land revenue and other dues to Government will be deducted andthe balance will be made over to the owner of the land as compensation.The Growth of Food Crops Act in Madhya Pradesh and the IntegratedProduction Programme are examples of attempts to control land utilisa-tion. The Bombay Tenancy Act has also got provision for managementof uncultivated lands and badly managed estates held under any non-ryotwari tenurial patterns. , The problem faced here is not simple anddepends on the free play of market forces and the profit motive. Exceptin a regimented economy it is impossible to conceive of success by legis-lation to hold back economic tides. Peasants the world over are obdu-rate and refuse to conform to pattern.

The cultivation of fallow land is a branch of land reform which hasbeen attempted in many states. The Madras measure and various ten-ancy reform Acts have provided for this. On August 18th, 1952 twoordinances were promulgated in PEPSU with the specific object of bring-ing uncultivable land under the plough. The first is entitled the PEPSUUtilisation of Lands Ordinance and empowers Government to take pos-session of lands which remain uncultivated for 2 or more years. Landstaken possession of by the Government would be leased out to properpersons for a period of not less than 7 years and not more than 20years for growing food, cotton or fodder crops. It provides for due com-pensation to owners who are dispossessed of their land. The secondOrdinance entitled Reclamation of Land Ordinance empowers Govern-ment to take possession of waste lands with a view to their reclamation.

ofadEs-ke[Y,

r7,

hew,neLii-

ry

711-

lotngorce.les)1ytoçhtDle-lc-nd)n.:edsa-Hat*)n-ndptis-lu-

lasHa-wo

-SUOs-idsDer20rn-

ndrn-on.


The owners of such lands would be liable to pay reclamation costs in-curred by Government. Such land would not be kept by Governmentfor more than 10 years.

The food problem has accentuated the need to tap waste lands andschemes to clear kans infested land in Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Bharat,and Uttar Pradesh under the Central Tractor Organisation deserve men-tion. The proposal to introduce co-operative farming and the obstaclesto its implementation are not relevant to the present discussion. TheFood Grains Policy Committee's Final Report (1948) thought that outof 10 million tons increase in foodgrain production to be aimed at, 3 mil-lion tons should come from the culturable waste lands to be reclaimedWithin a certain period. Dr. V. K. R. V. Rao in his minute of dissentto this report has pointed out the objections to the reclamation of uncul-tivated land. It is costly being sub-marginal land and involves expen-diture of foreign exchange especially dollar resources. It requires largevolumes of imported equipment and other materials and ,add to ourdependence on loans from abroad as from the International Bank forReconstruction and Development in 1949. In no state has the socialcost been counted or the lessons of like experiments such as at Kongvain Tanganyika been taken into account. Nor is there unanimity as todisposal of the reclaimed land—some advocating collective farming, somestate farming, others co-operative farming and most states followingthe line of least resistance and parcelling the land into 10 acre bits forresettling refugees. One state has attempted all three side by side.More information is necessary on the economics of reclamation andgreater uniformity in objectives than is found in these enactments.

Finally land taxation is in need of reform also. Agricultural incometax has been introduced in Bihar, Bengal, Assam, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh,Travancore-Cochin and Coorg. Madras toyed with the proposal underthe late Ministry. This subject has been adequately dealt with in aprevious conference.

From a review of land legislation in various states the conclusionis inescapable that an all-India body is necessary to co-ordinate hapha-zard legislation, formulate uniform policies and attend to their enforce-ment. A Gosplan or even a Pflimlin plan is necessary to reconstructand revitalise our agriculture. Whether the National Planning Com-mission will fulfil this role remains to be seen. A five, three or two yearplan with definite targets of legislation drafted by one body, a rovingcommission to enquire into local variations and discover that long lostperson; the actual tiller of the soil and an accelerated extension servicealone can instil confidence and raise the hopes of India's downtroddenmillions.

' A CRITICAL REVIEW OF LAND REFORMS LEGISLATIONSINCE 1945 IN THE TATE OF MADRAS

by

N. N. Natarajan,

Vivekananda College, Madras.

It is proposed to make a review of the changes, accomplished andcontemplated, in land tenure, in the state of Madras since 1945. Inrecent years, many states in India have undertaken important landreform legislation. The atmosphere is thick with rumours of revo-lutionary changes in regard to land ownership, land tenure and taxa-tion. Agriculture is faced with the most difficult of problems, whichhave to be solved satisfactorily. We must remember that land reformsmust be judged solely on the driterion of the effect of the reforms onthe general welfare of the public at large. Difficult problems are notsolved by paying heed to mere slogans. We must find out the systemwhich will yield the best results in terms of social welfare. It is neces-sary that legislation should not be undertaken on considerations of pureparty passions. Land should be entrusted to that person who canput it to the best use, irrespective of the particular name by which he iscalled. If the objective is the welfare of the community, this funda-mental principle must be borne in mind. No useful purpose will heserved by uprooting existing systems without formulating new onessatisfactorily to take their place. What is most important is theefficiency of land utilisation. In most of the tenancy systems in Europe,there is a clause governing rules of good husbandry.

The problems of land tenure in India have roots spread throughthe entire economy and the remedies are to be sought both within andwithout agriculture. Agriculture in India is a deficit economy and itsproblems are structural and fundamental. The majority of Indianfarmers are low-income or sub-marginal farmers and as such they havelittle marketable surplus. Moreover, there is widespread underemploy-ment of the agricultural producer and the rural craftsman. There is amaladjustment between poulation and agricultural production. Inrecent years, certain favourable circumstances have been- present, name-ly, high prices of products, legislation affording greater security to thecultivating tenant, public investment on a fairly large-scale etc. But,in spite of these favourable circumstances, there has been no markedincrease in production. Indian agriculture is backward and static, notprogressive and dynamic. It is not able to expand and keep pace withthe growing numbers in the country. This is the fundamental struc-tural weakness in the rural economy. Subsistence farming must bereplaced by economic farming and farming operations must bemade more efficient. Agriculture must be converted into a surplus eco-nomy. To the extent to which this is accomplished, the Indian economyas a whole will advance. Recent land reform legislation is not uniformin the various States in India, because the conditions of tenure differwidely. But there are certain common characteristics—abolition ofzamindari system and conferment of proprietorship rights upon occu-pancy tenants, protection of tenants-at-will and fixing a ceiling on hold-ings held by an individual. The central problem of Indian agriculture

a

atir;titi

ti13

In

tl-g(ar

artl]reat

idCn.id-

ris

-

pnot

Lreanisla-beies,hepe,

.ghLndits[aniveoy-s aTnne-the

cednotrith.u.c-bebe

my)rnafferof

;cu-Dld-ure

LAND REFORM LEGISLATION IN MADRAS 129

is its low productivity and any scheme of agrarian reform must be inti-mately related to the urgent task of raising the yield of land.

• In the present context of food deficit, the paramount objective oftenurial reform should be to increase productivity. A major reform hasbeen accomplished, namely, the abolition of the zamindari system in thestate of Madras. The main objectives of the Zamindari Abolition Actwere the abolition of the concentration of land in a few hands and thehierarchy of rights together with the consequent evils of sub-infeuda-tion. The Act has worked a wider distribution of rights in landed pro-perty and has worked towards social justice. But the change in theownership 'of land and the status of the erstwhile tenants does notappear to have materially altered the level of efficiency in agriculture.With the extension of ryotwari tenure to zamindari areas, the tenancyproblem has now assumed a uniform complexion throughout the state.In any attempt at tenurial reform, it must be borne in mind, as Dr. B.Natarajan points out, that "even as there is an agricultural ladder, thereis an agricultural triangle of which the landholder, tenant and landlessagricultural worker form the three arms. The interests of these threeparties act and react upon one another. If the remuneration of one ofthe three is pitched high, that of either of the other two or both willhave to be low. In short, the objective of reconstruction of the tenurialand wage systems should be the attainment of a triangular equipoise inthe agricultural sector."1

The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Actof 1948 provides for the abolition of zamindari tenure, and paying thezamindars compensation. The Act has adopted a national basic rate forthe purpose of calculating compensation. The whole estate is to beassessed to ryotwari land revenue rates; then the total landrevenue demand will be reduced to one third and after deductinganother 13-1/3 per cent, out of this one third to meet the cost of collec-tion and administration, to treat the balance, that is, 20% as the basicrate for the purpose of compensation. The total amount of compensa-tion is determined according to a sliding scale ranging from 121 to 30times the basic rate. In the case of whose inams, the basic rate will behalf the ryotwari assessment minus certain deductions. The governmenthas not given concrete figures to show what proportion the compensa-tion determined as indicated above, would bear to the net income actual-ly derived by the zdinindars. The compensation is determined for theestate as a whole and not separately for each interest therein.

In 1949, the Government of Madras published a bill called theMadras Agricultural Bill, for the improvement of agriculture in Madras,modelled on the British Agriculture Act, 1947. The objects of the Billwere to vest government with power to compel owners of land to raisethe crop required by the state, to assure landholders a fair price, and agood market for their produce, to empower government to prescribeand enforce reasonable standards of efficient management and good hus-bandry and to empower government to take charge of the land andarrange for its efficient cultivation, wherever cultivation fails to reachthe prescribed minimum standard of efficiency. The bill failed toreceive public support and had to be dropped. This abortive attemptat legislation emphasises the need for and the importance of efficient

1. Natarajan, Dr. B., Food and Agriculture in Madras State, p. 150.

130 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC&

agriculture. If agriculturists do not improve the methods of production,then sooner or later some compulsion will be found necessary to forcethe march of agriculture. At the same time, the Bill betrayed a naiveif well meaning belief that if the externals of British agricultural orga-nisation could be imitated, a new life might be put into our agriculture.The British Agricultural Act, 1947, was fashioned to deal with condi-tions which have little in common with the conditions of Indian agri-culture, whether we regard the matter from the viewpoint of historical,development, economic importance or the human factor. In 1950 theGovernment of Madras issued the Madras Land Utilisation Order whichempowered the district collector to call upon the holder of any waste orarable land to cultivate it with food crops. Failure to comply with thenotice will involve the sale of the right to cultivate the land for aperiod of three years. This order may be said to embody the first ofthe objects of the Madras Agricultural Bill. The problem of land utili-sation in India is of great significance now. An overall assessment ofland utilisation involving a comprehensive study of all the aspects ofnational economy has to be made now. Indian economy is now suffer-ing from a triple shortage of food, industrial raw materials and primaryproducts needed to earn foreign exchange. The short term objective ofland utilisation should be the elimination of this triple shortage. Thelong-term objective should be to raise maximum cereal food on mini-mum land space.

The _Government of Madras have published certain proposals forthe levy of a surcharge on land revenue. These proposals if adopted,will hit the middle class landholder, far more seriously than even theproposals formulated before on the basis of the Subrahmanyam Com-mittee's recommendations. Under the present bill only those payingRs. 50/- or less as land revenue will be exempt. The sliding scale forthose who pay more will be four annas for Rs. 51/- to Rs. 100/-, eightannas for Rs. 101 to Rs. 500/-, twelve annas for Its. 501 to Rs. 1000/- andone rupee for all paying more than Its. 1000/-. The exemption limit is toolow and the surcharge rates are far too steep. They will bear harshlyon those who live near the margin of subsistence. Mr. Raghavendra Rao,the Special Officer who reported before the Subrahmanyam Committeeset to work, held that the exemption limit should be not less thanRs. 250/-. He further held that the maximum surcharge should notexceed three or four annas. The surcharges the Madras Governmen propose are much higher that the income-tax on the same levels of in-come. Whereas the income-tax exempion limit is Rs. 3600/-, the ex-emption from surcharge under the present bill is only for those who paya land revenue of Rs. 50/- a year—a sum which may roughly be takenas levied on a holding comprising five acres of wet land. The incomefrom such a holding is Rs. 400/- per year to-day. The owner of such aholding will have to pay a large share of his income as land revenue.There are some anomalies in the bill. There is a provision in the billwhich says that if a registered holding is split up by a family partitionand the divided members' shares are normally liable to pay surchargesat a lower 'rate than that levied on the property before partition, thegovernment will, for three years ignore the partitions and levy sur-charges at the higher rate on the divided shares. On the other hand, ifa property that was liable to surcharge at a lower rate is bought by aman who owns other property, he will have to pay on the newly acquir-ed land too the higher rate applicable to his total holding.

aa

aIir.

t]

p,

1E

bib(

as.ti(bEle;chhi,re,beSi(ticla]

ofcu:Or

e

)rLea)f

DfDfr-

of

Li-

or

orhthtadooLly10,;eeanlot!ntin-

ay.en:nea

)ill.on;estheur-, ifr a

LAND REFORM LEGISLATION IN MADRAS 131

The Tanjore Ordinance, promulgated on 23rd of August, 1952, doesnot confine itself to the prevention of eviction of tenants or restorationof those who have been evicted. It confers what is in effect occupancyright for a term of five years on varam and fixed lease tenants. Theproduce is to be shared between the land-owner and the tenant. Theshare of the tenant is to be 40 per cent. of the gross produce. It fixesthe wages payable to pannaiyals, at rates higher than the present rates.Wages shall be paid to the pannaiyalskand the members of their familiesfor each day of work done according to custom, either in accordancewith the terms of the Mayuram agreement dated 28th October, 1948 orat the following rates in kind:

2 marakkals of paddy for every adult male worker,1 7narakkal of paddy for every adult woman worker, andmarakkal of paddy for every worker not being an adult.

The Ordinance applies to all lands, except those held by a landownerin any village if the land held by him in such village does not exceed oneveli, which is 6-2/3 acres. The Ordinance provides for the constitutionof revenue courts which will decide disputes arising between landownerand the tenants or pannaiyals. No tenant can be evicted except on anapplication made in that behalf to the revenue court. The Governmentmay appoint any person for any area specified, to be a conciliation officer.When a landowner dismisses a pannaiyal, he must make a report withina week to the conciliation officer. He will give his award which will bebinding. Civil courts are debarred from jurisdiction over the autho-rities set up under this Ordinance. Regarding catch crops like blackgram and green gram, the whole produce is to be taken by the tenant.No tenant can be evicted until the expiry of a period of five years fromthe commencement of the agricultural year 1952-53. A tenant can beevicted, during this period, only on the grounds that he has failed topay rent within one month of due date, that he damaged the crops orland, that he used the land for non-agricultural purposes, that he sub-let the land, or that his conduct, in the opinion of the revenue court,was undesirable in the interests of good cultivation. No tenant shallbe evicted on any of these grounds, except on application made in thatbehalf to the revenue court.

The Ordinance bears all the marks of hasty draftsmanship as well.as certain other defects arising from certain minconceptions. Difficul-ties are likely to arise from the proposal to evict all tenants who havebeen let in since December 1951 and reinstate their predecessors, regard-less of the merits or the circumstances that had brought about thechange. If a landowner desired to resume pannai or self-cultivation ofhis lands during these five years, he must be allowed to do so. Asregards exemptions from the purview of the Ordinance, the limit shouldbe at least two velis, or 13-1/3 acres. As regards catch crops, the provi-sion in the Ordinance savours of partiality to the tenant. The cultiva-tion involves no capital or labour. It should be shared between thelandowner and the tenant on a half and half basis. As Mr. K. G. Siva-swami has pointed out, elsewhere, "it is not clear if the exemption limitof 6-2/3 acres covers single crop or double crop lands. Further, if acultivating tenant held more than 6-2/3 acres, was he affected by theOrdinance?"


The Ordinance introduces a system of dyarchy in the administra-tion of agriculture. The tenant is made responsible for the seed, plough-ing, manuring the land, etc., and the landowner is made responsible fortaxes, cesses, etc., and for repairs of irrigation work. Disputes are boundto arise in many matters, such as the variety of seed to be grown, thetype of manure to be used, the time when ploughing is to 'be starchedetc.' There is no obligation laid on the tenant to inform the landownerof cultivation operations or even the date of harvest. The Ordinance ,seeks to oust the landowner from his natural place in the agriculturaleconomy. The focus of authority is shifted from that of the landowner.The landlord must be entrusted with the task of directing the processof cultivation. He has the necessary resources and facilities and alsoexperience. The tenant should give notice to the landlord at every-stage of cultivation. This must be laid down in the legislative enact-ment. The landowner is deprived of his initiative and is reduced tothe position of a rent receiver, similar to that of a maintenance holder.So long as the capitalistic structure of the economy is retained, the inci-dents that go with ownership should not be so separated. It is a matterto be considered whether the divesting of the control and the initiativefrom the landlord is a wise step from the point of view of production.

A distinction must be made and kept, between the varamdar andthe lessee. Now both are given the same share of the produce. Thedifference between the pannaiyal, the varamdar and the fixed leasetenant would have to be kept up. The pannaiyal worked for dailywages. The varamdar took a joint interest in the cultivation of land.He received his remuneration or varam in a consolidated form. Thefixed lease tenant took all the responsibility and met all the expensesof cultivation, harvested the crop and paid the rent. The status, theresources and the responsibility of these three types differed. We mustnot confuse the one with the other. The Ordinance has treated thevaramdar and fixed lease tenant alike. The varamdar should get alower percentage of the yield than the fixed lease tenant who took agreater responsibility.

The provisions of the Ordinance will hit the small middle classmirasdars most. They would be worst affected. The raising of thevaram rate and the pannaiyal's wages must result in all round increaseof rural wages. As regards the exemption from the operation of theOrdinance of holdings less than one veli, the protection sought to beafforded will prove illusory. Theoretically they may be free to stick tothe old varam or pannai system. But in practice they will find it hardto resist the pressure for a rise in wages or in the tenants share at leastto the level that obtains in holdings subject to the Ordinance. Pilotenquiries should have been conducted in select villages in different partsof the district and on the basis of the knowledge gained thereby theapportionment of the share and the fixation of wages should have beenmade. Even now the situation calls for a thorough investigation intothe causes of unrest. A thorough going inquiry by a high power com-mittee of experts should be appointed and charged with the functionof submitting a comprehensive report on the question of agriculturalreform and of co-ordinating the reports of various committees from theRoyal Commission on Agriculture to the Subrahmanyam Committee onland reforms. Our deficiency in reliable statistical material is noticeablein such matters as farm wages, costs of cultivation, average yields and

)rid

alr.sssoTy

tor.2i-erve)n.

ridheiseilyid.he;es,he1st,he, aa

asstheasethebetoardiastdottrtstheeennto

iraltheontbleand

REFORM OF LAND TENURES IN INDIA 133

so on. The productivity of land has to be increased. Besides defectsin tenancy systems other factors such as lack of capital for improve-ment, failure to bring the results of research to the farm, absence ofmarketing facilities, are responsible for our poor yields from land. Thesedefects must be attended to and remedied in any scheme of rehabilita-tion of agriculture. We should not ignore the integral relation betweenagriculture, the rest of the economy and indeed the social order.

REFORM OF LAND TENURES IN INDIA SINCE 1945

by

K. G. Sivaswamy

The immediate need of a rapid increase in agricultural productionshould induce us to concentrate on the development of economic hold-ings and joint-farms through redistribution of lands. This means thatwe should change over in our agrarian policy from one of grantingsecurity of tenure to millions of tenants-at-will, and thus multiplyingthe evil of uneconomic units of cultivation. We should bring as far aspossible tenancy and labour areas under joint-farms. As many induce-ments as are possible should be provided to attract the tenant-at-will tothe joint-farm. Remission in land revenue, supply of water, supply ofseeds, manure and implement at a concessional rate, reduction in rents,provision of employment in the off season, all these will naturally at-tract the tenants to acquiesce in schemes of joint-farming.

Limitations of Redistribution

The implication of redistribution of lands should be fully under-stood. There are some unoccupied waste lands with big landholders,which we may take over and distribute. Some landholders are realisingrents from tenants-at-will or are cultivating their own lands with theaid of hired labour. To illustrate, many money-lenders in Berar havebecome big landowners after the depression, as a result of foreclosureand sale of lands mortgaged to them. They have evicted the tenantsand are cultivating these lands themselves owing to their fear of tenancylegislation. The lands of these landholders can be pooled in a villagejoint-farming co-operative society without at the same time disturbingthe labourers or the tenants-at-will from their rights of cultivation.Where these tenants or labourers hold a bigger area, a minimum hold-ing might be given to them. The excess over the minimum may beredistributed for adding to economic holdings which could benefit bysuch addition. Where however joint cultivation is undertaken, employ-ment should be guaranteed to all the existing occupants in the firstinstance. The main relief which we can therefore give in these villageslies in the sense of independence and security, and a substantially reduc-ed rent for them. Where tenants and labourers are backward, joint-farm-ing in these big holdings is easier to promote.

In certain other villages where the lands of big holders cannot bebrought under a joint-farming society, the excess land may be. distribut-ed to the uneconomic holders. Possibly by absorbing labour in the new


units, the lands which they were working under a landlord may bereleased for redistribution. There are villages too where lands for re-distribution may be insufficient. Abolition of intermediary rent collec-tors should not be confused with redistribution of land. The formerreform is urgent whether a landholder is big or small. The latter reformwill be substantial when all lands are pooled and redistributed for jointcultivation. Otherwise it may not amount to much on a nation-widescale, though in certain spots where occupants are few and existinglabour can be absorbed, redistribution has a great place in increasingthe size of small-holdings.

Part-time FarmersMany persons as shopkeepers, inamdars, etc., hod small bits of

land which they let out. But their main source of income is elsewhere.They may be removed from their holdings, subject to the payment ofannual rent by the state. But there are tenants in these lands ekingout a miserable existence. Consolidation of different fragments by ex-change may help them. But it will not create an increased area for theirholdings.

Any scheme of reform of tenures should also not disturb part-timefarmers in rural areas who have other source of income to live upon, butcultivate themselves small plots with vegetables, fruits, sugarcane,grams, and pulses. /These farmers may be retired persons or urbanworkers living in the suburbs of towns.

Abolition of IntermediariesThe Congress manifesto of 1945 laid down the following land policy:--

"The reform of the land system which is so urgently needed in Indiainvolves the removal of intermediaries between the peasant and theStge. The rights of such intermediaries should therefore be acquiredon payment of equitable compensation. While individualist farming orpeasant proprietorship should continue, progressive agriculture as wellas the creation of new social values and incentives require some systemof co-operative farming suited to Indian conditions". This policy hasnot been followed even in the case of new and virgin lands, which arebrought under irrigation project areas. Not a single state has abolish-ed the intermediaries between the state and the cultivator. Not onlyhave the intermediaries not been abolished, no state has been set on theroad of reaching the goal of abolition even at some far off time.

.Tenancy Legislation• Legislation has so far tried in some states as Bombay, Hyderabad,Saurashtra, to improve the landlord-tenant relations. Occupancy righthas been granted in Bombay to tenants-at-will who had a continuousoccupation on the land for a period of six years at the commencementof the Tenancy Act. In respect of others, the period of lease has beenrestricted to ten years. Rents too have been fixed in Bombay as not to

• exceed one fourth of the produce in the case of irrigated lands and onethird for other lands. Similar legislation has been adopted in Hydera-bad, Orissa and Saurashtra. Rents as not to exceed a third of the grossproduce have also been fixed in West Bengal and Assam in respect of

• crop-sharers.. Other provisions in Bombay Act provide for compensa-tion for improvements, right to a house site, right for long leases, and


the first option to purchase the land. This type of tenancy legislation'has not gone very far in granting security and fair rents to tenants forthe following reasons. A landholder may resume the land for his owncultivation or for other purposes at any time. The share of rent whenbased on gross produce unequally falls on tenants, according to the pooror good character of their lands. Any number of disputes arise regard-ing the gross produce, on which the rent is based. Tenancy reform hasno doubt a place as an inducement for food production. It has a placein areas where tenants would not agree to come into a joint-farm. Atenant who is struggling from crop to crop who can be evicted at anymoment and who has to pay a regular rent sometimes amounting to thewhole gross produce, himself being satisfied with straw, will certainlyfeel it a revolutionary reform, even if he gets what little has been donein Bombay. But even though security and relief in rents were promis-ed by Congress pledges and election manifestos since 1937, importantstates as Madras, M.P., and East Punjab, and many of the native stateshave failed to introduce this legislation. They have stood against eventhis moderate reform, which would have allayed discontent. Further-more a new set of rentiers have come on the land in the shape of ex-political prisoners who have been granted lands by the Madras Statesuperseding existing rights of cultivation by Harijans. One of the causesof agrarian troubles is the advent of these new landlords on the rural.scene. In Madras, owing to agrarian disputes the harvest was conduct-ed till the last season in some parts of the delta areas with the aidof armed police. Recently a halting legislation to solve these disputeshas been introduced. (vide appendix)

Principles of Tenancy Reform

Just as the small owner-holder has to be tolerated and also aidedin all ways until he willingly joins a joint-farm, so also the small tenant-holder who owns bits of land, but supplements them by rented landswill have to be tolerated and encouraged in all ways until he willinglyjoins a joint-farm. Tenancy reform has, therefore, a great place in thetransition stage. In fact, it has a greater place than the abolition ofzamindaries. The evil of absentee landlordism is less in zamindariareas, as the latter do not attract investors in land owing to inefficiencyof land administration by zamindars. On the other hand, impersonaland non-discriminating revenue administration in ryotwari areas and alow land revenue attract monied people to purchase lands with the soleidea of renting them out for a profit. Consequently absentee landlord-ism prevails to a greater extent in ryotwari areas. Members of pro-fessions, money-lenders, war profiteers and backmarket operators haveinvested their surplus income in land which offers them security, a high.return and a means of avoiding income-tax. If the Congress Govern-ments were really earnest about the removal of intermediaries, theyought to concentrate their attention in these areas which they have,however, failed to do. The Planning Commission have recommended ahalf-hearted measure of tenancy reform. Any such reform should stopthe dual control of land. It should follow certain uniform principles:—

(1) The right of occupancy should not be based on any period of con-tinuous occupation, nor should it be, restricted to a short period of four,five, or ten years. This restriction hangs like a Damocles sword on thetenant, who fearing eviction on the expiry of the stipulated period, willbe forced to pay a premium for every renewal of the lease. Whoever


is on the land should be granted occupancy, subject to the rights ofother tenants who have been recently evicted by landholders in order toforestall legislation. Constant pronouncements by Ministers and perio-dical recommendations by Committees and Commissions on tenancyreform have created great expectations in tenant-at-will and forewarn-ed the landholders about the impending reforms. The result has beenavoidable evictions of tenants by landholders.

(2) There should be no perpetual right of resumption by a land-holder and by his heirs. A landholder should be permitted to declarehimself a cultivator within a definite time limit, provided he is approv-ed as such by an authority. Otherwise his claim can only be for rents.

(3) A landholder should have no rights over the land other than thestate guarantee to pay him rents determined according to principles offair rent. He should have no right to make any improvements on hisland nor to claim usufruct of trees. Dual responsibility leads only toindifference in managing the land.

(4) The sum of determined rent should be collected and paid bythe state.

(5) Where the Ministry is strong enough to decide on graded pay-ment of rent according to the income of the landholder from land andother sources, rents due to landholders having a total income including

• land and all other sources over Rs. 12,000/- a year may be cancelled. Butthese lands would be paying land revenue to Government. This wind-fall of land revenue may be pooled and paid as rehabilitation allowanceto resettle poor families who may not be able to maintain themselves onthe sum of fair rent fixed for the land. Where such a legislation has nochance of passing through, the alternative of agricultural income-taxand estate duty may be adopted. Estate duty should be collected notmerely when an owner dies, but even when he purchases property orpartitions or gifts property during his life-time.

• (6) Certain states have provided for the purchase of lands by sub-tenants from the ryots in zamindari areas and the landowners in ryot-wari areas. Bombay has proyided for a special tribunal to fix fair price.The recent amendment to the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,Bombay, limits the purchase of land by a tenant that it should notreduce the ownership of land by a landowner below 50 acres, neithershould it increase his holding above 50 acres. Under the bill the tenantneed not pay the purchase price in a lump sum but he may pay it in 10instalments in 15 years.

(7) A crop-sharer should also be considered as tenant and given thebenefit of security of tenure and fair rents. Otherwise the whole legis-lation will be evaded by naming the tenants as crop-sharers. This is ahistorical experience in the working of tenancy Acts. As cultivationunder crop-share gives no inducement to the tenant to increase the yieldlest the excess may also go to the landlord, gives also a share of the cropto the landholder even on the yield due solely to tenants' improvements,and puts losses in cultivation expenses in years of low yields or cropfailure mainly on the tenants, the law should make provision for itsconversion into leases on fixed rents (cash or kind) whenever the tenantdemands it. The crop-share mode of leasing is suited to medieval condi-tions of surplus lands, few workers, and few wants, which always con-duced to mutual trust. But it has cracked under modern conditions of

a

fi

irtitilati-ira(

oclzofsthtiiCC

ZE

ah

TIsrththZD

TlurSc

ednczaGc111Aladatofthsotiisrese


struggle for land, and increased cultivation expenses, leading to mutualdistrust and a constant watch over the tenant and the crop.

(8) Tenancy legislation may still be evaded by transforminga tenant into a labourer and thus conforming to law. Thus the sameexploitation in the absence of legal protection will continue. Securityfor labour and a machinery for conciliation and arbitration regardingwage disputes are essential for labour if a tenant is not to be pushedfurther down in his status in consequence of tenancy legislation.

Zamindari Abolition is no Tenure Reform

Having failed to do anything to abolish intermediaries, a mislead-ing propaganda is conducted by many states by proclaiming the aboli-tion of zamindaries as the abolition of intermediaries. The zamindar isthe revenue officer of the Government, and in that capacity he collectsland revenue, distributes cultivable lands, administers common lands inthe village, such as tanks, fisheries, village woodlands, house sites, graz-ing grounds, etc. He has a duty to maintain irrigation sources. Inaddition, he is also a landholder, owing lands of his own. All the Actswhich abolished the zamindaries have not touched the zamindar's landowned by him. In fact the early Estates Land Acts provide for a zamin-dar only a small area, which he can cultivate himself with his own stockof cattle and hired labour, and which he is asked to maintain as a demon-stration farm, as his own proprietary land. Inasmuch as the zamindarshave played a great .political part in supporting the foreign administra-tion as against national movements for freedom, all Governments haveconnived at the illegitimate seizure of a large area of waste lands by thezamindars as their own home farms under the name Sir, Khudkhast,Pannai, Kambattan, etc. The Madras Zamindari Abolition Act has gonea little further by permitting the appropriation of ryoti lands whichhave been under their cultivation by zamindars, which the PermanentSettlement of 1802 and the Estates Land Act definitely stood against.The Chief Minister of Madras made the following statement in a radiospeech in 1951. "The zamindari legislation has secured to the tiller ofthe soil—and there are millions of them—a right denied over centuries,the right of ownership of the land cultivated by him. To-day inzamindari areas the right of possession has been secured to the ryot.",1This is a deliberate misstatement of the rights of a zamindar over the landunder his administration. Since the commencement of the PermanentSettlement, the law makes it clear that the right of the zamindar extend-ed only to the state share of land revenue from the land of a ryot, andnot to the land itself. So long as the ryot paid his land revenue to thezamindar, just like a ryotwari ryot paid the land revenue direct toGovernment, he was an independent tiller with all rights over the land.He improved, bought, sold and mortgaged his land. What the ZamindariAbolition Act achieves is the removal of the abuses in revenueadministration by the system of hereditary, zamindars. The zamindarabused his powers in regard to the collection of rents or distributionof waste lands or the administration of common lands. By removingthe zamindar these abuses will stop to a major extent. But, of course,some of them as are found even under direct State revenue administra-tion in ryotwari areas, are bound to continue. The zamindari abolitionis a needed reform, so that revenue farming by hereditary farmers ofrevenue may be replaced by State administration through Governmentservants having no hereditary status. But it in no way removes the


intermediary between the tiller and the state so long as a zamindar'sarea of private farm is not restricted in any way. The only State whichseems to have done it is Assam, where a limit of 133 acres has beenplaced on the home farm. Even here too, an owner can have a largerarea if he adopts improved methods of production.

Levy on Zamindari Tenants DiscriminatoryIt is strange that in order to pay the compensation to zamindars

the tenants are forced to pay certain sums either in lump or in instal-ments. As already indicated, the zamindar is a Government servantwho is being retired from service under modern conditions of administra-tion. And if this entails expenditure it should fall on public revenues,and not discriminatingly on one class. There can be no reason whya ryot under him should be asked to pay a purchase price for his rightsin the land, which he owns from time immemorial. A new name isgiven to him in the U.P. as bhoomidhari ryot for payinci

6 this price. He

is also given an inducement that he need pay only 50 per cent of therent in the future. In return for these concessions, he is asked to payten times the present rent in one lump sum or twelve times in fourinstalments. The effect of this proposal is that the abolition of thezamindari results in an increased rental to the ryot. If he paid a rental ofRe. 1/- per year, he is now asked to pay Rs. 10/- in lump sum, andgiven a concession in his rent of Rs. 5/- over a period of ten years.In other words, instead of paying a rental of Rs. 10/- equally spreadover ten years, he has to pay Rs. 15/- out of which Rs. 10/- is paid.at the start in a lump sum This is sheer injustice that an occupancy-tenant or a hereditary tenant in the U.P., who is in every sense a pro-prietor of land subject to the payment of rent to the zamindar, shouldbe asked to contribute to the funds of the state for certain reorganisationin the service of the revenue department. And in order to induce,the ryot to support the scheme, the U.P. Government has been increas-ing to an excessive sum the price of food grains and sugarcane. Thesame policy of realising a certain portion of the compensation to zamin-dars from tenants is followed in M.P. and M.B., though the rate of col-lection is less intensive. The abolition of zamindaries is a businessinvestment to the state, for the state will be making a profit in thefuture from the difference between what a ryot directly pays as revenueto the state and what the state will have to pay to the zamindar ascompensation. What really stands in the way of acquiring the zarnin-daries is the provision for capital compensation.

Zamindari Assets Falsely BloatedThe whole method of calculating the compensation has gone wrong.

When once it is proved by facts that the zamindar is a servant of therevenue department entitled to, a certain commission for land revenuecollection, his retirement can only entitle him to a pension or a resettle-ment allowance. As early as 1772, Warren Hastings wrote to the Courtof Directors that "when a zamindar was divested of his authority, itwas a rule of the Mughal Government to allot to him a subsistence outof the rents of the zamindary in proportion to the annual income ofit. The proportion usually amounted to a tenth". This letter, be it,noted, refers to the authority of zamindars, but not as 'proprietorsand 'subsistence', but not as purchase price for the estate. The U.P.revenue law is very definite on this question. Under section 74 of the

Acre,thzhaIna f

tat

ruitio]PaiofcatetcPerWitto (theParGo)

Mali(

tanlaiClainotfrorfix ;tentPreOf coni3adn:Mar

8ettandto aJustzamthatfron:brin,t4xpWho,10 w

i'egaDrisithereceicellaWho4a1-11for

REFORM OF LAND TENURES IN INDIA 1:3!)

Act, a landholder who is released from his engagement to pay landrevenue has to be paid an allowance as not less than five and not morethan fifteen per cent of the revenue of the estate. Madhya Bharat alonehas fixed an annual allowance for zamindars for a period of ten years.in other states, as U.P. and M.P., there is provision for payment ofa flat compensation up to eight or ten times, and in addition a rehabili-tation grant on a graded scale for smaller landholders. Madras andRyderabad have provided for graded compensation. The main defect,running through all the zamindary legislation lies in a bloated calcula-tion of the net incomes. Under the Permanent Settlement in manyParts of India, certain reductions were made in the annual payment,Of revenue due from the zamindar to the Government. This was be-cause government expressly took over the bazaar tax, the house tax,etc., which the zamindar can levy from the communal lands before thePeriod of the Permanent Settlement. Governments said "We will dealWith them in the future, and you zamindars shall have nothing moreto do with them". In the same way all lakhiraj lands were taken out ofthe settlement. Lakhiraj lands were lands which were exempt for anyParticular reasons from paying the assessment of land revenue. TheGovernment took the position that lakhiraj lands were not only landsalienated to individuals but lands exempted from land revenue. TheMadras Regulation 29 of 1802 provided that the Karnam (village accoun-tant) should be obliged to keep a register of these two classes of lands,"lands exempted from assessment and lands alienated". According toClause XII of the Madras Permanent Settlement "the Zamindar shallnot appropriate any part of a landed estate which has been exemptedfrom bearing. their portion of the public tax. Nor shall be resume orfix any new assessment on exempted lands described under the generalterm of lakhiraj unless the consent of the Government shall have .beenPreviously obtained for that purpose". Hence a zamindar has no rightOf collecting any income from communal lands of the village. He wasonly an administrator of these lands entitled to levy a small fee foradministration purposes. The income from fisheries, tanks and trees,//larkets and house-sites, cannot really be a legitimate income for azamindar. Similarly big forests never came into the ambit of PermanentSettlement. In some zamindaries the right of compensation for minesand minerals is rather dubious. And when a zamindar is entitled onlyto a percentage commission of the land revenue collected, there is nojustification in the U.P. for handing over the whole revenue to thezamindar as compensation. The Permanent Settlement only providedthat in addition to the revenue collected, according to custom or law,from ryots, a zamindar`can lease lands for gardens and for clearing andbringing waste lands into cultivation. It is an unjust expropriation of thetaxpayer's money to spend it on compensation for acquiring zamindaries,Whose net assets have unfairly been bloated by the addition of incomesto which zamindars are not legally entitled. While this is the positionregarding the actual claims of a zamindar for compensation, it is sur-Drising that in the PEPSU an Act should have been passed dividingthe lands in the ratio of 1 to 3 between zamindars and tenants. Therecent report on agrarian reforms in PEPSU has recommended the can-cellation of this provision and grant of occupancy rights for all tenantsWho held these rights on March 11, 1940. Compensation has been sub-qantially reduced. Even tenants-at-will also who held lands continuouslyfor 12 years have been granted occupancy rights.


Preventive Legislation

The proposals above outlined will be curative and mitigate the evilsin the existing land holdings, such as, concentration of land, uneconomicholdings, and leasing of lands. They will create a holding not palpablyuneconomic and enforce the holding of land only by agriculturists.Where small-holders are willing to join together or where the existingcultivators have little sense of ownership, there will he provision forjoint farming. But preventive legislation is equally necessary in thefuture to prevent the passing of lands into the hands of non-agriculturistsand the growth of sub-letting. The law should also provide that aminimum holding once investigated and registered as such is not splitup again.

Sale of lands to agriculturists. The Punjab Land Alienation Actand the Hyderabad Land Alienation Act, in spite of their defects thatthey hastened land concentration within an agricultural tribe by grant-ing the latter a monopoly in the purchase of land as against non-agricul-turists, did really prevent the growth of absentee landlordism which hasbeen a prominent feature of ryotwari areas in the country. But thePunjab Act has become a dead letter after the partition, and as a resultof the new policy adopted of granting lands of muslims to displacedlandholders in the same proportion in which they held them in WestPunjab and to ex-military men. Bombay has enacted legislationrestricting sale of land only to agriculturists provided that the totalholding by such purchase would not exceed fifty acres. Hyderabad hassimilar legislation restricting sales to agriculturists and the maximumholding as not to exceed ten times the economic holding. Legislationfor restricting sales to agriculturists will find a hurdle in a properdefinition of the word 'agriculturist'. If the supervisor of a farm wereto include any member of the family, the definition would defeat itsvery purpose of conserving the lands in the hands of a cultivator, forall family members may not be good cultivators. But as legislationis bound to be promoted in every state, making the cultivator responsiblefor conforming to certain standards of husbandry failing which the landswill be resumed by the state, legal provision will be necessary that amember of the family who supervises cultivation on behalf of the owner,will equally have to be approved by the state authority. Another wayof evasion of the definition would be by employing a tenant and callinghim a crop-sharer. A crop-sharer is sometimes defined as a labourer,who is paid his wage as a share of the produce at the harvest time. Buta labourer is entitled to a regular wage which ought not to vary withthe produce of a land each year. The definition should, therefore, makeit specific that an agriculturist should not pay his labour on the basisof a crop-share.

Non-agriculturists buy lands either to resell and make a profit orto let them for rent. Restrictions on sub-leases will certainly deterinvestments on land, but no legislation exists at present to control•resales. Speculative investment in irrigation projects is its consequence.(see pamphlet by the writer on Land Speculators in the Tungabhadraproject). A capital gains tax on the difference between the purchaseand sale price of land will deter such investments. The tax rate of thistax may be increased in proportion to the shortness of the period betweenhe date of purchase and that of sale. Even with these reforms saleof land will require control from, several points of view. Firstly the

1

Isic1,y.s.igorieLtsa

lit

.ctatit-11-ashelitedstontalLas

on)erxi;its'oron)1ekls, aer,aynger,utithLkesis

orterrolce.Iraasehisenalethe


state should see that the purchaser has enough money and equipmentfor carrying on agriculture. Secondly the land sold should not bediverted for a purpose different from that for which it is suitable. Thirdlythe sale should not affect the size legally fixed for minimum holding.Fourthly the price paid should in no way make agriculture unprofitableover a long period. Personal and selfish considerations as need forinvestment of the surplus funds of the buyer and the need for creditfor the seller should be replaced by economic and social objectives inthe purchase of lands. The price should be a certain multiple of netincome after allowing for years of crop failure to be changed slightly.With reference to local conditions as markets, transport, irrigation faci-lities, etc. It should be fixed after hearing both the parties.

• Sub-letting. All the Herculean efforts for clearing the tangledJungle of disorderly landholding Will become a waste unless the lawProvides for preventing its future growth. The existehce of a largePopulation will tempt letting by the very cultivators who have sufferedunder it for centuries. The two ways by which tenancy legislation isdefeated are sub-letting and mortgage with possession. Restrictionson sub-letting vary from state to state. The state of M.P. had alwaysstringent provisions. So too U.P. The protection of the sub-tenantin Bihar is little. In West Bengal the crop-sharer is protected, andthe under-ryot to some extent. Bombay has granted a ten years' securityand the benefit of fair rent to a tenant on condition that he did notalienate his land. The Punjab Act, XXIII of 1950, allows sub-lettingWith the consent of the landholder. Hyderabad prohibits sub-leasesby a protected tenant after a period of three years from the date onWhich he became so. Cochin has prevented sub-letting by grantingsecurity to whoever cultivates the land for rent, thereby deterring thesuperior tenant from sub-letting. Orissa has granted security to sub-tenants by preventing their eviction and fixing their rent at 40 per centof the gross produce. Madhya Bharat has a longstanding legislationPreventing sub-letting, except on the permission of revenue officers,and fixing the rent of a sub-tenant as not to exceed twice the land re-venue or rent. Madras alone has no protection for tenants either inryotwari or zamindari areas. There are no restrictions on their rightsin respect of sub-letting.

If sub-letting is to be prevented in the future, then the provisionin the Madhya Pradesh Tenancy Act, which empowers a Revenue Officerto extinguish the rights of superior holders and grant the latter to thesub-tenant to whom the land was habitually sub-let, should be intro-duced in all the states. The law should provide too for unavoidablelegitimate sub-leases for short periods.

APPENDIX

Tanjore Agricultural Tenancy and Labour Ordinance

This ordinance was issued in September, 1952 in order to prevent,evictions of tenants-at-will (including crop-sharing tenants) and per-manent farm servants, in the district of Tanjore. It provides for itsextension to the whole state with such suitable adaptations for differentdistricts as are necessary. According to 1951 census non-cultivatingowners and their dependents, and cultivating labourers and their depen-


dents formed 12% and 18% respectively for the whole of India whilein Madras they formed 16 and 28% respectively, thus showing an increaseof 4% of tenants and 10% of labour over the all-India figures. Thisordinance exempts owners holding 6-2/3 acres wet or 20 acres dry. Itaffected only 11,070 holders in Tanjore district who formed 3% of thetotal number of holders, 44% of wet lands, and 50% of tenants andlabourers. Under the ordinance no tenant who held lands on lease on1-12-'51 can be evicted for a period of 5 years. Tenants evicted duringthe crop year from June '51 would be reinstated in preference to anyexisting tenant on the land. Future tenancy is for 5 years. The land-owner can resume the land at the end of 5 years by giving a year'snotice. The statutory obligations of landowners and tenants are notclearly defined, neither the locus of authority for regulating cultivation.The prevailing share is regularised in the ordinance as 60% for the land-owner out of the gross produce that remains after payment of harvestcharges. A strange provision empowers the Revenue Officer of the divi-sion to decide on the desirability of the conduct and behaviour of thetenant is regard to good cultivation. And on his decision rests theretention or expulsion of the tenant by a landowner. ConciliationOfficers have been appointed to reinstate tenants and the Revenue Courtof the Revenue divisional officer is the final authority to decide alldisputes.

The share of rent applies equally to both to the crop-sharing tenantand fixed-rent tenant. The latter generally pays less because of therisks he takes, but 'according to the ordinance he should pay the same60% to the landowner. In his case it will be 60% of the normal grossproduce fixing of which however must lead to disputes. Where a fixed--rent tenant pays in cash, the price will not be the prevailing price atwhich this share will be commuted but the price that prevailed in theyear preceding the first year of tenancy. There is no provision forremission, nor fixing of fair rent as a share for landlord after meetingthe cultivation expenses, nor for compensation for improvements, norfor excluding the excess yields due to a tenant's imprcvements in cal-culating the landlord's share.

Another part of the ordinance deals with the permanent farm ser-vant. He cannot be dismissed without the permission of the RevenueCourt unless a sum of Rs. 150 was paid as compensation to this servant.The wages fixed increase the present wage by 33%. A landowner cannotresume the land for cultivation by himself and his family except bypaying Rs. 150 as compensation for disturbance of the servant. Thewage rate applies to all areas and all classes of land. The ordinancedoes not apply to farm servants engaged by landowners who hold 6-2/3acres wet or 20 acres dry or less. The new wage puts the farm ser-vant's share on a par with or slightly higher than that of the tenant!

LAND REFORM IN TRAVANCORE-COCHIN().by '

V. R. Pillai;

Professor of Economics, Travancore University.

The structure of our agrarian economy is built on the basis of aland system which is as complex as it is variegated. The systemsof land holding in India are the products of centuries of customs, usagesand traditions varying from one part of the country to another. This hascreated a multiplicity of tenures and a bewildering complexity of rightsin land, which hamper economic progress. In the words of Prime Minis-ter Nehru, "The land problem is the primary problem and everythingelse comes next. We are endeavouring to do peacefully and with aslarge a measure of goodwill as possible, something that has been donein many other lands in different ways, not peacefully, and with greaterupsets") But the diversity of conditions in different parts of Indiamake it impracticable to lay down any uniform policy for the countryas a whole. The problem of agrarian reform, therefore, is best tackledon a regional basis. This paper, attempts to examine the facets of theland question in the State of Travancore-Cochin which has peculiaritiesof its own.

Land Tenures, in Travancore-Cochin"From the tenure point of view", says Baden Powel12, "Malabar

presents in its limited area quite a number of instructive and in onesense unique facts. It is like one of those little glens, sometimes foundby botanists in which a group of plant treasures—not to be found overmany square miles outside-7-all at once reward his search". This iseven more true of the adjoining State of Travancore-Cochin which byits isolation has developed her land system on indigenous lines,untramelled by wars, conquests, and foreign domination.

(a) Jenmom lands. The unique feature of the land system in thisarea is the jenmom tenures whose origin is still shrouded in obscurity.The jenmom lands, comprising about one-fifth of the total area werethe absolute private properties of jenmies or landlords. The bulk ofthese lands belonging to the brahmanical class was entirely exempt fromall taxation, while non-brahmin (Nair) jenmies paid rajabhogam or alight tax. Some lands originally free-hold were assessed to rajabhogamon alienation.

Jenmom lands were leased out to tenants or kudiyans for cultivationon different tenures. The most common form of tenure was Kanom orKanapattam. It was a lease for 12 years, secured by an advance fromthe tenant, and subject to renewal at the end of the period. The intereston the advance was debited to the rent due from the tenant and thebalance of rent alone (micchavaram) was paid annually to the jenmies,besides of course the customary presents. Though the jenmi had thelegal right of eviction, the force of custom was so great that this rightwas seldom exercised; and the renewal of the lease subject to periodic

1. Address to the 27th Session of the International Statistical Institute, New Delhi,5-12-1951.2. Baden Powell, Land Systems of British India, Volume I, p.. 95.


readjustment of terms was done as a matter of course. Eventually,the kudiyans came to look upon these lands as their own, subject tothe payment of micchavaram and renewal fees. By a Royal Proclama-tion3 so early as 1867 the Kanam - tenure was recognised as a perpetuallease and the tenants were given fixity of tenure subject to the paymentof a fair rent determined by custom or contract. This important legis-lation merely put the stamp of legality on existing usage. But it servedto allay discontent among the peasantry about attempted evictions andrack-renting and ensured agricultural progress. By another legislationof 18964 the procedure regarding fixing of fair rents and renewals aswell as the collection of dues was regularised. The matter was finallysettled by a Regulation of 19335 which recognised the tenants as fullproprietors of the soil and placed them on an equal footing with theholders of Sirkar lands. The dues to the jenmi were converted intoannual payments called Jenmikaram which is settled periodically likethe tax on Srikar lands and collected by the revenue officers. Alllinks between the jenmi and the kudiyan have been thus cut off andthe jenmi is only entitled to the jerinnikaram from the State afterdeducting the expenses of collection. '

The progress of legislation in respect of Jenmom lands in Travancoreis very much in advance of the British administered district of Malabar.The tendency of British civilians to view the Jenmi-Kudiyan problemin the light of the landlord-tenant relationship of the West resulted ina strictly legal interpretation of tenures and the enforcement of the rightof eviction especially during the troublous times following the MysoreWars. This led to grave agrarian discontent and even riots. Later efforts tosolve the problem have resulted finally in the Malabar Tenancy Act of1930, which protects the tenant against rack-renting and arbitrary evic-tion, but leaves him in a position inferior to that of this compeers inTravancore.

There are also other types of tenures relating to Jenmom lands stillin vogue, such as, Verumpattom (temporary lease), Otti (Mortgage),Kuzhikkanom (entitling tenants to compensation for improvements),and the Karanma tenures. Karanma always indicates permanency.Generally a Karanma tenant is in the position of a permanent mortgageeholding the land in lieu of certain services to be rendered to the Jenmi.Irakaranma is a perpetual lease subject to the payment of Micchavaram,while Ponnita Karanma, is a complete sale.

(b) Sirkar lands. According to the last Settlement of Travancore(1911) about four-fifths of the arable land in the State belong to theSirkar. These are held under innumerable tenures with only shadesof difference between them. The Settlement Report 1911, records 177tenures under wet lands and 135 under garden lands. Nevertheless,the ryotwari principle underlies all of them. This principle of directsettlement with the ryots was adopted in this State long before it wasintroduced by Sir Thomas Munro in British India.

Originally, most of the lands were leased out on Patton?, (rent) totenants at will, who had no right of alienation. This Pandarapattomtenure is the ' most widely prevalent one in the State. But it gave noinducement to the teant to improve the land and consequently retarded

3. Proclamation of 25th Karkadagom 1042.4. Jenmi Kudiyan Regulation V of 1071.5. Amending Regulation xir of 1108.

LAND REFORM IN TRAVANCORE-COCHIN 145

agricultural progress. Finally, a famous Proclamation in 18656 declaredthe Pandarapattom tenants to be the full proprietors of these lands sub-ject only to the payment of Government tax. This Pattom Proclama-tion together with the Jenmi Kudiyan Proclamation of 1867 is hailedas the 'Magna Carta' of the Travancore ryots.

The tendency in recent years has been to eliminate minor tenuresand bring all land under Pandarapattom. The Sirkar Devaswom( Temple) lands which were taken over by State by a Royal Proclama-tion in 1097 have been cOnverted into Pandarapattom lands. All landsnewly registered and lands which have escheated to Government arealso brought under this category. But, there are certain types ofPattoms assessed at favourable rates such as for forest lands, wastelands, and cherikkal lands (hilly tracts cultivated only once in a way).The more important of the other types of tenure are Ottis or mortgagesand different kinds of Inams either exempted from assessment orfavourably assessed or requiring only certain services from the holder.

The diversity of tenures resulted in a complex system of assessment.But in 1945 Travancore introduced a radical reform in the land revenuesystem by abolishing the old land tax and substituting in its place a'basic tax' on land coupled with a tax on agricultural incomes. "Thismeasure at one stroke cut the Gordian Knot of a multiplicity of tenuresand the welter of rates and schedules."7 It brought considerable reliefto, the poor ryots from the pressure of the land tax and. it freed the landrevenue system from the burden of periodical settlements. But theevil effects of the present land system on the agrarian economy of theState are no less important than those, on land revenue. The State isfully alive to the need for reform in this field and it appointed theLand Policy Committee (1949-50) whose Report is under the considera-tion of Government.

Some Fundamental ConsiderationsIt is very important that certain fundamental factors in the socio-

economic set up of the State should be given their due weight in theconsideration of land reform. In the first place, village life is aliento the spirit and temperament of the Malayalee. There are no villagesand -village communities as we find in the, rest of India. The peopleare accustomed by centuries of habit and tradition to live in isolatedhomesteads with adjoining gardens big or small. Even the poorestlabourer has a thatched shed and a little garden, whether on his ownland or on somebody else's, in which he enjoys the privacy of his homelife. This homestead is his, priceless pOSSession which he wrn defendwith all his 'might against encroachment, whether by. his neighboursor by his landlord or even by the State itselk. At the time of the lastCensus, there were 109357 occupied houses, each taking up 36.5 centson an average. The extent to, which sub-division and fragmentationof lands have been effected in this area has to be understood in this light.so that legislative enactments,. either preventing fragmentation orenforcing consolidation of holdings, cannot be ,expected to gain popularsupport. Similarly, the schemes of reform proposed by the CongressAgrarian Reforms Committee which are based on .the ''village or the

6. The Pandarapattom Proclamation of 1040.7. Pillai, V. R., "A Basic Tax on Land", Indian Journal of Agricultural Econdniics,

Vol. V No. 1, pp. 185-190.


Village Panchayat as the unit and base of operations are thoroughlyunsuitable for Travancore-Cochin.

Another factor which cannot be overlooked is the highly indivi-dualistic outlook of the. Malayalees, to which recent Partition Reaula-tions have contributed not a little. Collective activities on a voluntarybasis have therefore little chance of success in the economic sphere.This rules out the Co-operative method in agriculture which has beenrecommended by the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee and onwhich the Planning Commission has laid much stress. The Co-operativeMovement has been tried in this region for over three decades and noeffort has been spared by the State to foster it. Yet, except in respectof number of societies and membership, in which the State can claimpride of place, the movement has not taken root and the results havebeen most disappointing. The multi-purpose society which is the sheet-anchor of the Congress Programme, is unworkable in Travancore-Cochin.8It is not surprising therefore that the overwhelming weight of evidencebefore the Land Policy Committee should have been against the co-operative method in agriculture. "The recorded evidence shows veryclearly that although educated people are aware of the immense poten-tialities of co-operative farms in improving the agricultural industrywithin this State, there was general scepticism even among them as tothe possibilities of forming societies with the right kind of material.They have, they point out, come to this conclusion on inference basedon the working of Co-operative Societies throughout the State".9 •

The Pattern of Agrarian Economy for Travancore-CochinThe peculiarities in the socio-economic set up, even more than the

multiplicity of land tenures make it imperative that much thought hasto be bestowed in evolving a pattern of agrarian economy suited to thesoil of Travancore-Cochin. As the Land Policy Committee rightlypoints out, "Constructive statesmanship requires that immediate effortshould be made to reshape existing material and replace them on re-inforced foundations, rather than endeavouring to uproot them andthen to plant in their places exotic creations imported from abroad,regardless of environmental differences".10 But the mistake of theCommittee lay in approaching the various issues referred to them forenquiry as isolated problems instead of taking an over-all picture of thefuture agrarian economy of the State.

The Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee has set out four basicprinciples to which a pattern of agrarian economy for India should.conform.11 They are : the assurance of opportunities for the develop-ment of the peasant's personality, the avoidance of exploitation, maxi-mum efficiency in production, and practicability. To this may be addeda fifth principle, viz., equitable distribution.

The man-land ratio in Travancore-Cochin is very low compared tothe rest of India. Of the total area of 7662 square miles in Travancore,only 54% is Cultivable and 44.2% has already been brought under culti-vation. The per capita acreage of cultivated land is only 36 cents (25

8. Pillai, V. R., Rural Co-operation in Travancore, Indian Journal of Economics,January 1942, pp. 485-503.

9. Land Reforms Committee Report, p. 42.10. Report, p. 5. '11. Report, p. 20.

a-

e.

re10

ret-a

;e

to.1.!d

LAND REFORM IN TRAVANCORE-COCHIN . 147

cents of dry land and 11 cents of wet land).12 The cultivated area isdistributed as follows:—

Rice • . 36.5 per centCoconut • • • • . . 23.0Tapioca • • • • • • 18.5 12

Pepper • • • • 4.0Rubber . . • • 3.5 7)

Tea . • . • • • 3.3 77 •

Ginger • • • • 1.2 1)

Sugarcane • • 0.6 !I

Other crops • • • • • • 9.4 lf

A plan for the re-orientation of the agrarian economy of this Statemust take note of the severe limitations imposed by Nature on the extentof land suitable for food crops and the scope for developing moneycrops. The arable land remaining to be developed is mostly in theMidlands and Highlands where crops like rubber, tea and spices alonecan be grown. While every effort should be made to grow more foodby reclaiming kayal lands, or converting dry lands into wet lands withthe help of irrigation projects, it has to be recognised that self-sufficiencyin food is a chimerical ideal for Travancore-Cochin. The agriculturalprosperity of this State must depend upon the maximum utilisation ofour unique facilities for commercial crops. The Land Policy Committee,however, warns that, "Multiplication and extension of commercial cropproduction, in unholy alliance with soil erosion, should not be allowedto become an impediment or menace to foodcrop raising."13 This is

ie surprising because it is a matter of common knowledge that so far asis this State is concerned, food and commercial crops are not interchange-le able. Rice is the principal food crop and practically the whole of theLy wet lands are under rice cultivation. The substitute money crop isrt sugarcane but the area under it is negligible. Coconut, which is partlye- a food crop, but mainly a source of money income to theid ordinary ryots, accounts for 23% of the cultivated area. Tapioca iscl, generally cultivated on barren hill slopes or simultaneously withle coconut or pepper without interfering with either. The plan-)r tation areas are thoroughly unsuitable for food crops and the failurele of the hill paddy scheme bears this out. The question is not whether

food crops can be grown at all in regions marked out by Nature forcommercial crops, but whether such substitution is economic.

The bulk of the lands in the State are divided into small strips culti-vated by peasant farmers so that individual peasant farming is the onlypattern, suitable for such condition. But commercial crops like rubberand tea do not lend themselves to small-scale cultivation. The conver-sion of dense forests and barren hill tracts infested with malaria intosmiling gardens giving a handsome money return to the State wouldhave been impossible but for the investment of enormous capital andenterprise which only Joint-Stock Companies could have accomplished.The suggestion of the Congress Agrarian Committee to place such estatesunder co-operative management will be nothing short of a suicidal policyunder present conditions. Rice cultivation in Kayal lands (i e. landsrecovered from the lakes during certain seasons and protected by bunds)

icLei3-

!el

e,

!S,

12. Travancore Census Report 1941—Table I.13. L.P.C. Report, p. 24.

148. THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

is also feasible only on capitalistic lines because of the heavy expensesand the risks involved in that enterprise. Thus capitalistic .farmingthe Highland and Kayal-lands and individual peasant farming for otherareas is the pattern which will be suitable for Travancore-Cochin.

The main problems which have to be considered in working outthis pattern are the size of holding and the relations between landlordsand tenants.

Size of Holdings . .Travancor,e-Cochin, is pre-eminently a land of very small holdings.

The size of an average family .holding here is 3.23 acres as compared with12 acres in Bombay, 8.5 acres in. M.P., 6 acres in U.P., 4.3 in Bengal,and 4.5 in Madras. Nowhere else in India has the sub division of landbeen _carried to such an extent as in Travancore. This area was thehome of the rnatrilenial joint-family system (Marumakkathayam Thar-wad). But legislation of recent years has disintegrated these families.The Nayar, Ezlaaira, and Nanjinad Vellala Regulations of the 'Twenties'entitled every member of the family, men, women and children to claiman equal share of the joint properties and vested in them unrestrictedrights of alienation. The accepted method of partitioning lands is to

portion to each individual a share in the better as well as the worseplots. A more vicious principle could not have been devised to promotethe rapid sub-division and fragmentation of land in the State. Between1925 and 30 alone, Na3iars have executed 32,903 partition deeds, coveringan area of 334,300 acres of land, which has been distributed among 400,846individuals. Ezhavas have executed 13,076 deeds distributing 59,636acres among 153,556 persons, and Vellalas have executed 665 deeds parti-tioning 6,658 acres among 5,389 shareholders.14

The economic survey conducted on the stratified representativesampling basis along with the Census of 1941 gave the following distri-bution of agricultural plots' in the different regions of Travancore.15

_c

Region Lesssurveyed. than 5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 101-200 Above Total

cents cents • cents cents cents cents cents 200

--

.1,1.7et Land.

Lowland . . - . .2.9 , 8.1 23.2 27.9 13.0 10.2 10.2 4.5 100Midland , 1.5 35 11.2 19.8 12.8 14.7 20.9 15.1 100Ilihland .. 1.7 1.6 6.8 17.2 12.0 16.0 24.8 .19.9 100Urban area 4.8 7.7 20.0 20.9 12.6 9.2 11.4 13.4 100State , . . 23 '5.6 -.. , 16.7 i 23.1 12.8 12.6 16.2 10.7 100

<N . . .

Dry LandLowland . . 2.8 14.3 26.3 21.2 8.9 5.0 6.4 5.1 100Midland • . . .1.2' ' '8:5 . 27.1 - 28.8 '12.2 8.2 9.6 5.0 100High land 0.8 ' 3.9 ' 19.5 33.0 14.8- 10.8 9.4 7.8 100Urban area. . 0,5. 5.1 24.3 17.4 10.3 8.3 14.0 20.1 100State 1.9 10.8 30.8 24.9 10.3 6.9 8.3 5.6 100•-

.A'14. :The -average shai!e curie to 83 cents for Na:yars, 39 cents for Ezhavas and 123Cents -for Vellalas.' Taking 2 acres as d subsistence farm only 8.1% of Nayars and 2.2% ofEzhavas were in receipt of it. (Census Report 1931)

15. Report of the Enquiry into the SUb-Division. and Fragmentation of AgriculturalHoldings in Travancore, Census 1941, p. 31,

laraciisacccrElosit

Ma

Vie

lin

thEly,vitoncesthEforcolLatin1112

ceiho]

st atotth(011i

un

a sthEallwi:

allofth

larby

deyi(frcac:5,Cfrc

sesfor

)utrds

gs.ith

tndthe,ar-ies.Les'Limtedto

,rseoteaeningB46336rti-

ivetri-

/al

100100100100100

100100100100100

123O of

Lira]


From this table it is seen that 68.4 per cent of the plots of dryland and 47.5 per cent of the plots of wet lands are less than half anacre in size. With the existing pressure of the population on land, itis futile to attempt to make the holdings economic units of cultivationaccording to any reasonable standard. The best that can be .done is tocreate basic holdings which are not palpably uneconomic. But nolower limit can be imposed for a holding because of the need for housesites even for the poor.

Maximum HoldingsThe subject of maximum holdings assumes great importance in

view of the very low man-land ratio. But an attempt to fix arbitrarylimits on the basis of acreage alone ,would lead to inequities because ofthe great diversity of lands in the matter of pioductivity. Unfortunate-ly, the Land Policy Committee's recommendations on this subject ofvital concern are based on the individual opinions of members and noton any scientific principle. The -limits that they propose with allowan-ces for larger families may even defeat the object of this Measure. Eventhe minority of members who recommend lower figures suggest 20 acresfor d'oublecrop wet lands which would be reasonable in Central Travan-core but excessive in Nanjinad. The method recommended by mostLand Reform Committees is to fix the ceiling at a certain number oftimes the economic holding. But in a State where it is impossible tomake the economic holding the unft of the agrarian economy, that con-cept can hardly be a useful guide for fixing the size of maximumholdings.

The only logical procedure would be to classify lands into certainstandard groups with reference to the localities and fix a ceiling for thetotal area in the ownership of a single individual, with reference tothe net-income. The fact that the principle of income as suggested byone of the members 1 6 made no impression on the Committee is quiteunderstandable. There are so many lands which have been eitherneglected or indifferently cultivated that the acreage necessary to ensurea standard income will have to be excessively, large. On the other hand,the enterprising and industrious landlord would be penalised by beingallotted a smaller acreage of well-developed land. This clearly showswhy the income principle should not be an unqualified one.

The concept of net income as a basis far fixing the ceiling makesallowance for differences in the expenses of cultivation of different kindsof land. The greater measure of risk in some types of cultivation likethat of Kayal lands can be eliminated by taking the average yield of,say, six years. This would obviate the necessity for exempting Kayallands and Plantation areas, from the upper limit rule as recommendedby the Committee.

Another necessary qualification is that the maximum should bedetermined not on the basis of the' actual income, but on the standardyield from different grades of land worked out from the average yieldfrom developed lands of the same category. Thus, if on an average anacre of land under coconut cultivation -in a locality is found to yield5,000 coconuts a year, that should be taken. as the measure of the incomefrom an acre of coconut land in the 'possession of a. landloi.d' even • if he

16. Minute of dissent by Shri A. P. Udayabhnu.

150 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

has not done any cultivation in it. This will avoid the penalisationof good husbandry as well as the danger of allowing unduly large plots. tIt would also give further inducements to landlords to develop lands leftin their possession in order to make up the loss in income through 1compulsory acquisition of excess land. Thus the ceiling on land holding :.can be fixed only on the basis of certain defined norms, and after a careful Iinvestigation of the yields for different areas and different crops. Thismethod is both scientific and equitable; it is also practicable in Travan-core-Cochin where the number of large size holdings is limited. 1

(Problems of Tenancy

1. Intermediate Rights. The problem of tenancy in this State does j

not assume such large proportions as in other parts of India for thesimple reason that the radical reforms in the status of tenants of both

1

Jenmom and Sirkar lands effected by past legislation have settled this i,

major issue in a more satisfactory manner than in other parts of India. 1 IIt is true that there still exists a large class of people who have acquired Iintermediate rights in land, but that is an inevitable development in.areas where rural indebtedness is rampant. The Banking Enquiry Com-mittee 1930 estimated the total rural debt at about Rs. 25 crores whichgave an average of Rs. 55 per head calciilated on the rural populationof 1931. The Economic Census of 1931 estimated the total debt at notless than Rs. 20 crores, and the per capita debt to be Rs. 40. Most ofthe rural debt is charged on land by mortgage or hypothecation andcreates intermediate rights. The proportion of mortgages to ownersof land in 1931 was 11.7 and that of hypothecations was 23 per cent. Astudy of mortgages during the 15 years from 1924 to 1939 undertakenalong with the Enquiry into Subdivision and Fragmentation of Holdingsshowed that 81.7% of the wet lands and 68.4% of the dry lands mort-gaged were in the group of 6 to 75 cents, and 60% of the transactionswere for amounts below Rs. 50. The average mortgage debt per debtoramounted to Rs. 605 and the average hypothecation debt was R. 477:This clearly shows that the problem of intermediate interests in landcannot be dissociated from that of rural indebtedness.

The case for the elimination of all intermediaries which has beenstrongly advocated by one of the members of the Land Policy Com-mittee17 has on the face of it the appearance of progressive thought.But it overlooks completely the difference between absentee-landlordismas pictured in political pamphlets and the intermediate rights in land.created by peasant proprietors in want. In Travancore-Cochin, espe-cially after the liquidation of Jenmom tenures, there is not that gulfbetween the landlord and tenant which is found in other places. Thetwo categories are ortien interchangeable. Many landowners act astenants also in order to supplement their earnings by taking up landsuitably situated from small owners, who in their turn supplement therent by taking up other professions in different parts of the country.Generally speaking the tenant class is even more opulent than the land-owners so that the transfer of ownership rights from the landlords tothe tenants by the natural process of sale has been proceeding apaceduring the last two decades.

The term 'intermediary' may be used in a restricted sense to includeonly those who stand between the landlord and the actual tiller, or in

17. Minute of dissent by Sri V. R. Krishnan Ezhuthaehan.

)n,s.ift

Lii

isIi-


a sweeping sense to include every one with rights in land who is not atiller himself, whether he be a peasant pattedar, sub-tenant, tenant orzamindar. Apart from the colossal financial implications of the pro-posal to terminate intermediate interests (in the latter sense) by con-stitutional means, the tiller may not in the majority of cases be in aposition to afford the luxury of acquiring complete rights on the land.Further, even supposing the State vests the ownership in the presenttillers by buying up all the intermediate rights, these owners would soonwither away like mushrooms into intermediaries through the compulsionof indebtedness. This will necessitate a periodical settlement of owner-ship rights on the cultivators in possession of the lands. In the Pandara-pattom lands in Travancore, comprising about four-fifths of the totalarea, the tillers were made proprietors holding the land directly fromthe State by the Proclamation of 1865, but rural indebtedness has beeninstrumental in creating a crop of intermediate rights in so short a time.The upshot of this argument is that it is not possible to apply the com-munistic principle in the agrarian sector Of the economy, while retainingthe capitalistic principle in other sectors.

2. Tenants-at-will (Verumpattom). Tenancy legislation nowadaysproceeds on the assumption that the tiller cannot be expected to giveof his best unless there is the incentive to do so. This problem ofincentive has been sought to be solved by creating in the tenant aninterest in the land either by giving him ownership rights or at leastfixity of tenure. Legislation in this respect in Cochin had advancedfarther than that in Travancore before the Integration. By the CochinVerumpattemdars Act of 1118 (1942) and subsequent amendments,tenants-at-will now, "enjoy absolute immunity from eviction so long asthey do not wilfully deny the landlord's title, or commit destructivewaste upon the property, or collusively allow others to encroach uponthe lands; and so long as the landlord does not want the whole or aportion of the lands included in any holding for the residential require-ments of himself or any other member of his family.,,18

The Land Policy Committee after fully investigating the matter hasrecommended legislation giving Verumpattadars in Travancore also per-manent occupancy rights, but subject only to a qualifying period oftwelve years continuous possession of the lands before the date ofappointment of the Committee. They have also carefully worked outthe saving clauses by which resumption is permitted under certain con-ditions for self cultivation, or for building residential quarters for theuse of the landlord or any member of his family, or failure to pay thepattom for two years, or failure to pay in kind itself in cases where itis so specified. But they recommend a moratorium on resumption forself cultivation for a period of 3 years and the prescription of a minimumperiod of five years for all leases in future.

These qualifications to the grant of permanent occupancy rightsto tenants-at-will have to be viewed in the light of the peculiar relationsbetween manand land in this region. "Land is an object of the deepestsentimental, if not religious attachment" to people in this State. But,with holdings so grossly uneconomic that they are insufficient even forbare subsistence, many small owners entrust their lands to tenants-at-will and seek their livelihood in other occupations, only to return to theland for residence or cultivation at a later date. Legislation, •which

18. Report, p. 49.

152 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL -ECONOMICS

makes it impossible for the small landholder to recover his land fromthe tenant for self cultivation or for residential purposes would producethe gravest discontent and frustration. It is not uncommon in this areafor even petty land disputes to end in breaches of the peace. Therefore,legislation arbitrarily taking away rights in land or vesting rights whichwere not there before would be extremely difficult to enforce.

It is, however, important that the loophole of resumption for selfcultivation should not knock the bottom of the fixity of tenure. Thesafeguards suggested by the Committee that resumtion should not beallowed if the eviction would reduce the total extent of the land in theoccupation of the tenants to less than three acres would defeat the objectof protecting the rights of small landholders. Further, it fails to takenote of the stark fact that only 5.6 per cent of the holdings in the Stateare more than two acres in extent. It is, therefore, better to approachthe problem from the angle of the owner and disallow resumptions forself-cultivation in all cases where the owner is already in possession ofan economic holding. Provision may also be made for giving the evictedtenant the right to retain that portion of the plot where he has put upa house for his own residence with some surrounding area up to a limitof 50 cents determined according to the size of the holding. Tenantswithout any other place for residence may also on eviction be assignedan area up to 50 cents to be held in perpetuity without the obligationto pay any rent.

On the question of sub-letting the lands by tenants who get fixityof tenure, the majority of the Committee favoured the landlord's rightof eviction on this ground. A tenant may often fall on evil days andbe compelled to sub-let the whole or part of his holding. If this shouldentitle the landlord to evict him, it would be hard on the tenants andwould greatly limit the sense of proprietorship given by permanentoccupancy. At the same time, sub-letting would lead to further com-plications in tenures which should be avoided as far as possible._, Thebest solution seems to be to allow a tenant to transfer his rights toothers so that the person who comes to possess the lands by a sub-leasewill hold directly from the owner subject to the same conditions asthe original tenant. This would enable the tenants also to get reason-able value for improvements at a competitive price. It would not affectthe landowners' position adversely so long as the right of eviction fornon-payment of rent is admitted.

As the objective of all the rights and privileges granted to tillersof the soil is to improve the productivity of agriculture and to increasethe social product, it is necessary that tillers also should be subjected tosome test of good husbandry. As the Congress Agrarian Reforms Com-mittee put it, "The cultivator is more or less a trustee of the social asset.If he fails to discharge the obligation of the trust, it is only reasonablethat he should be divested of it".1 9 Legislation in Great Britain providesfor the dispossession of owners or occupiers on grounds of bad estatemanagement or bad husbandry. It should not be difficult in Travancore-Cochin to compile statistics • of the average yield of various crops indifferent areas on the basis of which a cultivator can be tested. Thelandowner should be entitled to evict tenants who do not satisfy thistest and the Land Authority in the State should be invested with powersto acquire and redistribute land of owners who are wilfully or without

19. Report, p. 51.

reev:lor

opiedar(orhajUEwl-forcoldapaquWjcu](h;agperu:larItouhadrthdiEbutrEde

folaterapthoftin

polarlorhaaorTI-

faifrc


reasonable 'cause not making proper use of their lands. The right ofeviction for bad husbandry should be a fundamental article in the land-lord-tenant relationship.

3. Crop Shgring (Pankuvaram). The Land Policy Committee is ofopinion that, "the legal status of the Varamdar, both according to accept-ed law and longstanding usage, is only that of a licensee and that thereare no grounds for including him within the term ̀ Verumpattom Tenant'or the term 'tenant-at-will' and for giving him fixity of tenure on thatbasis"20. Pankuvaram obtains mostly in rice lands. There was somejustification for treating the crop-shares on a different level from lesseeswhen the landlord and the Varamdar were partners in cultivation, theformer supplying the seed, bullocks, manure, etc. But in the presentconditions, the landlords in most taluks do not co-operate with the Varam-dars in cultivation. Consequently, the Oifference between lease andpankuvaram is negligible. In a lease the rent is fixed as a stipulatedquantity; in pankuvaram, it is stipulated as a portion of the produce.With the withdrawal of the landlords from the partnership in actualcultivation the pankuvaram has in most centres become ̀ Pathivaram'•(half-share). The Pankuvaram is generally adopted in areas whereagriculture is subject to the vagaries of the rainfall, so that crop pros-pects cannot be forecast with any measure of accuracy. Leases are therule in the irrigated areas of South Travancore as well as in the Punjalands of North Travancore, the main rice growing areas of the State.It is also interesting to note that even in areas where lands are leasedout and rent is payable in kind, he practice of settling the pattom on ahalf and half basis is adopted when there is failure of the crop due todrought, or due to breaches of bunds in punja lands. This practice hasthe sanctity of custom and is even accepted by the Courts. Thus, thedistinction between lease and pankuvaram is seen to be not one of kind,but only one of degree of fixity of rent. Thus, there is no warrant fortreating Pankuvaram on an entirely different footing from leases anddenying the Varamdar's the right of fixity of tenure.

While it is illogical to treat leases and Pankuvarams on a differentfooting, there is a strong case for making a distinction between wetlands and dry lands. In wet lands, whether under lease or Varamtenure, the cultivator gets immediate return for the labour or manureapplied to the land so that there is every incentive for him to cultivatethe land intensively so long as the rent is fixed and fair. In the caseof dry land the returns can be expected only after a lapse of time, some-times extending to several years as in the case of coconut, pepper andrubber cultivation. Fixity of tenure is, therefore, of the utmost im-portance in • the case of tenants of dry lands. But the lessees of wetlands stand on a different footing. The freedom vested with the land-lord to change the tenant is often the best insurance against bad hus-bandry. Further, the food problem in the State being very acute, it isa matter of fundamental importance for every individual—landowneror tenant—to be assured of the requisite quantity of rice for subsistence.The present laws of inheritance result in periodical sub-divisions of wetlands by partition, often making it impossible for a person getting hisfamily share to receive by way of 'rent the requisite quantity of ricefrom the tiny • plot allotted to him. Thus, with the fractionalisation

20. Report, p. 60.

154' THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

of plots the family members who assume the ownership of these stripsare often compelled to cultivate them themselves when the Pathivaramor the rent is insufficient for the family needs. It would be quite wrongto deny them the freedom to cultivate their land when they come toassume their ownership. These considerations make 'it necessary totreat wet lands on a different plane from dry lands. While tenants ofdry lands should be given permanency of tenure as recommended bythe Committee, it would be doing a grave injustice to landowners with-out promoting the cause of agriculture, if such rights are given to thetenants of wet lands whether lessees or varamdars. The logical. conclu-sion is that leases of wet lands, or varam tenures should be for a limitedperiod only and the tenant under no circumstance should gain per-manency of tenure.

4. Fair Rent. Fair rents, are as important as fixity of tenure itself.It cannot be assumed that competitive rents are fair, especially in areaswhere the pressure on land is very high. The Sivaswami Committeewhich enquired into agrarian reforms in Cochin area came to the con-'elusion that the present rents are rack-rents. The best course thereforeis to leave the matter of fixing fair rents to Land Tribunals, which shouldtake into account the productivity of land and the expenses of cultivationin different areas, as well as the capital invested in land by the ownerand the tiller respectively. The Land Policy Committee has suggestedthat rents should be subject to revision on several grounds such asincrease in productivity, rise in prices, etc. But even in respect ofrents fixity is as vital to progress as fairness. Therefore, rents shouldnot be subject to revision on any ground for a period of, say, ten years,when once fixed by. the Tribunal. The revision of rents also should bemainly on the ground of changes in price and not increase in productivityto which the landlord has not contributed anything. With regard tothe rents (Micchavaram) fixed by contract in perpetuity by certain jen-mom tenures, it is inadvisable to give the landlords the right to re-openthe question of revision.

ConclusionIt has become the fashion nowadays to lay all the blame for the

low efficiency of Indian agriculture at the doors of the prevalent systemsof land tenure, which admittedly are defective and antiquated in most,parts of the country. But as Prof. Ashby of Oxford has stated, "Pro-duction could not be said automatically to increase by changes in landtenure. Our immediate aim, it is urged, is to increase production andnot shake public confidence".21 This is not an argument for inaction,

, but a case for caution. Land reforms without reference to the peculiarcharacteristics of each region would do more harm than good by un-settling the social order and creating discontent. The slogan "Land forthe Tiller" should not be made into a fetish. The economy of a countryis one and indivisible, and agrarian reforms can succeed only when othersectors of the economy keep step with it.

21. Quoted by L.P.C. Report, p. 13.

P]

BonGovcaslpre,temKit(holcthe!dec:settfirs1agraboofdiddortento'tic)]disme

mlarth(ason.Iftofomi\TicPaofar,

ofabPE

BoticAlDcAl

;tripsaramTongle toy tots ofd bywith-) thenclu-nited.per-

tself.AreasLitteecon-eforeiouldationwner.stedh as2t oflouldears,'d beivityid tojen-open

the:emsnostPro-landand

iliarun-

. forntryther

PROGRESS OF AGRARIAN REFORM IN THE BOMBAY STATE

by

Dr. G. D. Patel

Officer on Special Duty, Revenue Department, Bombay.

In pursuance of its policy of agrarian reforms, Government ofBombay decided to abolish all unnecessary intermediaries between theGovernment and the tiller of the soil and all alienations in land andcash, except the devasthan and dharmada, grants. The main systemprevalent in the State is ryotwari, but there were certain non-ryotwaritenures like Bhagdari, Narwadari, Maleki, Mehwasi, Talukdari, KonkanKheti, Salsette Kheti, Inams and Watans, etc., under which the tenurialholders enjoyed certain rights regarding land and land revenue. Asthese tenures were outmoded and had outlived their utility, Governmentdecided on their abolition by promoting legislation. Since they weresettled during the British regime, Government took up these tenuresfirst for the purpose of abolition. In implementation of its policy ofagrarian reforms, Government enacted certain pieces of legislation 1 toabolish these special tenures. These legislations aimed at liquidationof special rights of the tenurial holders as to land and land revenue anddid not aim at acquisition of all lands and interests therein as has beendone in the U.P., Bihar, Madras, etc. Under these legislations, thetenurial holders are not deprived of the lands which have come downto them from generations. It is no exaggeration to say that the legisla-tion has been enacted without appointment of a Committee, discontent anddisurbance to the tenurial holders and without much cost to Govern-ment. The change-over can therefore Said to be fairly smooth.

All the Land Tenure Abolition Acts follow a uniform policy inmatter of compensation: If the original grant was of land as well asland revenue, Government resumed the lands and regranted them tothe tenurial holders on payment of occupancy price in multiples ofassessment of such lands. If the original grant was of land revenu eonly, the Acts provide for resumption thereof by levy of full assessment.If the Watan or Inam consisted of a cash allowance, compensation equalto seven times the amount of annual allowance is granted. Generally,for abolition of any right to revenue arising from such villages, maxi-mum compensation at three times the amount of annual revenue pre- ,viously realised has been provided. For vesting public roads, lanes,paths, waste and uncultivated lands, compensation is provided in termsof the multiples of assessment of the land concerned. If rights abolishedare in respect of trees, buildings or other, property, provision has beenmade for payment of market value as compensation under the provisionsof the Land Acquisition Act. In this scheme of things, Government hasabolished several land tenures and the Paragana Kulkarni watans, .thepersonal and saranjam inams from the premerger Bombay State.

1. (1) The Bombay Bhagdari and Narwadari Tenures Abolition Act, 1949. (2) TheBombay Maleki Tenure Abolition Act, 1949. (3) The Panch Mahals Mehwasi Tenure Aboli-tion Act, 1949. (4) The Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949. (5) The Bombay KhotiAbolition Act, 1949. (6) The Bombay Watwa Vajifdari Rights Abolition Act, 1950. (7) TheBombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans Abolition Act, 1950. (8) The Salsette EstatesAbolition Act, 1951. (9) The Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Bill, 1952. (10) ResumptionRules for Saranjams and Political Inams, 1952.

1.5(3 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

The methods of compensation adopted in the State are as under:—(1) Cash,

(2) annuities, and

(3) non-transferable bonds.

The first method is adopted in all legislations generally. The other twohave been adopted in the case of the Paragana and Kulkarni watansonly. The figures of aggregate receipts and expenditure show a cleargain in revenue. The estimated recurring revenue of Rs. 80,81,991 ex:-ceeds the recurring expenditure of Rs. 18,88,861 and that the non-recur-ring receipts are Rs. 1,12,00,392 per annum and the non-recurringexpenditure is estimated in the neighbourhood of Rs. 3,22,16,435. Itmay be noted that these figures do not cover compensation payable tothe Talukadars and the Khots as the extent of the waste lands that wouldvest in Government is still not ascertained. Anyway, the compensationpayable to Khots by Government will not be large, as the amounts ofcommuted value of khot faida is to be paid to Khots by their tenants.Government will get occupancy price in respect of the Khoti-nisbat landsformally held by annual tenants in the Kolaba District. Since thetalukadars were the proprietors of their villages, compensation payableto them will be considerable. The probable amount of compensation isnot available as the extent of the area that would vest in Government isstill not measured and mapped out and the claims for compensation areyet to be decided by the collectors concerned.

PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION

Since the Bhagdari and Narwadari tenures were merely a mode ofcollecting land revenue, Government found no difficulty in implementingthe legislation abolishing these tenures. Government had to pay nocompensation under the Act.

As regards the Panch Mahals Mehwassi Tenure Abolition Act, nowthat inquiries into the claims for compensation put forth by the Meh-wasdars are over, compensation is being awarded to the Mehwasdars.Except for the appointment of a few talatis. (village accountants), noother administrative arrangements were required to be made. Afterpayment of compensation, work of implementation will be completed.

In the case of abolition of the Maleki Tenure, claims for compen-sation are being inquired into at present. The work is likely to beover within a month and compensation will be awarded to the Maleksthereafter.

With regard to the talukadari tenure, as the talukadars obtained astay order from the Bombay High Court, the implementation of the Actwas delayed till December 1951. Thereafter, the work is smoothly goingon in all the estates except three estates in respect of which the taluka-dars have obtained a stay order from the Supreme Court. By way ofadministrative arrangements, Government has appointed additional staffof talatis, circle inspectors, patels and inferior village servants. Stepsare in progress for introduction of survey and settlement and Recordof Rights in the talukadari villages. In order to quicken the tempo ofimplementation Government has recently appointed two special deputycollectors.

-woinsearex:-

Itto

Lildionof

dsthebleis

L isare

ofingno

oweh-[rs.noter

Ii-

be!ks

. actng

ofa ffpsrdofty

PROGRESS OF AGRARIAN REFORM IN THE BOMBAY STATE 157

In implementation of the Khoti Abolition Act, the same difficultieswere encountered. The Khots had challenged the validity of the Actin the Bombay High Court and its implementation was delayed tillDecember 1951 when High Court dismissed applications filed by theKhots. At pre&ent, there is no impediment to the implementationexcept one civil suit field by the Kolaba Khots. The special deputycollectors have been appointed for quick implementation of the Act.Preliminary inquiries about the commutation of Khots' dues are well.nigh complete. Inquiries about the claims for compensation are in pro-gress. By way of administrative arrangements, Government has sanc-tioned additional staff of talatis. Steps are in progress to introducesurvey and settlement and its concomitant the Record of Rights in thesevillages.

As regards abolition of vajifdari rights ih Watwa, claims for com-pensation are being inquired into at present. Practically, no administra-tive arrangements are required to be made under the Act.Like the Khoti and Talukadari Tenures Abolition Acts, the imple-mentation of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Abolition Act was beset,With many difficulties, as the Kulkarnis of the Karnatak districts and Para-gana watandars of the Deccan opposed it by filing applications in theBombay High Court. The watandars have withdrawn their appealsfrom the Supreme Court. - The principal work of implementation con-sists of replacement of kulkarnis by talatis and payment of compensation.The work about replacement of kulkarnis has been practically complete.Claims for compensation put forth by the watandars are being examinedby the collectors concerned.

The Salsette Estates (Land Revenue Exemption) Abolition Act,1951, has been brought into force from 1.3.1952. By way of administra-tive arrangements, Government has appointed additional staff of a spe-cial mamlatdar, clerks, circle inspectors, surveyors, etc. In a fewvillages, survey and settlement will have to be introduced. Steps arein progress for the same.

On the whole, the work) of implementing the Acts -passed is goingon smoothly and quickly as far as practicable. In order to watch theprogress of implementation, the collectors concerned have been directedto submit to the Government monthly progress reports about the work.On the basis of the reports, Government makes a periodical assessmentof the implementation and issues instructions or sanctions additional staffwhere necessary.

Recently, Government has issued the Rules for resumption ofsaranjam and political inams in the premerger Bombay State. Theyhave been brought into force with effect from the 1st November, 1952.Moreover, in the last autumn session of the legislature, a bill to abolishthe personal inams in the Bombay State has been passed. It awaitsthe Presidential assent. When it is brought into force, the premergerBombay State will have no other inams except the devasthan, dharmadaand service inams of village servants useful to Government.The above measures relate to the special land and inam tenures ofthe premerger Bombay State. In the extensive areas merged in the


State, the alienations in land and cash are considerable and are governedby different rules of the states and estates concerned. In order to collectreliable data about the alienations in the merged areas, Governmentappointed two alienation enquiry officers for the Deccan and Gujaratstates in 1949. As a result of their alienation inquiries, it is found thatthere are various non-ryotwari tenures. They are:

(1) The Kauli and Katuban tenures in Ratnagiri, Kolaba and Kolha-pur districts,

(2) The Matadari system in the Kaira, Ahmedabad and SabarKantha districts,

(3) The Ankadia system in the former states of Baroda, Idar, Mal'pur, Balasinor, Lunawada and Deogadh Baria, and

(4) Jagirs.

Besides these land tenures, there are inams and tvatans like saranjanl,political, personal, devasthan, dharmada, paragana, kulkarni and villageservice -watans of patils, mahars, etc.

A scheme has been drawn up with a view to framing legislative pro-posals for abolition of the special land and inam tenures 'on the linesof the legislations encated for such tenures .in the premerger BombaY,State. Among these alienations, those of the Baroda state have specialcharacteristics and are governed by special rules and laws. It is pro-posed to promote special legislation for their abolition. The existenceof jagirs in the merged areas has created a complex problem which iSproposed to be solved by enacting a special legislation. The devasthaftand dharmada grants are proposed to be continued subject to annual veri-fication and utilization of the income. Besides there are certain mis-cellaneous grants in the merged areas which are not covered by therecognised categories of alienations. They are proposed to be consideredseparately.

In implementation of the above scheme, legislative proposals foil'abolition of the Matadari system, the Ankadia system in the Baroda ant'other areas, the Baroda watans, the kauli and katuban tenures, and tileMulgiras tenure and the jagirs have been prepared and are likely to beintroduced in the ensuing session of the legislature. Thereafter, it iSproposed to enact an omnibus legislation for abolition of the remainingalienations in the merged areas except the devasthan, dharmada and theservice inams of the village servants useful to Government. When thesebills are enacted into law and enforced, a very important stage in tileagrarian reforms of the State will be reached.

In a nut-shell, the effect of the above measures, adopted and prwposed, will be gradual but far reaching in the ultimate analysis. Theywill reduce work at all levels and streamline the revenue administrationgenerally. , Lastly, there will be a substantial increase in land revenuein consequence of resumption of alienations in land and cash.

ti(rea

Se

Or,Se

W(

Crre

Si

In(

dliiii

an

.as

seifolfoilitea]leIluticLa

COit (thE

an(Ov(Of

/lot!)37Int

Prjval

Su]rneSul

ill

an(

Lan

-fled NOTE ON .LAND REFORMS AND ZAMINDARI ABOLITIONHee IN BIHAR(lentarat by

that Revenue Department, Government of Bihar.

)1ha-

abar

Mal-

nage

pro-linesnbaY,ecia pro-

:encech iS

veri"

r thelered

s fol.I andI theto beit i5iningd. thethese

the

Pro-They

rentle

The problem of land reforms in Bihar has been engaging the atten-tion of Government since 1946. In 1946 the State Assembly passed aresolution for the abolition of landlordism and in pursuance of this,a Bill, known as the State Acquisition of Zamindaris Bill, 1947, wasintroduced in the State legislature. The name of the Bill was sub-sequently changed into the Bihar Abolition of Zamindaris Bill, 1947, and On being passed by both the Houses of the State legislature it was re-served for the assent of the Governor-General. After discussions bet-Ween the representatives of the Central Government and the State Gov-ernment, the Bill was referred back to the State legislature with therecommendation that it might be reconsidered in the light of the amend-inents agreed to between the Central and the State Governments. TheaMendments having been adopted by both the Houses, the bill wassignified his assent thereto on the 6th July, 1949,- and it was published4s an Act called the Bihar Abolition of Zamindaris Act, 1948. The vali-dity of the Act was challenged by certain landlords and the Courts issuedinjunctions restraining the State Government from implementing thescheme. Subsequently, it was felt that the Act did not make provision,for land reforms and it was, therefore, decided to repeal it and to bringliorward a more comprehensive legislation in its place. The Bihar Abo-lition of Zamindaris Act was accordingly repealed and a new legislation,called the Bihar Land Reforms Bill, 1949, was introduced in the Statelegislature. The Bill received the assent of the President of India inPursuance of the provisions under Article 31(4) and 254 of the Constitu-,tion of India, on the 11th September, 1950, and was published as Bihart-,and Reforms Act, 1950.

The landlords challenged the validity of the Act and the Patna HighCourt declared it to be unconstitutional and void on the ground that!t, contravened Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The matter was'hen considered afresh in consultation with the Government of Indiaand it was decided to amend the Constitution of India, in order to tideWer the difficulty as it was felt that the implementation of the scheme°f land reforms which was a measure of great social importance could4,0t be delayed any further. The Constitution was accordingly amended,u37 the enactment of the Constitution (First) Amendment Act, 1951 which1,riter-alia, provided for the validation of the Bihar Land Reforms Act,050, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court orI ribunal to the contrary. The landlords thereafter questioned the\r,alidity of the Constitution (First) Amendment Act, 1951, in the Supreme'-ourt whidh restrained the State Government from proceeding with theelleme of taking over of this legislation had been decided. The'11preme Court ultimately decided that the Constitution (First) Amend-111, ent Act, 1951, was a valid law. Immediately after the judgment of the'llpreme Court, the State Government decided to give effect to the scheme

to start with, all estates and tenures with gross annual income exceed-,14g Rs. 50,000/- were decided to be taken over in the first place. The'andlords, however, again succeeded in delaying the implementation of


the scheme by preferring an . appeal against the decision of the PatnaHigh Court in so far as it had decided that the Act was not defective onthe ground of (a) lack of legislative competence and (b) lack of a publicpurpose and the Supereme Court issued injunction against taking pos-session of estates till the disposal of the appeal. The Court finally pro-nounced judgment in which it held the Act to be valid legislationbarring a part of section 4(b) and Section 23(1)(.f) but they decided thatthese two sub-sections were severable from the rest of the Act. Thesalient features of the Act are mentioned below:—

(i) The purpose of the Act is to secure transference to the Stateof the interests of proprietors and tenure-holders in land, andof the mortgagees and lessees of such interests, including inter-ests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, ferries, hats, bazars,mines and minerals.

(ii) Section 3 provides that the Government may, from time to time,by notification declare the estates or tenures mentioned thereinto have passed to and become vested in the State.

(iii) Section 4 mentions the consequence of such vesting.

(iv) Section 5 permits the proprietors and tenure-holders to retaintheir home-steads, but only in the capacity of tenants, free fromthe obligation to pay rent. Section 6 allows them to retain pos-session of lessees under them, on payment of rent as raiyats tothe State in the status of occupancy tenants.

Section 7 provides that buildings, together with lands onwhich such buildings stand, which are in the possession of pro-prietors and tenure-holders and which are used as golas,factories, or mills shall be retained by them on payment of rent.

(v) In Section 9, it is provided that all mines comprised in the estateor tenure, as were in operation at the commencement of this Actand were being worked directly by the proprietor or tenure-holder, shall be deemed to have been leased by the State Govern-ment to them.

Section 10 provides that the State will recognise the subsis-ting leases of mines and minerals, the lessees being deemed tobe lessees under the Government.

Buildings and lands appurtenant to a mine outside the leasedareas stand transferred to the State under the provisions of Sec-tion 11 and they are to be deemed to be leased by the State tothe lessee with effect from the date of vesting.

Section 12 lays down the constitution of a Mines Tribunal towhich disputes arising out of the implemention of sections 9 and10 will be referred.

(vi) Section 13 lays down that the management of the estates will bedone in accordance with the existing rules in force for themanagement of Government Estates. It also provides that theState Government may, on such terms and conditions as theymay fix, entrust the management of the acquired zamindaris to

naonlicDS-

ro-oniat

'he

atender-Ts,

ne,emn

ainom)0S-

; to

on)ro-las,mt.

ateActire-rn-

sis-to

sed;ec-to

1 tornd

L bethethehey3 to

NOTE ON LAND REFORMS AND ZAMINDARI ABOLITION IN BIHAR 161

the Executive Committees of the duly constituted Gram Pan-chayats under Section 3 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

(vii) Sections 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 make provisions relating to theinvestigation of debts of proprietors and tenure-holders and laydown the procedure for payment of these debts.

(viii) Section 24 provides the manner of determination of compen-sation payable to the proprietor or tenure-holder. It lays downa sliding scale for the assessment of compensation. Where thenet income does not exceed Rs. 500, the compensation payableis twenty times the net income, and where the net income com-puted exceeds Rs. 1,00,000 it is paybale at three times theamount. This section further provides that to the amount thuspayable shall be added the amount of compensation payable inrespect of mines and minerals as determined under section 25.Each member of a Joint Hindu Family is treated separately, asif there was a partition, for the purpose of assessment of compen-sation. In the case of trusts created for religious and chari-table purposes, the net income, calculated in the manner pres-cribed in the Act is handed over to the trustees, for the main-tenance of the trust institutions. •

The method of assessment of compensation for mines andminerals is laid down in section 25. It has either to be fixed by,agreement or by a Tribunal appointed for the purpose.

(ix) Section 32 lays down the method and manner of payment ofcompensation. Sub-Section (2) of this section provides that theamount of compensation , shall be paid in cash or in bonds orpartly in cash and partly in bonds. The bonds shall be eithernegotiable or non-negotiable and non-transferable, and be pay-able in forty equal instalments and shall carry interest at twoand a half per cent per annum with effect from the date of issue.

(x) Section 34 provides for the constitution of a Commission, calledthe Bihar Land Commission, whose duties will be to advise theState Government regarding the agrarian policies to be pursuedby them from time to time in administering the system of landtenure in the State.

Financial Implications of the Scheme: The proposal for zamindariabolition in Bihar has been drawn up as a self-liquidating scheme. Bihar,being a permanently settled State, figures of incbme of each landlord arenot available with Government; but, on the basis of the materials collect-ed during survey and settlement operations which in many of the dis-tricts took place more than thirty years ago and also on the annual valueof estates as determined during cess revaluation proceedings which alsotook place many years ago in some districts, a working estimate has beenmade of the gross revenues and the expenditures as a result of takingover all Zamindaris in the State. The gross rental in the State is esti-mated at abotit Rs. 16 crores per annum but is likely to increase at therate of Rs. 5 lacs per year as a result of reclamation of waste lands, their


development, and development of forests and mines. An estimate of thefinancial position when all Zamindaris are taken over is given below:-

Estimate of compensation payable under different income groups ifreductions under section 23(f) of the Land Reforms Act are not made andAgricultural income tax is deducted at the new rate.

(In crores of Rupees)

Income Groups.Estimated

grossincome,

Net incomeafter deductingagriculturalincome taxat new rates

and nodeductions u/s

Compensationpayable onthe basis ofnet incomeshown inColumn 3.

23(f) of theAct.

2 3 4

1. Upto Rs. 5,000/- .. .. .. .. 9.13 6.82 122.76

2. Exceeding Rs. 5,000f- but not exceedingRs. 20,000f- .. .. .. .. 2.22 1.46 16.06

3. Exceeding Rs. 20,000/- but not exceedingRs. 50,000/- .. .. .. .. 1.32 .85 7.65

4. Exceeding Rs. 50,0001- .. .. .. 3.33 2.03 11.77

158.24

Statement of annual losses and gains during a period of 40 years on.the basis of a total compensation of Rs. 158 crores payable to the proprie-tors if deductions under section 23(1), (f) are not made and AgriculturalIncome tax deducted at the new rates,


Year.

23-410111240

Loss ofRevenue Revenue Cost of PaymentReceipt. Cess and improve- of Interest

cost ofManage-ment.

ment. instal-ment.

on bonds.

2 3 4 5 6

16.05 7.77 2.00 3.95 3.9516.10 , , , 3.8516.15 , ,, , 3.7516.20 ,i ,, P,

3.6516.50 t f , ,,

3.0616.55 ,, 9, ,P

2.9616.60 .,, ff f,

2.8618.00 •, , , .09

Totaldebit.

7

Balance.

8

17.6717.5717.4717.3716.7816.6816.5813.81

-1.62-1.47-1.32-1.17-- .28- .13+ .02

• +4.19

It will appear that for the first eleven years the State Governmentwould be faced with. a deficit but this will be wiped out during the suc-ceeding years. The figures may, however, be taken to be tentative forthe reasons mentioned above.

Implementation of the Scheme: Unlike the areas where the ryot-wari system of land revenue prevail. or 'where the settlement of land

1

if

onie-7al

3.

2727B32

Intlc-for

ot-nd

NOTE ON LAND REFORMS AND ZAMINDARI ABOLITION IN BIHAR 163

revenue was made with Zamindars on a temporary basis, administrationin the permanently settled areas was highly .centralised and Governmentdid not maintain any revenue staff in the rural areas. The result wasthat there was no administrative machinery which could be utilised forthe management of the estates and collection of rent from cultivatorswhen the Zamindari Abolition Scheme would be put into operation.Government did not even have correct information regarding the extentof interest of the proprietors of estates. It is true that the collector hasto maintain a general register of revenue paying and revenue free landsin the district, but in most places these registers were found quite out ofdate as the landlords failed to get the entries corrected, which they wereUnder, a legal obligation to do hi cases of succession, inheritance ortransfer. One great evil- of the permanent settlement was that with thegrowth of population and increase in cultivation, the margin between thetotal rent collected by the landlords and the amount paid to Government,as fixed revenue, considerably increased, and this promoted a class ofabsentee landlords who created in a very large proportion of cases,tenures subordinate to them. These tenure-holders were the personswho collected rent from individual cultivator and after paying the stipu-lated amount to the superior landlord, appropriated the balance as theirprofits. In turn many of these tenure-holders created sub-tenures underthem on similar lines and the process of sub-infeudation continued.Government did not have any information regarding these tenure-holdersand sub-tenure holders except in so far as their interests were recordedin the Record of Rights and very great difficulty has, therefore, beenexperienced in notifying the interests of tenure-holders.

For the management of the Zamindari Abolition Scheme, it wasnecessary for the State Government to set up a rural machinery at thefirst instance and to collect information regarding the interest of pro-prietors, tenure-holders and sub-tenure holders. As all these processeswould take time the Government of Bihar came to a decision that theZamindari Abolition Scheme should proceed by stages depending uponthe administrative machinery available and the information collectedregarding estates and tenures. It was accordingly decided that duringthe first phase of Zamindari Abolition only the estates and tenures withgross annual income exceeding Rs. 50,000/- should be taken over. Therewere 146 such estates in Bihar (apart from Two Court of Wards Estates)and the financial position of taking over these estates is noted below:—Estimate of compensation payable if deductions under section 23(f) ofthe Land Reforms Act are not made and agricultural income tax isdeducted at the new rate.


Si. No. Income Groups.Estimated

. grossincome.

Net Income.after

deductingagriculturalincome taxat new ratesand no

deductionsunder

section 23(f)of. the Act.

Compensationpayable onthe basis

of net incomeshown inColumn 4.

2 3 4 -5

Exceeding Rs. 50,000/- 3.33 2.03 11 . 17


These estates have been notified and have been taken possession ofexcept in a few cases in which the landlords concerned have gone tocourts, for restraining the State Government from taking over theirzamindaris and these will be taken over when the matter is finally dis-posed of by the courts.

It has further been decided that for the sake of efficiency and eco-nomy in administration it is necessary to have compact administrativeblocks. The State Government have, therefore, further decided to takeover as soon as possible all estates and tenures in the four districts of Dar-bhanga, Hazaribagh, Monghyr and Gaya. Steps are being taken to im-plement this decision. •

The administrative machinery, which is being set up for the imple-mentation of the Zamindari Abolition Scheme is as follows. On an ave-rage ten to twelve villages will be grouped together with a Halka under aRevenue subordinate official called the Karamchari. He will be incharge of rent collection, maintenance of the village records, compila-tion of agricultural statistics, management of Government waste landsand will also look after minor irrigation works and other improvementworks to be undertaken within the Halka. Wherever suitable GramPanchayats are available, they will be entrusted with the duties of rentcollection, management of village waste lands and forests and lookingafter small improvement works. It was previously decided that thewhole State should be divided into two hundred circles each in charg of a gazetted officer called the "Circle Officer" who will be assist-ed by a non-gazetted official called the "Circle Inspector". It has, how-ever, been subsequently found that for the sake of proper revenueadministration and with a view to having an integrated rural staffthroughout the State who will not only look after the revenue work butwill also supervise the working of gram panchayats and carry out theagricultural extension work and other development duties, it is neces-sary that there should be further decentralisation. The State Govern-ment have, therefore, under contemplation a scheme for dividing thewhole State into four hundred circles, each circle consisting of 175 to200 villages in charge of a gazetted officer. Under this scheme therewill correspondingly be four hundred circle inspectors instead of twohundred as originally contemplated. As stated above, the revenue staffis in the process of being set up. For the time being, one Karamchariis being placed in charge of two Halkas and wherever the collectablerevenue within a Tehsil that exceeds Rs. 25,000/-, an Assistant Karam-chari is being posted. For the administration of the estates which havebeen taken over during the first phase, it has been found that 113 circleofficers will be necessary.

Two hundred circle inspectors had previously been appointed forsupervising the collection of agricultural statistics and execution ofminor irrigation works but wherever it is found that the collectablerevenue of a circle is more than what can be managed by one circleinspector, an additional circle inspector is being posted. The scale ofsalary of a Karamchari is Rs. 35-2-45-EB-1-55 per month, that of a circleinspector is Rs. 75420 per month and that of a gazetted circle officer isRs. 200-450 per month. Over the circle officers, there will be an addi-tional sub-divisional officer in charge of the revenue work within thesub-division but in certain areas where the work can be managed by theCivil ,S.D,O., no additional sub-divisional officer will be posted. It is con-

oftoiris-

;o-veke

m-

le-re-• ainla-dsint

intnghegest-w-ueaffuthe

heto!re67V0

aff1ri)lem-yele

Forofplecleofcleisdi-he,he)n-

LAND REFORM LEGISLATION IN SAURASHTRA. 165

templated that there will altogether be thirty-eight additional sub-divi-sional officers throughout the State but at present only thirty are beingposted. There will be one additional collector in each district who willassist the collector in the general revenue administration and otherduties.

The above staff are being set up in connection with the implemen-tation of the Zamipdari Abolition Scheme but, as has been stated before,they will ultimately serve as an integrated .staff for all departments ofGovernment and will perform not only revenue duties but also duties in.connection with the supervision of gram panchayats, agricultural ex-tension services, collection of agricultural statistics and execution ofthe development plan of Government.

LAND REFORM LEGISLATION IN, SAURASHTRA

by

B. R. Patel,

Chief Secretary to the Government of Saurashtra.

The State of Saurashtra came into being on the February 15, 1948.Before that date the peninsula of Kathiawar was made up of more than200 different administrations and was broken up into 860 differentareas, because various administrations were themselves made up of smallbits here and there. The very first problem that faced the new Govern-ment of Saurashtra was that of land revenue system. The differentgates and estates had different forms of assessment systems, but by andlarge assessment was collected in the form of crop-share. There were,however, certain areas where the cultivators used to pay crop-sharedirect to the states and certain other areas where there were inter-mediaries. Out of 4,415 villages in Saurashtra, 2,689 villages becamekhalsa, that is to say were villages where cultivator was in direct rela-tionship with Government, while 1,726 villages forming about one-thirdof the State remained non-khalsa or alienated and were held by. differentcategories of land-holders.

In the khalsa portion, the cultivators had in law the character oftenants-at-will whose land could be resumed by the state at its will.Assessment- was taken, in a greater portion of the area, in the form ofbhagbatai (crop-share) and apart from the crop-share there were variouscesses and there was also the system of forced labour. As a first stepGovernment declared that all tenants of khalsa land would become occu-pants straight away without any payment of occupancy price, and thatassessment would thereafter be recovered in the form of cash and notin kind. These were considered the immediate steps that were neces-sary to go over gradually from the old feudal economy to a modernsystem of land assessment. As it was obviously- impossible to undertakeimmediately regular survey and settlement, ad hoc cash assessment wasfixed villagewise based on the revenues of previous years. All othercesses and indirect taxes were abolished in toto.


In the remaining 1,726 villages, however, the problem was not sosimple. There were intermediaries with different kinds of. tenures, whohad different relationships with Government, and different relationshipswith their tenants. All the tenants in these areas, however, were con-sidered to be definitely tenants-at-will who could be evicted by givingcertain notice before the beginning of a crop-year, except that, wherethe land-holders had already taken occupancy price from the tenants,the tenants could not be so unceremoniously evicted. Here also, thelegal position was not specifically defined and it was possible for a land- -holder, who had taken occupancy price, to evict the tenant in certaincases. The tenant had to pay to the landholder rent in crop-share whichvaried from one fourth to one half of the crop. He was liable to paysanti vero (plough tax) to the extent of Rs. 20 to 40 per.anti (i.e. about40 acres). On account of vaje or crop share system he had to give multi-farious lagas and letries and many cesses such as havaldari, sukhadi,zampo, kamdari, mapla, kunver pachhedo, muthi-chapti, kharajat etc.over and above santi vero. There were many other taxes known aschula vero, ubhad vero, chakada vero, maswadi vero, kanya chori, etc.While on the conferment of occupancy rights, the introduction of cashassessment system and on abolition of vero and veth, the cultivators ofkhalsa villages were at once brought on equal footing with occupants ofryotwari tenure, there were still more than 83,000 tenants in these 1,726villages existing as tenants-at-will of their feudal land-holders who wereabout 52,000 in number. In context of the processes of complete demo-cratisation and transformation of feudal order into a social order in tunewith the changed conditions, the position of non-khalsa tenants was soonfound untenable.

The landholders themselves were of various classes called Taluq-dars, Bhayats, Bhagdars, Mulgirasias, Barkhalidars, Jiwaidars, Inam-dars and so on, who had different rights vis-a-vis the state. The formerfour were generally known as Girasdars and the latter category asBarkhalidars. The Girasdars maintained a claim of proprietorship ofland while the Barkhalidars had interest only in the revenues. Bar-khalidars thus corresponded to some extent with the' Jagirdars of otherstates but there were cases in Saurashtra where Barkhalidars had beencreated by the Girasdars and not by the state. Such Barkhalidars had alower status than other Barkhalidars, but in practice the distinction' hadceased to be material.

The reforms introduced in khalsa areas had natural repercussionon the cultivators in non-khalsa areas. There began to grow a con-sciousness of their rights and demand for equal treatment in the matterof rent and tenure with their brethren in khalsa villages. At the sametime, the landholders became restive and thought that the best thing todo was to secure land as gharkhed (land for personal cultivation) andto settle their disputes of rents with their tenants. The situation couldnot be left alone, allowing landholders to evict the tenants or to con-tinue the exaction of excessive rents nor could the tenants be allowed torepudiate legitimate rights and interests of their landholders in violationof law.

The problem as it existed then could be divided in 3 distinct parts.(1) Relationship between the landholders and the State;(2) Relationship between landholders and the tenants; and

so•hotips)n-ngrets,,heid- -unLehlay)ut[tidi,

as!tc.tshofof26reio-

neon

iq-m-ierasofar-ier!enI aLad

on)n-termetondild)fl.toon

S.

LAND REFORM LEGISLATION IN SAURASHTRA 167

(3) The ultimate abolition of the landholders.Three Bills were prepared with common consent and passed. They

were(1) The Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951.(2) The Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951.(3) The Saurashtra Estate Acquisition Act, 1952.

These legislations contain provisions which are more liberal in termsof money than the recommendations of the Commission, but at the sametime ensure that there shall not be a single case of eviction.

The first among these Acts deals with the agricultural land ofTaluqdars, Bhagdars, Bhayats, Cadets, and Mulgirasias who were thelandholders claiming some kind of proprietory interest in the land. Thesecond deals with agricultural lands of Barkhalidars, i.e. Bharkhalidars,Jiwaidars, Chakariats, Kheratis and Dharmada, that is all those whoseinterest is specifically limited to the usufruct of land. The third pro-vides for acquisition by the state of assets other than agricultural landnamely waste land, whether cultivable or uncultivable, grass land,Gauchar, roads, rivers etc. The first two came in force on 1st September1951 and the third was passed in February 1952.

Before the implementation of these legislations, there were about33,000 Girasdars holding lands in 1,726 villages of Saurashtra measuringabout an area of 29 lakh acres. Besides this, the number of Barkhali-dars and other landholders was about 19,000 holding 8 lakh acres ofcultivated land. Thus in all 52,000 landholders occupied 37 lakh acresland other than the khalsa land. From this, nearly 8,000 Girasdars held

lakh acres of land for gharkhed i.e. personal cultivation, and 5,600Barkhalidars held nearly one lakh sixty thousand acres for gharkhed.The member of tenants of Girasdars was about 55,000 and theyhad nearly 17 lakh acres land in their possession, while thenumber of the tenants of Barkhalidars was about 28,500 possessing fivelakhs seventy thousand acres of land.

Under the Land Reforms Act, the Girasdars are 'divided •in threeclasses: 'A' Class: those holding more than 800 acres land; 'B' Class:those holdino. between 120 and 800 acres and 'C' Class, those holdingless than 120D acres. 'A' Class Girasdars are to be given land upto threeeconomic holdings; 'B' Class Girasdars upto 11- to 21-- economic holdingsand 'C' Class Girasdars are to be allotted half of the land in possessionof their tenants, but limited to 1 or 11- economic holdings. The limitsare in respect of the total holding of the Girasdar (land already held byhim as gharkhed plus the land now being allotted). After allotment ofgharkhed land to the Girasdars, the tenants will be able toobtain occupancy rights (i.e. rights just similar to those of thekhalsa cultivators) on the land, which remains in their possessionby paying to the Girasdar six times the assessment on such land.Such cultivators will pay revenue directly to the Government and Gov-ernment will pay compensation to the Girasdars. Government will payto 'A' Class Girasdars every year an amount equal to the annual, assess-ment for 15 years. With a view to helping small Girasdars in rehabili-tation, the 'B' Class Girasdars will be paid an annual instalment for 3years more, and the 'C' Class Girasdars for 6 years more, besides the 15years. Thus they - will be paid for 18 and 21 years respectively. The

168 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF 'AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Girasdars will be allotted land for personal cultivation and they willhave occupancy rights on them. Thus as a result, the Girasdars and thecultivators both come to enjoy equal rights and there will be one uni-form system of land tenure. The Girasdars were paying a flat rate of4 annas as land revenue on gharkhed and 12% of rent on non-ghar-khed to Government. Now Government will get full assessment fromthe 'A' Class Girasdars while it will get from 'B' Class Girasdars only 4annas per acre for first three years, then 8 annas per acre for next threeyears, then half the assessment for next five years and then the fullassessment. 'C' Class Girasdars will pay an assessment of only 4 annasper acre up to 21 years and after 21 years they will pay full assessment.The Government will pay compensation to the Girasdars of the amountjust equal to the assessment which the Government will get from thetenants who have acquired occupancy rights. At the time of famineetc., benefits of suspension and remission of land revenue will be ex-tended to the tenants who acquire occupancy rights, in the same wayas to the khalsa cultivators, but the Government will pay the fullamount of compensation to the Girasdars every year.

The Barkhali Abolition Act provides for immediate abolition of theBarkhali system. As Barkhalidars had admittedly no kind of proprie-tory interest in the land, such an Act was possible. Cash annuities havebeen provided to the Barkhalidars on the same lines as to the Girasdarsexcept that there is no payment from the tenant to the Barkhalidar. TheState will pay cash annuity equal to one assessment for 15 to 18 yearsand this will be the assessment which will be received by the State fromthe tenant, so that there is no direct burden to the State, except in the,matter of development expenses and in the matter of remission and sus-pensions of land revenue during the periods of scarcity and famine.Although the Barkhalidars had no proprietory rights, the economiccondition of small Barkhalidars was bad and provision has been madefor giving gharkhed to those Barkhalidars whose estate was less than2 economic holdings in extent. The principle here also is of equal sacri-fice and the tenant and the Barkhalidar became occupants of half theholding each. For Barkhalidars who hold larger areas, no gharkhed isto be given. The tenants and the Barkhalidars in respect of lands intheir possession will become occupants, without any payment to theState, except in those cases where the holdings are large where certaingraded payments are to be made for acquisition of occupancy rights.All Barkhalidars with estates larger than 2 economic holdings will payfull assessment to Government on gharkhed and the smaller ones willpay land revenue at 4 annas per acre for the first four years, 8 annasper acre for the next 6 years, half the assessment for the next 8 yearsand full assessment after 18 years.

The Third Act is in respect of non-agricultural assets. This pro-ceeds more or less on the lines of the similar Bombay Act. The methodof compensation in the matter of cultivable waste is, however, different.For cultivable waste acquired by the State from the Girasdars and theBarkhalidars, compensation will be paid which will be equal to theincome to the State in the next 15 years from such lands, whether byway of nazarana or by way of assessment. As these wastes have beenlying fallow for a large number of years and would have continued tolie fallow but for this legislation, the nett liability on the State is nil,since compensation is to be paid out of what is received in future. After15 years, there will be a net income from the lands in the form of land

he

ofar--)rn4

ieeullEasnt.Ent,he.ne

'ayull

,heiie-Lvears'hearsDmhe,us-ne.nicideLanri-

theisintheamn

)ayviiiaasars

ro-iod

thethebyento

nil,terInd

LAND REFORM LEGISLATION IN SAURASHTRA 1 69

revenue payable to the State. Certain small compensation is to be paid.outright for uncultivable waste and other similar assets, while for quar-ries, trees, grasslands and other revenue earning items full compensa-tion is to be paid in accordance with principles laid down in the LandAcquisition Act. Provision has been made to enable Government toacquire a part of an estate or any item out of an estate or alt estates inany area.

The financial implication of these two Acts will be as under:—(a) There are 55,000 Girasdari tenants who will be left with

12,00,000 acres of land in their possession over which they will get oc-cupancy rights on payment of 'six times the assessment after allotmentis made for personal cultivation. The total amount of six times paya-ble by the tenants will be Rs. 2,52,00,000. This amount will be paidto the Girasdars by their tenants and Government has not to undergoany liability on this account. Arrangements are made for advance ofloans to cultivators through the Land Mortgage Bank to enable thetenants to acquire occupancy rights by paying off this amount immedia-tely.

(b) Before the implementation of the Act Government used to get,assessment at 4 annas per acre over gharkhed and 121% of the assess-ment on rion-gharkhed. The total annual receipt on account of thiswas Rs. .9,37,500. The income for 21 years would have beenRs. 1,96,87,500. As against this the Government will now get assessmentfrom gharkhed as shown above and the total realisation will beRs. 3,26,25,000. The net gain to the Government under this item willbe Rs. 1,29,37,500.

(c) From Barkhalidars also Government used to get 4 annas per acrefrom gharkhed land and 12% of assessment over non-gharkhed land.The annual income on this account was Rs. 2,78,125. The total receiptduring 21 years on this calculation would have been Rs. 58,40,625. TheBarkhalidars will now pay assessment as shown earlier, and the amountreceivable during 21 years is Rs. 1,29,00,000. Deducting Rs. 32,25,000as the amount of receipt of assessment to be made over to religious insti-tutions, the net financial gain to the Government in respect of thesereceipts will be Rs. 38,34,375.

(d) Approximate area of land over which compensation will be pay-able to Girasdars is 12,75,000 acres. The annual payment will be madeto Girasdars of 'A' Class for 15 years, 'B' Class for 18 years and 'C' Classfor 21 years. The total amount of assesment which will be recovered.from cultivators will be Rs. 9,37,12,500 which after deduction of suspen-sion, remission, etc., may be taken as Rs. 8,37,12,500. Total amount ofpayment to A, B, and C Class Girasdars during 21 years will beRs. 7,98,00,000. Thus there will be a net gain of Rs. 39,12,500 during21 years.

(e) Similarly approximate area of land in possession of tenants ofBarkhalidars over which they will become occupants and in respect ofwhich the Barkhalidars are to be paid cash annuity will be 3,50,000 acres.Total amount of assessment realised by Government for 21 years willbe Rs. 2,44,38,751. Barkhalidars with two economic holdings or morewill be paid cash annuity for 15 years and the rest for 18 years. Total.amount payable to Barkhalidars on account of cash annuity will beRs. 2,16,82,500. Thus there will be a net gain of Rs. 27,56,250 during21 years.


Total net gain to the Government during the period of 21 years asshown in (b), (c), (d) and (e) will therefore be as follows.

(1) Gain from the receipts from cultivators afterdeducting compensation to Girasdars • •

(2) Gain in receipts of assessment in respect ofgharkhed land • • • • • •

(3) Gain from the receipts from cultivators afterdeducting payment of cash annuity to Bar-khalidars • • • •

(4) Gain from the receipts of assessment in res-pect of gharkhed land of Barkhalidars

Rs.

39,12,500

1,29,37, 500

27,56,250

38,34,375

Rs. 2,34,40,625

The Government will, however, have to incur development chargesin respect of all this occupancy land. The gram panchayats alone wouldclaim 20 to 33 p.c. of land revenue, to say nothing of small percentage ofexpenditure involved in village improvement in general. At a modestestimate the approximate cost during 21 years would be in the neigh-bourhood of Rs. 2 crores. The net gain to the Government may, there-fore, be Rs. 34,40,625, during the period of 21 years.

Before the implementation of the Acts, Government used to receiveassessment at 4 annas per acre over gharkhed land and at 12,1% of theassessment of non-gharkhed land of Girasdars and Barkhalidars forwhich the total income was Rs. 12,15,625. The annual incomeafter the payment of all the instalments to Girasdars and Bar-khalidars after 21 years will be Rs. 42,00,000 from gharkhed land ofGirasdars, Rs. 12,25,000 from gharkhed land of Barkhalidars,Rs. 44,62,500 from the tenants of Girasdars who will become occupantsand Rs. 12,25,000 from tenants of Barkhalidars who will become occu-pants. The total annual income from the entire Girasdari and Bar-khalidari land after 21 years will be Rs. 1,11,12,400. As the total incomefrom this entire land before implementation was Rs. 12,15,625, the netincrease in the annual income of the State after the period of 21 yearswill be Rs. 98,96,875.

Special mamlatdars are appointed in 24 sub-divisions to implementthe provisions of the Acts. Local committees with representatives ofGirasdars and cultivators are appointed in each sub-division. Theselegislations are being speedily implemented with the co-operation of thelocal committees. Nearly 60 per cent of the Girasdars are allotted landfor the personal cultivation in the first year.

Unfortunately, Saurashtra had to face famine in the very first yearof the implementation of these Acts. On account of famine, the culti-vators in many parts were not in a position to pay six times the assess-ment to acquire the occupancy rights. These was an agreement from thevery beginning that Government will advance as a loan an amount equalto three assessments• to the cultivators who pay the remaining threeassessments. But Government have made provision to advance loansof the whole of six assessments in scarcity areas, and 4-1 assessments in.semi-scarcity areas. Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank has been esta-blished for this purpose and it advanced an amount of Rs. 1 crore 20

laSiill

rE

S;p]niill

tcrEinly

h;S;n(b:

of

agiintl-

IT

a(

f(a:

J;ti

t(

; as

‘ges)uldof

lestgh-

Avethefor)me3ar-of

irs,incs

3ar-menet'ars

entof

esetheInd

earlti-sstheualreeansin

;ta-20

LAND REFORM LEGISLATION IN RAJASTHAN 171

lakhs in a short period of 2 months as loans to nearly 18,000 tenants.Steps will be taken to allot land for personal cultivation to the remain-ing Girasdars during the next year and if there is a good season, theremaining cultivators will acquire occupancy rights on land.

There are some special features of the Agrarian Reforms Acts o Saurashtra. Even though the problem in Saurashtra was a very com-plicated one, the Reforms Acts have been evolved on the basis of a fbr-,mula agreed to by all, and this has contributed materially to the successin implementation. The' representatives of both Girasdars and cultiva-tors help the Government officers in the work of implementation. As aresult of this co-operation the implementation' would be completed with-in two years instead of four or more years which it would have normal-ly taken.

The second special feature is that in many other states of Indiawhere similar legislation has been undertaken some financial liabilitieshave been incurred by the respective Governments. The position ofSaurashtra is quite different on this point. As already explained above,no liability or burden is incurred by the state. This was made possibleby taking all three issues mentioned above simultaneously for solution.

The third important feature is that as a result of implementationof Land Reforms, those who were tenants-at-will so far as also those whowere superior landholders become occupants of the state and except toa very small extent in respect of land held originally by Girasdars asgharkhed, there will be no tenants as such. The net result of theimplementation is that not only the intermediaries are abolished but alsothe tenancy system is almost ended.

The fourth special feature of the Land Reforms is that in the allot-ment of land for personal cultivation, the maximum allotment to 'A'Class Girasdar is three economic holdings. As a result of this there willbe left no big holdings and automatically a ceiling on the holdings isachieved. In the khalsa areas there were only a few substantial holders.

—,L7AND REFORM LEGISLATION IN yAJASTHAN SINCE 1945 \ by

Dool Singh,

Birla College, Pilani.

INTRODUCTORY .

In no other sphere of Indian economic life has the imperative needfor reforms been so keenly felt as in the agricultural sector. It is quiteappropriate, therefore, that the states should have been vigorously im-plementing the scheme of agrarian reforms, notably the abolition ofJagirdari and Zamindari systems. And, Rajasthan is no exception tothis.

Jagirdari SystemOver greater part of Rajasthan the Jagirdari system is in existence.

According to the Venkatachar Committee the existing systems of Jagirtenures in Rajasthan maybe grouped under eight categories, namely,


Jagir, Juno Jagir, Bhom, Charitable Grants, Bhomichara, Inam, ServiceGrants and permanently quit-rented estates and lands. ,The term Jagiris used both in generic and specific sense. In its generic sense it con-notes all non-khalsa area. In its specific sense it means grants in landconsisting of a whole or a part of village or villages. Fundamentally thetenure of different classes of Jagirs is the same and the Jagirdari systemin its present form has in its essence four main attributes. There is, inthe first instance, a recognised distinction between property rights and"Chief's" rights. In the former, division of rights is according to theHindu Law of inheritance whereas in the latter case rights are not divi-sible. Secondly, Jagir estates cannot be alienated, nor can they be fore-closed for mortgages. Thirdly, the assignment of Jagir does not conferany property rights on the assignee. Fourthly, the rule of primogeni-ture had invariable application in the distant past and that maintainedthe estates intact. But in certain areas there was a deviation from therule and the result was extreme fragmentation of the Jagirs. LandTenures in Mallani Jodhpur Division and in Shekhawati in Jaipur Divi-sion afford a suitable example. In 1741, the estate of Sardul Singh inShekhawati was divided amongst his five sons and the whole group wasknown as Panchpanas. The five thikanas have since been sub-divid-ed into as many as 5481 sub-units with a total area of 13,57,807 bighas.Except 28 sub-divisions the units are relatively small; for holdingsbelow 5,000 bighas, the average size being nearly 474 bighas. The sub-division and fragmentation of Jagir lands in Rajasthan has been moremarked in the former Torawati and Udaipurwati Tehsils of Jaipur State,but the statistics for the same are not available.

The Jagirdari system prevails in 16,780 whole villages comprisingan area of 77,110 square miles whereas the khalsa villages are 16,638and the area covered by them is only 50,126 square miles. Thesefigures do not include the scattered holdings of Jagirs in khalsa villages.Thus even judged by wholly Jagir villages alone the area under thesystem is nearly two-thirds of the whole rural area in Rajasthan. TheJagirdars have to pay an annual tribute to the State which has beencomputed at Rs. 44,98,278 (exclusive of Chakari levied in kind inBikaner Division) by the Rajasthan Jagirdari Abolition Committee.Jagirdars enjoy not only the income from their land but they also claimsome fiscal powers which have been recognised by the Rajasthan Govern-ment in lieu of which the State has agreed, for the time being, to paymentof compensation for Excise, Opium, Customs, Salt, Mines, Cattle Pound.,Kodi, Hawala and Forest rights. There being no reliable data on the sub-ject we take only one figure of compensation to illustrate the extent ofloss suffered by the Rajasthan Government. The amount of compensationpaid in cash and kind to the Jagirdars in respect of Excise, Opium andCustoms alone is estimated at Rs. 3,04,227.2

Zamindari System

The Zamindari system is a relic of the British rule in India. InRajasthan it is found in the former non-Rajput states of Bharatpur and.Dholpur, over a greater part of the Alwar state, in the Parganas of Kot-Kasim and Kotputli of Jaipur, in the Tibi villages of Bikaner, and to avery limited extent, in the states of Kotah and Jhalawar. The zamindars

1. Report of the Jagirdari Abolition Committee, 1949.2. Report of the Jagirdari Abolition Committee, 1949.

ice

mdtheemin

Indthe

)re-fer

edthetnd

invas

las.rigs

ore

ing338ese

the

enin

,ee.Limrn-ntnd,

ofionionmd

InLnd:t-

ars


in these tracts hardly possess property rights of a nature which entitifethem to compensation as such. They are only intermediaries betweenthe state and the actual tiller of the soil; and the excess of what they col-lect from their tenants over what they have to pay to the state representstheir income.

Survey and Settlement

Survey and settlement operations have been completed in the khalsaareas of all the former states comprised in the Rajasthan Union with thesolitary exception. of Jaisalmar. But the position regarding settlementoperations in Jagir areas is in a striking contrast to this. According tothe Venkatachar Committee which submitted its report in December1949, out of 16,780 Jagir villages only 5,454 are reported to have beensurveyed and settled, representing about 32% of the Jagir villages. Interms of area, the percentage of the work accomplished comes to 18%, or13,773 square miles out of 77,110 square miles have been surveyed andsettled. In khalsa 73% of the area has been settled, which comprises86% of the total number of villages. Settlement operations were in pro-gress in 1949 in 6,042 Jagir villages with an area of 25,518 square miles.This still leaves 5,284 villages with an area of 37,819 square miles wheresettlement operations have yet to be initiated. It is estimated that thecompletion of regular settlement in Rajasthan will take about a decade.In view of this fact the Rajasthan Government has under contemplationthe passing of the Rajasthan Lands Summary Settlement Bill, 1952.This bill when passed by the State Legislature will empower the Stat Government to order wherever necessary the introduction on a tem-porary basis of cash rents in respect of lands and holdings in the un-settled areas of Rajasthan by means of a sort of summary settlement.The factors to be taken into consideration for the determination ofthe extent of lands and holdings, assessment circles, soil classes andbasis of rent rates have been specified in the draft bill. It is hoped_that the summary settlement will take about two years. This is un-doubtedly a step in the right direction looking to the fast deterioratingrelations between landholders and tenants particularly because of thesteep rise in the price level during recent years.

RECENT LAND REFORMS

The Land Reforms legislation in Rajasthan can be studied underthe following headings:—

I Tenancy Legislation in the former states of Rajputana passedbefore the formation of the United State of Rajasthan; and

II Land Reforms effected by the Rajasthan Government sinceApril 1949; they are,

1. The Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants)* Ordinance, 1949 asamended to date;

2. The Rajasthan Produce Rents Regulating Act, -1951 asamended to date;

3. The Rajasthan Agricultural Rents Control Act, 1952;

4. The Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of JagirsAct, 1952; and

5. The Rajasthan Tenancy Bill, 1952,

THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

ancy Legislation in, the Rajputana States

All the integrating States except Jaisalmar had their own tenancylaws even before the formation of Rajasthan, notable among them be-ing the Jaipur 'Tenancy Act, 1945, the Bikaner Land Revenue Act, 1945,the Jaipur State-Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947 and the MarwarTenancy Act, 1949. These enactments are, however, very conservativein nature and at best seek to give some kind of legal shape to prevailingcustoms or practices which differ widely from place to place. Theselaws do not seek to introduce tenancy reforms of any marked signi-ficance, nor do they aim at securing tenancy rights to the rack-rentedpeasantry which have been denied to them in the past. Except theJaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act and the Marwqr Tenancy Act,no serious attempt has been made to bring the rights of 'tenants in Jagirareas on par with those of the tenants in the khalsa or even to bestowon the tenants any right better than what they actually possessed.These two Acts confer on the Jagir tenants khatedari or occupancy rightsin respect of the lands in their occupation, but they still fall short inone essential respect in that they fail to bring the tenancy rights inJagir areas exactly on the same level as in khalsa.

There is considerable divergence in the Acts regarding the classesof tenants and the nature and extent of their rights. Conditions foracquiring rights, either of inheritance or of transfer, are not uniform.The right of inheritance is more common as compared with the rightof alienation. Full right of transfer is recognised in the cases ofPattedari tenants in Jaipur, occupancy tenants in Bikaner, Bapidarsand Khadamdars in Udaipur, Jodhpur, Banswara and Kishangarh andkhatedars in Partabgarh, Tonk and Kotah. All these, with the exceptionof khatedars of Tonk and Kotah, and Khadamdars and Bapidars ofUdaipur, have to pay nazarana as the price of acquiring rights of trans-fer. The payment of wazarana is not necessarily the only condition tobe fulfilled for the acquisition of rights of transfer nor does it followthat the right conferred is absolutely unfettered or unrestricted in eachcase. For instance, in Bikaner where the rule in this respect appearsto be the most stringent, • a tenant in khalsa must pay 16 times therevenue as premium to become an occupancy tenant and, even then, hisright of transfer is subject to the previous consent of Government.

Another interesting feature of these tenancy laws is that incomparatively smaller states the tenancy rights, both in khalsa and Jagir,are almost the same. This state of affairs prevails in Kotah, Banswara,Dungarpur, •Shahpura, Kishengarh, Bundi, Tonk, Jhalawar, Karauli,Alwar and Dholpur; whereas the principal states had so far stood outin this respect.

Prevention of Uneconomic Holdings

With the solitary exception of the Jaipur tenancy laws none ofthe Tenancy Acts reviewed above contains safeguards against divisionof agricultural holdings below economic size. Section 29 of the JaipurTenancy Act which is also applicable to the State-Grants Land Tenures,provides that no holdings shall be divided so as to constitute holdingsof less than fifteen bighas of uniirigated or five bighas of irrigated land,one bigha of irrigated land being equal to three bighas of dry land.Besides, the Jaipur laws also facilitate the consolidation of scattered

incybe-945,'waritivedinghesegni-atedtheAct,agir;tow,sed.ghtst in3 in

ssesforwm.ight; ofJarsandtion3 ofans-to

[lowach?,arsthehis

inLgir,ara,Lull,out

of;ionpurres,ngs

Ind.red


holdings by permitting mutual exchange of land on the initiative ofthe tenants.

The Problem of Khudkasht under the Tenancy LawsThe question of Khudkasht, Sir or Hawala is of particular impor-

tance in Rajasthan. Khudkasht means the land under the personalcultivation of the Jagirdar. This has come into prominence only duringthe last decade due to the recent scramble for land because of the steeprise in the prices of agricultural produce. The growing craze for farm-ing is also noticeable among the bigger jagirdars motivated by the hopethat even if the Jagir goes, they might be permitted to retain whateverlands they have under their own cultivation. Moreover, the problemwould not have assumed a serious aspect had the petty landholders notbeen faced with the introduction of cash rents.

The Jaipur and Jodhpur tenancy laws contain specific provisionsfor the determination and appropriation of Khudkasht lands. In Jaipurthe relevant provisions on the subject of Khudkasht are contained insection 152 of the Jaipur State-Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947 and theFirst Schedule of that Act. The Jodhpur provisions are to be foundin section 6 of the Marwar Tenancy Act, 1949. The distinctive featuresof these provisions are as follows:-

1. The Jodhpur laws provide a sliding scale of Khudkasht landwhereas under the Jaipur State-Grants Land Tenures Actthere is no such scale.

2. The Sir lands of a Jagirdar consist of the land already underhis cultivation at the commencement of the Act or the landscontinuously cultivated by him for not less than six years atany time after the commencement of the Act; but there is noprovision for appropriation of new lands for Khudkasht. TheJaipur Act, on the other hand, provides for such apppropriationto meet the bonafide needs of the landholders from lands whichhave been sublet, those held by non-agriculturists. Ghair-khatedar's holdings, Jaos of masonry wells constructed by theestate holders at their own expenses and lands held by other,Khatedar tenants of less than 12 years standing.

The difference in the two laws is explained largely by the differencein the local conditions obtaining in the two areas. In Jodhpur enoughland is available whereas in certain areas of Jaipur, e.g., Udaipurwati,Torawati and Shekhawati, the problem of Khudkasht has assumed seri-ous proportions and has become a thorny and vexed question for theGovernment due to the smallness and fragmentary nature of the pettyland-holdings.

Soon after the enactment of the Jaipur State-Grants Land TenuresAct, a spate of litigation was observed in the state courts of law in theshape of demand for Khudkasht lands. The principal defect in theKhudkasht provisions in the Act was the absence of security to thetenants who had conventional rights of occupancy. The condition ofthe tenants-at-will became most miserable of the whole lot. Anotherimportant shortcoming of the law was the absence of 'adequate protec-tion to the tenants against wrongful ejectment by the Jagirdars with-out any recourse to the procedure provided in the Act. The problemWould not have tortured the tenants to such an extent and subjected


them to unnecessary miseries and atrocities committed by the Jagirdars,had the framers of the Act put one more clause in the provisions tothe effect that no land could be appropriated by dispossessing the tenantswith conventional rights of occupancy. •

The Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949.The Rajasthan Government promulgated in June 1949 the Rajasthan

Protection of Tenants Ordinance of 1949 with the object of safeguardingthe tenants against unlawful ejectment. According to this legislation,all tenants who were in occupation of any land on April 1, 1948,and who may have been dispossessed since, are entitled to be reinstatedto their holdings in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance.Section 4 of the Ordinance provides that no tenant shall be liable toejectment or dispossession from the whole or a part of his holding onany ground whatsoever. Section 7, however, of the aforesaid Ordinanceprovided for the re-instatement of only those tenants, who were in occu-pation on the first day of April 1948, and thereafter ejected or dis-possessed thereof;

(a) before the commencement of the Ordinance otherwise than byprocess of law, or

(b) after the commencement of the Ordinance in contravention ofthe provisions thereof.

The interpretation of the words "on the first day of April, 1948" bythe Revenue Board of Rajasthan as excluding a possession of a subse-quent origin was, in many cases, instrumental in creating hardships forsuch tenants as were dispossessed wrongfully after the commencementof the Ordinance but were not in possession on April 1, 1948. Thus,the re-instatement was restricted. The Rajasthan Legislature had,therefore, to pass recently the requisite amendment to remove the dis-crepancy and to bring law in conformity with its spirit. The amendmentcame into force on May 5, 1952.

The principal advantage of the Ordinance is that it provides speedyre-instatement of the ejected tenants by a simplified process throughthe anti-ejectment courts. Another point worthy of note in this con-nection is that the party which is not satisfied with the decision of theanti-ejectment officer can .appeal only to the Revenue Board; whose de-cision is final and hence the cost of litigation is minimised to a largeextent.

The Rajasthan Produce Rents Regulating Act, 1951.

In many parts of Rajasthan the Jagirdars have been recoveringrents in kind for many centuries in the past. The share of the Jagirdarin the produce varied from one-sixth to one-half according to the natureof the soil and the competition amongst the tenants. The system work-ed well except during periods of rising prices. During and afterthe World War II the stupendous rise in prices of agricultural productsgave rise to innumerable litigations and quarrels. The RajasthanGovernment, therefore, had to promulgate the Rajasthan Produce RentsRegulating Act in June, 1951. The Act was a temporary measure forone year for unsettled areas of Rajasthan. As a consequence of thisenactment no Jagirdar could recover more than one-fourth of the grossproduce of a holding. The Act was almost a haphazard• piece of legis-

[ars,3 toants

ihanlingion,948,atedflee.

toon

inceccu-dis-

by

a of

' bybse-; foraenthus,had,dis-aent

.edy)ughcon-thede-

arge

ringrdartureork-ifteructsthanentsforthisToss-bis


lation and the following defects were marked within a few, months ofits operation.

1. Being a temporary measure most of the landholders couldevade its enforcement.

2. The proportion fixed exceeded in some cases the actual pro-portion which was being charged as rent. The maximum wasalso high as compared to the same in the adjoining state ofAjmer.

3. The term "gross produce" was not defined and hence in manycases it became a cause for dispute.

4. The scope was unnecessarily restricted to unsettled areas.

5. The Act does not empower the State Administration to use anyspecial force for protecting the peasantry against forceful rentcollections in excess of the prescribed maximum.

Some of these defects have been remedied by an amendment of theAct in April, 1952. The period has been extended by one year and itsscope, widened so as to make it applicable to all .agricultural lands. Theexpression "gross produce" has now been so defined as to exclude thestraw chaff or the dry stalks of a crop or grass or any other naturalproduce.

The most outstanding change effected by the amending Act, is thereduction of the maximum proportion from one-fourth to one-sixth.This change alone cannot benefit the rack-rented tenants in the absenceof special administrative powers to the district officials for the imple-mentation of the change.

The Rajasthan Agricultural Rents Control Act, 1952.

The Rajasthan Agricultural Rents Control Act was passed in May1952 and it applies at present only to the Alwar and Bharatpur districts.The principal object of the Act is to control the rack-renting activitieswhich are being indulged in deliberately by landholders (speciallyzamindars) in some parts of the State to the detriment of tenants. TheAct fixes twice the assessed land revenue as the maximum rent, ex-cept in the case of agricultural lands situated in urban areas (havinga population of 15,000 or more) and the lands owned by widows,Minors, disabled persons and students below 21 years of age, wherethe maximum is thrice the assessed land revenue. Another importantfeature of the enactment is that it provides for a summary method ofconverting produce rents into cash rents. The tehsildar, on receipt ofan application from a tenant, can convert rents in kind into cash rentson the basis of assessed revenue rates in the adjoining settled villagesfor similar soil classes. The party which is not satisfied with the assess-?Tient made by the tehsildar can appeal to the collector whose decision15 final.

The Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952.

The Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act is theMost outstanding measure adopted by the state. Soon after the for-mation of Rajasthan in 1949, the Venkatachar Committee was appointedby the Central Government to enquire into the Jagirdari and ZamindariSystems in Rajasthan and, Madhya Bharat and to suggest measures for

178 litit INDIAN 301111NAL Or ACRICULIVIIIAL ECONOMICS

reform of the land system, The Committee submitted its reportDecember, 1949. An impartial examination of the Report convinces onethat the committee steered clear of all extreme views, feudal or com-munist. The committee recommended unanimously that Jagirdari andZamindari systems had out-lived their Utility and as such their aboli-tion was inevitable. According to the committee jagirdars andzamindars do not possess any property rights in their holdings andas such cannot claim any compensation as a matter of right. It was,however, suggested that they should be given financial assistance basedon considerations of social justice. The committee did not recommendthe wholesale abolition of all the Jagirs. It seems in formulating itsrecommendations the Committee has aimed at the immediate, ratherthan the ultimate; the practical, rather than the ideal and the expedient,rather than the doctrinnaire; because at every stage of its conclusionsa spirit of compromise is more marked than logic.

' The Rajasthan Government could not take any action on the Re-port of the Committee till the end of October, 1951, It was on November15, 1951 that the Rajasthan Government came out with the RajasthanJagirdari Abolition Bill. But the Bill was shelved for the time beingin pursuance of the Centre's directive that, in the absence of a legislaturein Rajasthan, the responsibility for the abolition of the Jagirdari systemin the state lay with the Government of India. The Vyas Ministry,however, persisted, and pressed the centre for obtaining the assent ofthe President to the Bill mainly with a view to strengthening theposition of the Congress Party in general elections, The Act receivedthe assent of the President on February 13, 1952 and the RajasthanGovernment notified February 18, 1952 as the date for the commence-ment of the Act.

It is now proposed to examine briefly the salient features of the Act,Scope of the Act

Though the Act extends to the whole of the state of Rajasthan,it has excluded from its purview the following two categories of Jagirs,

(a) Sagirsi the income of which is utilised for the maintenance of

any place of religious worship or for the performance of anyreligious service; and

(b) Jagirs, the rental income of which is legs than R. 5,000,The exclusion of the jagirs of the second category seems to have

been effected on -;11e basis of the view taken by the Venkatachar Com-mittee. The Committee classified the jagirs into three categories,namely, jagirs of one or more villages, scattered land assignments inkhalsa villages and jagirs dedicated for the maintenance of religiousor charitable institutions. The committee was of the opinion that fromthe point of view of agrarian reform there is not that imperativeneed for the abolition of the small assignments as there is in the caseof larger jagirs. The view is no doubt erroneous in that it loses sightof the crimes and atrocities committed on the rack-rented peasantryfrom time to time mostly by the petty landholders, The Bhomias al-most everywhere are in revolt and in some of the areas notably?Shekliawati, Torawati and Udaipurwati, have been notorious for theircriminal activities. Only a few months ago they butchered two promi-nent public workers in Udaipurwati. Never in the history of feudalismin Rajasthan Since its inception, nearly 700 years ago any group et:


Thikanedars having comparatively larger estates resorted to such d es-perate action. This leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the ni.edfor the resumption of smaller holdings is more imperative than that., ofabolition of the larger estates.

In respect of religious and charitable grants the Committee had sug-gested their abolition and creation of a statutory endowment board. Butthe Act has failed to implement their recommendation in asmuch as ithas excluded religious and charitable grants from the operation of, theAct. This is in striking contrast to the action taken by Madras andMysore states in respect of their counter-parts.

Fixation of Date of ResumptionLet us hasten to say that the date of commencement of the law,namely, February 18, 1952, is not the peasant's day of deliverance. It isby a subsequent notification of the Government that the date or dates are'to be appointed for the resumption of any class of jagir lands and dif-ferent dates may be appointed for different classes of jagir lands. ThisProvision has also met with much adverse criticism. It appears theGovernment wishes to be over-cautious in that it may select the .line ofleast resistance on the part of the landholders. This could, however,only delay the much needed relief to the peasantry and would keep thefeudal interests in suspense as the Damocles sword would always behanging over their heads.

Consequences of ResumptionAs from the date of resumption of a jagir the various rights of thejagirdar in respect of his jagir lands, forests, trees, wells, village sites,bazars, minerals, etc., shall stand resumed to the Government "free fromall encumbrances. All rents and cesses accruing on the land after thedate of resumption shall be payable to the Government. The Governmentshall not recognise any rights or interests created by a jagirdar in favour ofthird parties, nor shall it be liable for the payment of any debts incurred bythe jagirdar. The state will cease to pay to the jagirdar all cash pay-Inents in respect of his rights; and the jagirdar will also cease to be liableto pay any tribute or land revenue to the Government. But he shall notbe relieved of his existing indebtedness to the Government, nor shall hehe debarred from recovering his past arrears of rent and other dues in re-spect of his jagir rights. All buildings used for schools, offices, hospitalsand other public purposes shall be deemed to have been transferred to theGovernment. On the other hand, private lands, buildings, wells, tanks,house sites, enclosures, groves, etc., shall continue to belong to thejagirdar. Further, leases and contracts made in anticipation of the re-sumption and not in the normal course of management on or afterJanuary 1, 1949 may be cancelled by the Jagir Commissioner. If anyJagirdar recovers rent to which he is not entitled under the Act after re-sumption of his jagir, the collector may impose .a penalty on him up toRs. 500 and direct him to refund such rent.

Payment of CompensationThe Government shall be liable to pay compensation to the jagirdarfor resumption of his jagir, the amount being ten times his net incomecalculated in accordance with the provisions in the second scheduleto the Act. The zamindar shall also be entitled to receive compensation

18(., • THE INDIAN JOURNAL OP AGRICULTURAL. ECONOMICS

from the estate holder out of the amount payable to the latter. His corn

pesation shall be ten times his net income computed according to the

thu d schedule to the Act.

The amount of compensation is to be determined by the Jagir Com-

misioner who will also determine the maintenance allowance payable

out of the jagir income, compensation payable to the zamindar and

the 'other amounts payable to co-shares, if any. He will then deduct

thew': 'amounts, together with the debts due to the Government by thejagirdar from the amount of his compensation and the remainder would

be regarded as the amount payable to the jagirdar in fifteen equal

annual instalments or at the option of the jagirdar into thirty equal

half-yearly instalments. The compensation payable under the Act is

deemed' 'to be due as from the date of resumption and hence it shall

carry simple interest at the rate of 2-Wo per annum from that date

upto the date of paynient. The other claimants (for whom deductions

are made while computing the amount of compensation) shall be paid

their dues in the same number of instalments as the jagirdar. In the

event of death of a jagirdar, the balance, if any, of the instalments be-comes payable to his legal representative.

In matters of compensation the Act deviates from the recommen-

dations of the Venkatachar Committee which had suggested more liberal

assistance for the smaller and the poorer jagirdars as compared to the

bigger and the richer ones. It would have been much better had the

compensation been based on such considerations of social. justice.

The Problem of Khudkasht under the Act

The Act recognises the need for allotment of khudkasht lands tothe jagirdars. If any jagirdar does not possess any khudkasht land orhas less than the maximum allowed, he will be allotted khudkasht

lands by the Government on the basis of the enquiry made by the col-lector and the recommendations of the Committee specially appointedby the Government in this behalf. The maximum holding of khudkashtis to be calculated on the basis of the area of a jagir on the sliding scale,In no case the khudkasht lands of a jagirdar shall exceed 500 acres.The lands needed for the khudkasht shall be appropriated out of landsurrendered or abandoned by tenants, land held by sub-tenants, orculturable unoccupied land within the jagir. In case the lands of theforegoing categories are not available culturable land held by a tenantof the jagir land in excess of the prescribed area may also be allotted askhudkasht. Thus the law provides for allotment of khudkasht fromthe land which may be in the occupation of tenants. This has beenvehemently criticised for though the right of the jagirdar to cultivatesome land personally may be accepted, it would be against the spiritof the times and the accepted principle of the security of tenure todispossess a tenant of whatever class of his holding to augment thearea of khudkasht for the jagirdar. We are at a loss to understandhow such a derogatory provision could find a place in the statute book.The Venkatachar Committee has clearly voiced the opinion that thejagirdar should not be allowed to add to his khudkasht by dispossessingany tenant of his holding of whatever class he may be. The draft Billhad a clause to this effect; but one does not know how and on whatgrounds that clause was omitted. Another glaring defect in the

a-leLdCt

le

LdalalisL11teiSidLe

n-al

to

orht)1-edhtle,!s.adorhentasyrnenLIRrittohend)k.,heng

athe

LAND REFORM LEGISLATION IN -RAJASTHAN 181

khucikasht provisions is the fixation of a very high maxim-um rOr thesize of khudkasht.

Assessment of Jagir Lands to Land .ReveniteAnother outstanding feature of the Act is the evolution of a slow

process of converting the tribute hitherto payable by the jagirdarsinto land revenue. The revenue payable by a jagirdar in respect ofhis jagir is to be based on the rental income of his lands which is tobe determined by the collecter. The land revenue payable by him inrespect of his jagir will then be as follows:—

(a) for the agricultural year 1951-52 an amount equal to the amountof tribute payable by him to the Government for that year;

(b) •for each of the succeeding five agricultural years, one-eighthof the rental income or the amount of the tribute, Whicheveris greater; and

(c) for the agricultural year 1957-58 and subsequent years, one-fourth of the rental income from the jagir lands.

Acquisition of Khatedari Rights by Tenants

Except the tenants who already possess heritable and full trans-ferable rights in the tenancy as khatedars, pattedars or khadamdars,all other tenants shall have to acquire khatedari rights by depositingin the State coffers a sum equal to ten times the annual rent. The sumso received shall be appropriated entirely by the Government in thecase of resumed jagirs and in other cases two-third of the sum shallbe paid to the jagirdar and the balance shall be appropriated by theState. Under the existing tenancy laws practically no jagir tenantPossesses unrestricted right of transfer whereas the right of customaryinheritance is enjoyed by almost all of them. The premium fixed issomewhat exorbitant looking to the economic and geographical condi-tions obtaining in the desert. Consequently, the acquisition of the rightof transfer would be a luxury to jagir tenants which they can ill afford.Moreover, the right of unfettered transfer is not an unmixed good asis very often results in alienation of land to non-agricultural classesWhich is fraught with possibilities of absentee landlordism.

In addition to the various defects which have already been pointedout above, there are some more serious defects in the Jagir ResumptionAct. In the first place, the Act makes no provision for the tenancyrights of those cultivators who may be unable to acquire the so-calledfull-fledged khatedari rights under the Act though they possess at pre-sent the right of inheritance. Another defect is that the Act providesno safeguards against passing of land into the hands of non-cultivatingPersons through transfer, sub-letting or usufructuary mortgage. Suchcontingencies which ultimately lead to a gap between the state and theactual tiller of the soil, should have been prohibited outright on thelines of the corresponding provisions in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition.Act. Then there are no safeguards for preventing subdivision and frag-Inentation of holdings nor is there any provision for facilitating consoli-dation of small holdings. Thus the Act as a whole is not a comprehensivexneasure. Hence it needs a thorough overhauling. The sooner itaccomplished, the better it would be.


The Rajasthan Tenancy Bill, 1952.

It was in April 1952 that the Bill was introduced in the StateLegislature. It seeks to consolidate, amend, unify and declare the lawrelating to agricultural tenancies and land tenures in Rajasthan. TheBill is almost on the lines of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945 and to S01110extent it may act as a supplement to the Jagir Resumption Act. Itprovides for three categories of tenants, namely, khatedars, ghair-khate-dars and sub-tenants. Khatedar tenants will have heritable and trans-ferable rights provided the total holding of the transferee after transferdoes not exceed 75 acres of dry land. Sub-letting is allowed except inthe case of khudkasht lands provided the tenant does not pocket anyprofit as an intermediary between the state and the actual tiller.Tenants will have a right to make improvements and to cut trees fordomestic and agricultural purposes. Further, tenants will be liableto ejectment for non-payment of arrears of rent, non-cultivation forthree continuous years or breach of any material condition of tenancy.Usufructuary mortgages may also be effected by tenants upto a periodof 20 years; but after the expiry of the period the mortgagee's rightsin land wil cease even though his claim might be outstanding. TheBill also provides for remedies for wrongful ejectment.

ar

\V

fiE

Jris:A:Prre

w:

th

atal]fo:

CONCLUSION

The land reform policy in Rajasthan has woefully lacked inforesight and planning. The Government has passed a series of Ordi le-nances and Acts which can hardly be said to achieve even the mostcommonly accepted objective of land reforms, namely, the elimination la]of all intermediaries between the state and the actual tiller of the soil. arTo think that with the promulgation of a few piece-meal ordinancesand Acts all agricultural problems have been solved is grossly to under-estimate the intricate and complex nature of the land problem. It is,therefore, suggested that the state should formulate a comprehensiveland policy in respect of the abolition of jagirs and zamindaris, tenancy la]rights, size and productivity of farms and redistribution of land. Afterdeciding such a land policy the Government should implement it withtop priority.

inW(lac

LAND REFORM LEGISLATION IN OTHER STATES 'ev

(In order to present a fuller account of land reform legislation in arIndia we approached the governments of those States on which no papers 'coon the subject were received. The notes from the Governments of ofAssam, West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh, Pepsu and Madhya Bharat whowere good enough to accede to our request are published below:—

Managing. Editor)

Assam(0_ The Assam Land (Requisition ez Acquisition) Act, was passed

in 1948 and necessary amendments were made in subsequent years(1949-50). This Act provides for requisition of waste lands and theirallotment to landless and displaced persons;

pc"Pabaedfo

ateaw'hemaIt

Lte-

ns-

ferinny.er.forbleforcy.iodItshe

indi-oston

-.;eser-is,.vecyterEth

ncofTio

r)

rsjr

-LAND REPORm LtGisLATION IN 01111Ett sTATtS 18

(b) The Assam Adhiars Protection & Regulation Act passed inib48 affords relief to and safeguards the interests of crop-sharing tenantsand is now in operation in all plains districts of this state except acertain specified area.

(c) The Assam Management of Estates Act was passed in 1949with a view to protecting the natural wealth of the estates, forests,fisheries, etc. which were being wantonly destroyed by the zamindars.In June 1950, necessary orders for taking over the managements wereissued and all preliminary arrangements completed, when suddenly theAssam High Court, on petition filed by some proprietors, stayed furtherproceedings till disposal of the said petitions. The High Court has veryrecently passed orders declaring the Act as intra-vires and Governmenthave decided to take over the managements of the zamindari estateswith effect from the 23rd April next (1953) under this Act.

(d) The Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, 1951 receivedthe assent of the President on July 27, 1951. The Act was, however,challenged in the Assam High Court by some proprietors while it waSstill a Bill. Very recently, the cases have been withdrawn. But almostall the proprietors have given notices under section 80 of the C.P.C.for filing suits against the validity of• this Act.

Rules under this Act, have since been framed.The Act has not yet been brought into force.(e) The Government are contemplating to enact this year (1058)

legislation relating to the Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy. Thelegislation will aim at making better provision relating to the law oflandlord and tenant in respect of non-agricultural tenancies in the urbanareas of this state.

West Bengal

In the state of West Bengal the following legislation relating toland reforms have been enacted.

(1) The West 13engal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949Prior to the passing of this enactment, the /position of the tenants

in urban areas was insecure. Their rights in the lands held by themWere governed by the terms of the contract with the landlord. , Havingno statutory rights in the lands held by them, they were liable to beevicted by the landlords at their will. This measure was passed with aView to giving protection to the tenants of non-agricultural lands against'arbitrary evictions and enhancement of rents by landlords. The Act hasconferred permanent, heritable and transferable rights on certain classesOf non-agricultural tenants in urban areas.

(2) The West Benya1 Bargadan Act, 1950The barga (share-cropping) system of cultivation of lands is an im-

portant feature in the agricultural economy of this State. Before the"Passing of the Act, the relationship between the owners of lands and thebargadars (share-croppers) was found to have been greatly strain-ed which ultimately led to agrarian troubles and adversely affected thefood production in the State. With a view to improving this strainedrelationship between the oWners and the bargadarS, the West Bengal

1 g4 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Bargadars Act was passed in 1950. The Act provides for regulation ofrights of bargadars (share-croppers) and the owners of land, establish ku-ment of bhagchas (conciliation boards) for settlement of disputes relatingto certain matters between bargadars and owners of land.

loiin

Himachal Pradesh un(1) A committee of official and non-officials under the chairman le-

ship of the Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, has been appointed to go eh,into the question of revising the existing Land Revenue and Tenancylaw of the state. The committee has not yet finalised its recommenda-tion and the report has not become available.

(2) The question of abolition of zamindari in Himachal Pradesh isstill engaging the attention of the Government and the Committee ap-pointed to go into the question of revising the existing Land Revenueand Tenancy law of the state, will include this item in its recommenda-tion, on which the Government will finalise its proposals.

The following steps have been taken to provide relief to the tenantsas an interim measure. These in itself are great steps towards buildingthe structure of the society on new lines.

(a) In many of the units merged in H.P., the Darbar or the Rulerused to be recorded as "Ala Malik" in the Revenue Records inrespect of the whole area of the state. Such entry limited therights of the inferior maliks, who were the actual owners, toalienate their property. Orders have since been issued todelete the entry of the Darbar or the Ruler as "Ala Malik"from the Revenue Records.

(b) There has been a special class of tenants called Bethus inHimachal Pradesh for a long time past, who owed an obliga-tion to render personal service to the landowners in return forcertain cultivating rights. Occupancy rights as specified in thePunjab Tenancy Act, 1887, have now been conferred onall Bethus who have been in cultivating possession of statelands for three generations on payment of rents equal to 11 timesthe Land Revenue and cesses for the time being chargeable onthe land. Such Bethus as acquire occupancy rights under thesaid orders have further been given the right to acquire fullproprietory rights in such lands on payment of a sum equal toten times the land revenue and cesses assessed on such lands.

(c) The State Legislature has passed the following two bills, andthese only await assent of the President:—

(1) The Punjab Tenancy (H. P. Amendment) Bill, 1952.

(2) H. P. Tenants (Right and Restoration) Bill, 1952.

These two Bills provide

(1) non-ejectment of tenants except in cases of non-payment of landrevenue and utilization of land in a way which renders it unfit for thepurpose for which the tenants held it;

(ii) restoration to the tenant of his holdings from which he wasejected after the 30th August, 1950. The tenants are required to filean application in this behalf within six months; and

ViconenhapePeT1ofteipa;

ty](1WIAjthiaci

toaniss

larly.

Ncth(owpeofAcofAlril

ofca:prico:

LAND REFORM LEGISLATION IN OTHER STATES 185

1 of (iii) restricting the rent of the land in cases where it is paid inish- kind, to lth of the actual produce.:ing

Ian-goncyida

a isap-nueida-

tntsEing

iler; inthe, toto

Lik"

in[0-fortheon

,atenesontheCullL toIs.

tnd

tndthe

vasfile

The question of extinguishing the proprietory rights of the land-lords in the lands held by the occupancy tenants and vesting such rightsin the occupancy tenants on 'payment of reasonable compensation is

. under active consideration of this Government and it is expected that alegislation to this effect will be placed before the next session of Hima-chal Pradesh Legislative Assembly.

PEPSU

The object of all agrarian reforms is to remove intermediaries, pro-vide security of tenures and to prevent fragmentation of holdings inorder to make agriculture more productive to the cultivator. With thisend in view, the Government of Patiala and East Punjab States Unionhave endeavoured to extinguish occupancy rights on payment of com-pensation to landlords. The last legislation on this subject was the.Pepsu Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance No. XXIII of 2006 Bikarami.The total number of occupancy holdings was 68,657 comprising an areaof 6,16,799 acres. Proprietary rights haveS been transferred to occupancytenants in 45,972 holdings comprising an area of 3,76,898 acres, afterpayment of compensation.

In the former Faridkot and Kapurthala states there were specialtypes of tenants in the areas in Faridkot (60,969 acres) and Kapurthala(11,323 acres). Ordinarily, they paid rents in cash but unlike tenants atwill, they were not liable to ejectment. By notification No. 8B datedApril 28, 1951 the Pepsu Government conferred occupancy rights onthem. In common with other occupancy tenants they were entitled toacquire proprietary rights under the Abolition of Biswedari OrdinanceNo. 23 of 2006 Bk. On further consideration government has decidedto vest proprietary rights in them without payment of any compensationand Notification No. RD 8(54) 52-95 dated 5-11-52 has been accordinglyissued.

The rulers of Faridkot and Nalagarh were recorded as superiorlandowners or Ala Maliks in 4,90,392 acres and 1,74,563 acres respective-ly. After the formation of Patiala and East Punjab States Union AlaMalkiat rights devolved on the State Government. By NotificationNo. 14(17) B-51-13-B and No. 14(17) B-51-14-B dated June 7, 1951,the Pepsu Government conferred full proprietary rights on inferior land-owners in Faridkot and Nalagarh areas without payment of any com-pensation, exempting the area allowed as personal property to the rulerof Faridkot. An act called the Pepsu Abolition of Ala Malkiyat RightsAct 2009 has been passed by the Legislative Assembly for liquidationof Ala Malkiyat rights in the remaining area of 36,023 acres, in whichAla Malkiyat rights were enjoyed by persons other than rulers, on pay-ment of due compensation.

There are tenants at will in an area of 10,46,532 acres out of which3,75,960 acres are held by 50,838 tenants at will who do not possess landof their own. In order to provide security of tenure to them an Actcalled the Pepsu Tenancy (Temporary Provisions) Act, 2008 has beenPromulgated which prevents ejectment of tenants save under certainconditions.

186 Tilt INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL tCONOMICS

The greatest drawback from which the rural economy suffers is thefragmentation of holdings. An Act called the Pepsu Holdings (Consoli-dation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 2007 has, therefore, beenenforced. The Government have formulated a Five Year Plan to com-plete the work of consolidation of holidings by 1955-56 in total area of42,08,333 acres, An area of 4,43,926 acres has so far been consolidatedbenefiting 51,036 landowners.

Further measures aimed at making cultivation and ownership coin::cide are under contemplation and the following agrarian bills have beenintroduced in the State Assembly.

1, PEPSU Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights)Bill, 1952.

2. PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Bill, 1952.From the date of commencement of the PEPSU Occupancy Tenants

(Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Bill all occupancy tenants will becomefull proprietors immediately, leaving the determination and payment ofcompensation to a later date. The rate of compensation which was pre-viously 100 times has been reduced to 12 times the land revenue orannual rent, whichever is less. Under the previous law, the arrears ofrent had to be paid by occupancy tenants along with compensation at100 times the land revenue. The proposed bill extinguishes proprietaryrights of landlords and their right to collect the arrears of rent. In orderto give further facility to occupancy tenants, it has been provided that,if the amount of compensation exceeds Rs. 250/- it will be recoverablein twelve equal six-monthly instalments.

The PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Bill aims at raisingtenants-at-will to the status of full proprietors in some cases and pro-viding adequate safeguards for the remaining tenants. The Bill givesthe option to acquire proprietary rights to all tenants, regardless of theduration of their tenancy, if they happen to be occupying area ownedby a landlord above the limit of 100 acres. The compensation payablefor acquisition of proprietary rights would be 100 times the land revenueor Its. 400/- per acre, whichever is less. It will be payable in sixannual instalments. The rights of tenants to exercise this option willnot be adversely affected by gifts and gratuitous transfers, which mighthave been made during the last 2 years by landlords to their near rela-tions. Tenants or their descendants who have been ejected since May 1,1951 will be deemed to be tenants entitled to exercise this option, ifthey are otherwise entitled.

Proprietary rights will pass to tenants as soon as they have paidthe first instalment. In order to ensure that the period of suspense isnot prolonged indefinitely, it has been provided that tenants who wantto purchase proprietary rights must do so within a period of two years,Adequate safeguards have been provided also for tenants at will whowill be left in the area within the limit of 100 acres permitted for self-cultivation. The minimum period of tenancy in their case has beenfixed at five years.

Tenants-at-will have also been given the right to make improve-ments at their own cost and claim compensation for the same if they areejected. Protection against ejectment from dwelling houses is also givento tenants by granting them an option to purchase the sites of theirhouses at reasonable prices,

1arcr€

ofter'MTbepe:

co]th(-w

na-terth(th(;ac(toiset-co].ly

milT1-]bo:'to:edVaTIi,asE'obthidrjaarWE

'cis

11-1E

Or

palar

11eInteroc(


"l•

The tenants who acquire proprietary rights will be able to transferland only to those who are cultivators which will minimise chances ofcreating new tenants.

it is expected that the above measures will provide maxiinum goodof the maximum number provided the parties concerned, especiallytenants, co-operate with government in their implementation. Peasants,who are the back-bone of the economic structure of the society, will thusbe relieved of the ever hanging fear of ejectment and from a state of'penury will be ushered into an era of prosperity.

Madhya BharatA few days before the merger with Madhya •13ha-rat the Gw-Talior

state Government had passed measures by which the police and revenuepowers of the jagirdars had been withdrawn, while the Indore state hadconferred rights of pakka tenants on the tenants in the jagir areas. Withthe formation of Madhya Bharat the whole question of land reformswas taken in hand on a systematic basis and was pushed forward with'vigour.

Broadly speaking the two major systems of land administration,namely the zamindari and ryotwari were prevalent in this area. The-territories of the former Gwalior state comprising a little more than halfthe total area of the Union were settled on the zamindari system, whilethose of the Indore state and most of the other small states were settledaccording to principles akin to the ryotwari system. Most of the terri-tory was regularly surveyed, soil-classed and assessed at the time ofsettlements undertaken from time to time. There was only a small area-comprising the territories of three smalled states which was not regular-ly settled prior to its inclusion in the Madhya Bharat Union.

The Madhya Bharat Government had from the very beginning, for-mulated a very clear policy for tackling the problem of land reforms.They held the view that agricultural land should be in possession of thebona fide agriculturists and that there was no room for intermediariesto exist between the cultivators and the state. They were also motivat-ed by the principle that the profits of agriculture should go to the culti-Vator himself rather than to be shared by him and any intermediaries.The Government also considered that security of tenure, leniency ofassessment and fixity in demand for a considerable period should be anobjective that should be achieved in any measure of land reforms. Withthis objective in view certain important measures were taken to with-'draw the quasi-independent administrative and judicial powers of thejagirdars. The police stations and the magisterial courts in the jagir-areas came under the jurisdiction of the Government. The jagirdarswere deprived of their revenue powers through which they could exer-'cise coercion in recovering the land revenue from their tenants. Anothermeasure taken was the promulgation of the Land Records Maintenance'Ordinance followed by an Act by which the officials injagir areas likeipatwaris came directly under the control of the Government and theland records were maintained on the same system as in khalsa villages.Pot the khalsa areas the Land Administration and Ryotwari Land'Revenue and Tenancy Act was passed which was mainly based on theIndore Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. All these measures were in-tended to secure to the tenants adequate rights over the lands in theiroccupation.


This left the two major problems, viz., (i) the abolition of zamin-

dari and (ii) the liquidation of jagirs still to be tackled. By the very

nature of the problems these measures could be undertaken only after

the fullest study. The Government, therefore, appointed a committee

consisting of 5 non-official and 2 official members to enquire into the

problem and recommend measures for the abolition of the

zamindaril:-

i

system. This committee after detailed study of the whole problem sub

mitted its report in November 1949. This was followed up by the a-

pointment by the Government of India of another committee commonly

known as the Rajasthan Madhya Bharat Jagir Enquiry Committee pre-

sided over by Shri Venkatachar, the then Regional Commissioner of

Rajasthan. With the object of bringing about direct relationship bet-

ween the state and the tillers of the soil, the committee was asked to

examine and report on the existing structure of the jagirdari system,

the state of land revenue administration, the existence of tenancy legis-

lation, the need for improving agrarian conditions and the desirability

of extinguishing all differences between the khalsa and jagir areas, so

that a uniform revenue and land tenure system might be established

throughout Madhya Bharat-Rajasthan. This committee submitted its

report in December 1949.

The recommendations of these committees were followed up

by legislative action and the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act

was passed in June 1951 and the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs

Act was passed in November 1951. These two important measures were

intended to remove the intermediaries that had existed for a long time

between the state on one side and the cultivators on the other and whose

existence was detrimental to any progress in the matter of land reforms.

As soon as the Zamindari Abolition Act was passed the zamindars

moved the High Court with writ applications challenging the validity

of this Act and though the measure came into force at the beginning of

October 1951, the provisions of the Act could not be implemented till

the middle of December.

Similar writ applications challenging the validity of Jagir Abolition

Act, were submitted by jagirdars and the implementation of the mea-

sures is still in abeyance under interlocutory order of the High Court.

The main features of the Zamindari Abolition Act can be sum-

marised as under:

(1) The vesting in State of all areas which were not under khud-kashta of the zamindars or under occupation of tenants;

(2) Conferment of rights of pakka tenants on zamindars cultivat-ing khudkasht lands as well as on all tenants;

(3) Provision to enable the sub-tenants of either zamindars or thetenants to acquire pakka tenancy rights over lands in theiroccupation;

(4) Determination and payment of compensation to zamindarswhose proprietary rights over their lands were abolished;

(5) Determination and settlement of the claims of secured creditorsagainst the zamindars;

(6) Settlement of disputes in regard to title to zamindari lands;

(7) Payment of rehabilitation grant to the outgoing zamindars howere earning their livelihood mainly from agriculture; and


(8) Introduction of ryotwari system in these areas by the appoint-ment of village patels, village officials and maintenance of pro-per system of land records.

The territories of the former Gwalior state were settled on zamin-dari system. The total number of zamindars was approximately 1,22,000spread over in about 8,640 villages. They realised from these zamindariareas an amount of just over Rs. 2 crores, out of which they paid in theState treasury as land revenue an amount of just under Rs. 1 crore.

In order to implement the provisions of this Act the Governmentestablished a Land Reforms Department under a Commissioner of LandReforms assisted by a Deputy Commissioner. The Government havealso sanctioned formation of 6 districts, each under a compensation offi-cer who will be assisted by deputy compensation officers and claims offi-cers in addition to the land records staff which consists of sadar kanoon-gos, girdawar kanoongos and moharirs and patwaris. The question ofland reforms is closely integrated with the problems of land administra-tion and has been considered along with it. The revenue administrationhas been reorganised recently and the tahsildar has been appointed ex-officio deputy compensation officer for his tahsil. Wherever his workwas found to be heavy he is being assisted by an additional deputy com-pensation officer. The question of examination of titles and adjudica-tion of claims is mainly of a judicial nature and arrangements are beingmade for the deputation of sufficient number of judicial officers to workas claims officers.

Provision has been made for appeals against the order of the deputycompensation officer to the Compensation Officer and to the LandReforms Commissioner and against the order of the claims officers tothe Board of Revenue.

The compensation to be paid to zamindars is on the basis of theirnet assets arrived at by calculating their income from -various sourcesand deducting from it the land revenue they paid to the state and theexpenses incurred on management. The compensation to zamindarshas been fixed at a uniform rate of 8 times of the net assets of thezamindars and its payment would be made by ten equal annual instal-ments. In addition to the compensation, the zamindars who earnedtheir livelihood mainly from agriculture will receive a rehabilitationgrant which will be given on a sliding scale in accordance with the landrevenue that they paid to the state. This ranges from 12 times the netassets in the case of the zamindar paying as land revenue below Rs. 25to an amount equal to the net assets in the case of those who paid landrevenue between Rs. 2,000 and 3,500.

The total amount that will thus be paid to the zamindars has beencalculated to be about Rs. 10 crores. While the state would be requiredto pay this amount to the zamindars it will get an additional incomefrom the zamindari lands which will now be managed under the ryot-wari system. The additional net revenue which is expected to accrueas a result of the measure will be about Rs. 80 lacs and is likely to goon increasing steadily as the unoccupied land is allotted to cultivators.It is expected that in about 12 years the whole of the amount that willbe paid to the zamindars will be recovered from the additional income.While as a result of the implementation of this Act the zamindars willlose their proprietary rights in land, they will receive adequate com-


pensation and will also have their secured debts adjudicated' and settledout of the amount of compensation to be paid to them. They will thusbe freed from their burden and will be placed in a position to take toagriculture free of any, encumbrances. To enable them to do so, provi-sion has been made in the Act by which they acquire the rights of pakkatenants in respect of the land which was under their khudkashta andwhich they will continue to hold after the abolition of the zamindari.In cases where the khudkashta land is not sufficient for their agricul-tural use steps are being taken to enable them to get more land from outof their former areas which have vested in the state. Similar steps arebeing taken to enable them to get some Bir areas for their cattle.

The former tenants of the zamindars irrespective of the differencein their tenures will as a result of this measure acquire the right ofpakka tenants over the lands in their occupation. This has been donewith a view to achieving uniformity of tenure throughout the wholeof Madhya Bharat. These benefits have been 'conferred on these tenantswithout requiring them to contribute anything towards the implemen-tation of this measure.

Provision has been made in the Act to enable sub-tenants to acquirepakka tenancy right, but in their case they will have to acquire theirrights by compensating the proprietors, tenants or sub-tenants fromwhom they hold the land. The amount to be paid has been related tothe nature of their tenure. This is calculated to confer a real boon onthe sub-tenants who can now look forward to holding their lands onpakka tenancy tenure without any kind of interference . from theirformer superior tenants.

A considerable area which was not under occupation has nowvested in the state. Arrangements are being made to reserve sufficientland from this area for the common requirements of the village as awhole in the matter of nistar, while the remaining area would be allottedto bona fide agriculturists in accordance with the rules sanctioned forthis purpose under the Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. Provision hasbeen made in the rules for allotment of land with a view to meeting theneeds of the smaller tenants whose holdings are not economic and tothe landless labourers anxious to take to agriculture.

After the abolition of zamindari the whole of the area will be ad-ministered 'in accordance with the ryotwari system prevailing in restof Madhya Bharat.

The Jagir Abolition Act has been passed but as stated above itsimplementation . has been withheld in compliance with the orders ofHigh Court. It is hoped that the High Court decision will be givensoon. The Act provides for the resumption of all jagir areas in thewhole of Madhya Bharat. The total number of jagirs is 1,329 compris-ing an area of 8,449 sq. miles spread over 4,249 villages containing a popu-lation of 11,25,000. The total income of jagirdars is about Rs. 74 lacsout of which they pay a little under Rs. 12 lacs to Government. TheJagirdari Abolition Act provides for the resumption of all jagir areasand conferment on the tenants of the jagir villages the rights of pakkatenants in the same manner as is done in zamindari areas. The ryot-wari system of land administration has been prevalent in the jagirdariareas excepting in the case of very few jagirs where also the samesystem will be introduced. Government have already taken measures

forwa:be

ondededupON5%

Rs.Rs.thetimbasof (revare

daragrreszan

tenAbOVE

therenmtten

tentioibefullavzagrhocUSE

reveco


for the maintenance of land records papers of jagir villages in the sameway as in khalsa villages and the whole of the land records staff wouldbe under the control of the Land Records Department.

The compensation to be paid to the jagirdars under the Act will beon a sliding scale. The net assets of the jagirdar will be calculated bydeducting from the basic income in varying proportions on account ofeducation, public health, roads, etc., and for police, revenue and judicialpowers. The deductions on these accounts are, however, not to exceed5% of the basic income in the case of jagirdars whose income is belowRs. 2,000/-, while in the case of jagirdars whose basic income exceedsRs. 40,000/- an amount of 50% of the income can be deducted underthese heads. The compensation to be paid to the jagirdars will be 7times of their net income arrived at after making deductions from theirbasic -income under the various heads. It is expected that the amountof compensation to be paid will be met from the amount of the additionalrevenue that the state would derive after the resumption of all jagirareas.

Provision has been made in the Act for allotment of land to jagir-days for khudkashta purposes, so that they may be enabled to take toagriculture in case they wish to do so. The unoccupied land in theresumed villages would be allotted in the same manner as in the formerzamindari tracts.

There is one class of assignees of proprietary rights which has beentemporarily excluded from the operation of the provisions, of the JagirAbolition Act. These are assignees of small plots of lands spread allover the state who mostly themselves cultivate the lands assigned tothem. Their number is estimated to be about 5,000. Some of them haverented their lands to tenants and the Government have already takeninto consideration the question of safeguarding the interest of thesetenants.

As a result of all these measures there would be uniform system oftenure throughout Madhya Bharat which will be based on direct *rela-tionship between the state and the tiller of the soil. There will alsobe a uniform system of land records. The rights of the tenants will befully defined and properly safeguarded and the lands that are madeavailable as a result of these measures would be allotted to bona fideagriculturists to make up economic holdings and provide means of liveli-hood to landless cultivators. The cultivators would also be enabled touse in full the profits of agriculture after meeting the demands on landrevenue based on light assessment. It is confidently hoped that theireconomic condition would steadily improve in future.

THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Documents

Transcript of THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS