- Mrunal - http://mrunal.

org -
[Land Reforms] British Land tenure System: features,
Consequences of Permanent Settlement, Ryotwari, Mahalwari
1. Prologue
2. What is land reform?
3. Players in Land tenure system?
1. The State
2. Owner
3. Superior tenants
4. Inferior Tenants
5. Share croppers
6. Landless laborers
4. Land Tenure System: British Legacy
5. Permanent Settlement: Features
6. Permanent Settlement: Consequences
7. Ryotwari System
1. Ryotwari System: Features
2. Ryotwari System: Consequences
8. Mahalwari System
1. Mahalwari System: Features
2. Mahalwari system: Consequences
9. Consequences of British Tenure systems
1. Land becomes a property
2. Panchayat lost Prestige
3. Food insecurity
4. Cash economy & indebted farmers
5. Serfdom
6. Rural Industry destroyed
7. Lack of Capitalist Agriculture
10. Mock Questions
Prologue
General studies Mains Paper 3: Land reforms in India.
But that is not the end of land reform. Same topic and points also relevant for
GS Mains paper land reform topic indirectly associated with
1
Freedom Struggle its various stages and important contributors /contributions
Social empowerment
poverty and developmental issues
Post-independence consolidation
2
Ministries and Departments of the Government;
Pressure groups and formal/informal associations and their role in the Polity.
Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States,
Indian Constitution: significant provisions
The role of NGOs in Development processes.
Issues relating to poverty and hunger
e-governance
3
Linkages between development and spread of extremism
Besides, Land reform topic is also part of many optional subjects in UPSC Mains:
Optional Subject land reforms included in:
Political Science
Paper 1
Planning and Economic Development : Green Revolution, land reforms and agrarian
relations
Sociology Paper 2 Agrarian social structure evolution of land tenure system, land reforms.
Geography Paper
2
land tenure and land reforms;
Economics Paper 2
Agriculture: Land Reforms and land tenure system, Green Revolution and capital
formation in agriculture.
History Paper 2
1. Land revenue settlements in British India: The Permanent Settlement;
Ryotwari Settlement; Mahalwari Settlement;
2. Economic impact of the revenue arrangements;
3. Rise of landless agrarian labourers; Impoverishment of the rural society.
4. Land reforms
This [Land Reforms] Article series will (try to) cover following issues:
1. Three land tenure system of the British: Their features, implications
2. Peasant struggles in British Raj: causes and consequences
3. Land reforms, Before independence: by Congress governments in Provinces, their
benefits and limitations
4. Land reforms, After independence: abolition of Zamindari, Land Ceiling and
Tenancy reforms. Their benefits and limitations
5. Land reforms by non-governmental action: Bhoodan, Gramdan, NGOs etc. their
benefits and limitations
6. Land reforms in recent times: Computerization of land records, Forest rights Act,
land reform policy etc. their benefits and limitations.
Sources used for this [Land reform] Article series
1. IGNOU MA (Rural Development) Course code MRDE 003
2. Bipin Chandra: Indias struggle for independence
3. Bipin Chandra: Freedom Struggle, NBT
4. Bipin Chandra: Indian since independence
5. Sumit Sarkar: Modern India (1885, 1947)
6. Rajiv Ahir, Brief History of Modern India, Spectrum
7. Ramchandra Guha: India After Gandhi
8. pib.nic.in, Indianexpress, TheHindu, PRSIndia etc. as and where necessary
What is land reform?
Robin Hood took money from rich and redistributed among the poor.
Similarly land reform involves taking away land from rich and redistributing
among landless.
Although land reform involves not just about redistribution of land. It involves
many other reforms, example:
Static (50s to 80s)
1. Abolish intermediaries, Zamindar, Jagirdar etc.
2. land ceilings- redistribute surplus land
3. Tenancy reforms
current (after 80s)
1. computerize land records
2. forest rights act
3. land consolidation
Formal definitions
definition Land reforms mean:
#1 Improving land tenure and institutions related to agriculture.
#2
redistribution of property rights
For the benefit of the landless poor.
#3
integrated program
to remove the barriers for economic and social development
Caused by deficiencies in the existing land tenure system.
Observe that word tenure/Tenancy keeps reappearing. So what does that mean?
Tenancy:
Tenancy in derived from the word tenure = to hold.
Tenancy= Agreement under tenant holds the land/building of the original owner.
Players in Land Tenancy system?
The State
1. enforces tenancy contracts
2. Maintains law and order.
Earns revenue for doing 1+2
Owner
The owner: the guy who owns land
They pay Revenue to the State.
Rich farmers, Zamindars etc. own hundreds of acres of land. Cant cultivate it
on their own.
Similarly minors, disabled, widows, soldiers, fishermen may also own land but
they cant cultivate for one reason or another.
So these people lease their land to other farmers (tenants).
Superior
They cultivate on land leased from the ^owner.
tenants
These are hereditary tenants. Meaning they cultivate same land generation after
generation.
They pay rent to the owner.
They have almost the same rights as the owners.
They can sell, mortgage or rent out the land.
They cannot be evicted against their will.
Inferior
Tenants
Other names: tenants at will, subordinate tenants, temporary tenants, subtenants.
They till the land leased from other tenants/owners.
They pay rent to the owners/superior tenants.
They have limited rights over the land.
They cannot sell or mortgage the land.
They can be evicted easily.
Share
croppers
Sharecroppers= cultivate other persons land (Owner, Superior/inferior tenant)
They get share from the produce, and remaining goes to the tenant/owner.
The equipment and inputs items may be provided owner/tenant
They have no rights whatsoever on the land.
They cannot sell, rent or mortgage the land.
Can be evicted easily.
Landless
laborers
1. They get paid in cash or kind by the owners (or tenants)
2. Sometimes work under begari/bonded labour.
Ok well and good. So far we know: what is land reform and who are the players in a land
tenancy system. We have to study land reform. Meaning some badass thuggary was
going on, otherwise if everything was well and good, then there was no need for
reforms! So what was the cause of thuggary/grievance/resentment? Ans. Land tenure
systems of British.
Land Tenure System: British Legacy
In the initial years, East India company faced following problems:
1. Demand for British goods in India=negligible. (Because East India company was
yet to destroy our handicraft and artisans)
2. Under the Mercantilism policy of British: one countrys gain required another
country/colonys loss. Therefore, British Government prohibited East India
company from exporting gold and silver from England to pay for Indian goods
import.
3. Company needed truckload of ca$H to maintain an army for defeating and
subjugating native rulers.
East India company came up with following solution:
1. start collecting revenue from Indians
2. Use that Revenue to buy Indian raw material- export to England
3. Import finished goods back to India=> make profit.
But this solution had a problem: the revenue system under Mughals and Native rulers=too
complex for the British to understand, and there were no coaching classes or Wikipedia to
help white men understand this complex system.
Lord Cornwallis comes with a novel idea: just outsource the tax collection work to desi-
middlemen: Zamindars, Jagirdar, Inamdars, Lambardar etc. Consequently, British
introduced three land tenure systems in India:

Tenure
system
Presidency Features:
Permanent
settlement
1. Bengal
2. Bihar
(BeBi)
Who? Cornwallis + John Shore. In Bengal + Bihar. 1793
Company outsourced the revenue collection work to
Zamindars
Very exploitative. Led to many revolts. Hence British didnt
implement it in other parts of India.
In Awadh/Oudh, Lord Delhousie wanted to implement
Mahalwari but then 1857s munity broke out. Later Lord
Canning introduced Talukdari system-similar to Permanent
settlement.
Ryotwari
1. Madras,
2. Bombay
3. Assam
(MBA)
Who? Thomas Munro and Read in Madras. (1820)
Who? Wingate and Goldsmid in Bombay (1835). In 1820 it
was tried in Poona but failed. Later Wingate and Goldsmid
start Bombay Survey System in 1835 for individual
settlement system.
Company directly collected revenue from farmers.
Madras was initially under Permanent settlement type
system but Thomas Munro convinced the directors of East
India company to convert this area under Ryotwari / direct
settlement system.
Mahalwari 1. Gangetic Company outsourced revenue collection work to Village
valley
2. north-west
provinces,
3. parts of central
India
4. Punjab
community itself. Technically village headman
(Lambardar) was made responsible for tax collection
North West Provinces initially had Permanent settlement but
transformed to Mahalwari system by Holt Mackenzie.(1822)
Overall coverage
Tenure system % of Agri.land in British Provinces
Zamindari 57
Ryotwari 38
Mahalwari 5
Total 100%
Permanent Settlement: Features
1. Cornwallis + John Shore. In Bengal + Bihar. 1793
2. All the land belonged to the state and was thus at their disposal.
3. British designated zamindars (local tax collectors) , as owners of the land in their
district. This system was adopted in several forms such as Zamindari, Jagirdari,
Inamdari, etc.
4. These zamindars had to collect revenue from farmers and deliver to the British.
5. Converted Zamindars into landlords. The right to the land conferred on the
zamindars was
6. Revenue amount was fixed at the beginning and remained the same permanently.
7. Zamindar were given freedom to decide how much to demand from the cultivators.
Stiff penalties on defaulters.
8. there was a provision of keeping a portion of taxes for the zamindar himself.
9. Zamindars right over land was
1. Alienable: meaning British could take it away and give it to another
Zamindar, if first Zamindar did not meet the Revenue collection targets.
2. Rentable: meaning Zamindar himself could further outsource his work
among more smaller zamindars
3. Heritable: meaning Zamindar dies, his son/brother etc would get it.
10. Farmers became tenants. Two types
1. Tenants-at-will: farmers who cultivated on Zamindars land. They had no
rights. They could be evicted as per whims and fancies of Zamindar.
2. Occupancy Tenants: farmers who owned land. Their occupancy rights were
heritable and transferrable and were not tampered with as long as they paid
their taxes.
Permanent Settlement: Consequences
#for British
gave financial security for the British administration.
Cost of running administration decreased. Because British had to collect Revenue
from only a few Zamindars instead of lakhs of farmers.
British got new political allies (Zamindars). They would keep their own militia to
suppress peasant revolts, and act as informers and remained loyal to British rule.
#learning from mistake
Permanent settlement system led to many agrarian revolts.
Governments income declined over the years, Because Revenue was permanently
fixed + number of intermediaries kept increasing.
Hence, British learned from the mistake and did not extent this permanent
settlement/Zamindari system to the whole of India. Instead, they established
Ryotwari and Mahalwari systems in the remaining parts.
#Farmers lose bargaining power
Textile industry was the driver of industrial revolution in Britain. = raw cotton
imported + finished textile exported to India.
To prevent any competition from Desi textile industries, the British imposed
variety of taxes and tariffs on them=>desi textile business collapsed. Lakhs of
weavers became unemployed, migrated to villages in search of work.
Since they did not own any land, they had to become tenants-at-will for
Zamindars.
Now Zamindars had the monopoly of controlling livelihood of thousands of people.
They extorted more and more taxes.
Moreover, the begar, unpaid work which the tenants were forced to perform on
the zamindars land, took larger proportions. On the average, it amounted to 20-25
% of the lease.
Western Bengal: Farmers got divided into two categories i) Jotedars (Rich farmers)
ii)Bargadar (Sharecroppers)
Eastern Bengal: Jute cultivation. Independent farmers with small to middlesize land
holdings
#More outsourcing
Permanent settlement system created landed aristocracy for the first time in India.
Zamindars used to chow down part of the land Revenue collected. Thus they
became wealthy and lazy. They outsourced their work to more intermediaries /
sub-tenants.
It became quite common to have 10 to 20 intermediaries, more or less without any
specific function, between the government and the farmers, And they all had a
share in the cultivation yield + other illegal taxes.
As a result, 70-80% of farmers produce went to just Revenue and commissions
only=> poverty, debts.
None of these middlemen or Zamindars invest money in agricultural improvement
or new technology. They just kept increasing rents. Hence traditional agriculture
did not shift to capitalist agriculture, unlike other economies.
Ryotwari System
By Sir Thomas Munro at first in Madras State and then adopted in Bombay, and Assam.
But Why?
1. In permanent settlement areas, land Revenue was fixed. But over the years,
agriculture prices/exports should increase but governments income did not
increase. (Because middlemen-zamindars chowed it down)
2. Zamindars were oppressive- leading to frequent agrarian revolts in the permanent
settlement areas.
3. In Bihar, Bengal, there existed Zamindar/feudal lords since the times of Mughal
administration. But Madras, Bombay, Assam did not have Zamindars / feudal lords
with large estates. So, hard to outsource work, even if British wanted.
4. No middlemen in tax collection=> farmer has to pay less taxes=>increased
purchasing power=>will improve demand for readymade British products in India.
Consequently, all subsequent land tax or revenue settlements made by the colonial rulers
were temporary settlements made directly with the peasant, or ryot (e.g., the ryotwari
settlements).
This model was based on English yeomen farmers.
Ryotwari System: Features
1. government claimed the property rights to all the land, but allotted it to the
cultivators on the condition that they pay taxes. In other words, It established a
direct relation between the landholder and the government.
2. Farmers could use, sell, mortgage, bequeath, and lease the land as long as they paid
their taxes. In other words Ryotwari system gave a proprietary rights upon the
landholders.
3. IF they did not pay taxes, they were evicted
4. taxes were only fixed in a temporary settlement for a period of thirty years and then
revised.
5. government had retained the right to enhance land revenue whenever it wanted
6. Provided measures for revenue relief during famines but they were seldom applied
in real life situation.
Ryotwari System: Consequences
Farmers had to pay revenue even during drought and famines, else he would be
evicted.
Replacement of large number of zamindars by one giant zamindar called East India
Company.
Although ryotwari system aimed for direct Revenue settlement between farmer and
the government but over the years, landlordism and tenancy became widespread.
Because textile weavers were unemployed= they started working as tenant farmers
for other rich farmers. In many districts, more than 2/3 of farmland was leased.
Since Government insisted on cash revenue, farmers resorted to growing cash crops
instead of food crops. And cash crop needed more inputs=>more loans and
indebtedness.
After end of American civil war, cotton export declined but government didnt
reduce the revenue. As a result most farmers defaulted on loans and land was
transferred from farmers to moneylenders.
Mahalwari System
Location: Gangetic valley, north-west provinces, parts of central India and Punjab.
But why?
In North India and Punjab, joint land rights on the village were common. So,
British decided to utilize this utilize this traditional structure in a new form known
as Mahalwari system.
Mahalwari System: Features
1. unit of assessment was the village.
2. taxation was imposed on the village community since it had the rights over land.
3. The village community had to distribute these tax collection targets among the
cultivators
4. Each individual farmer contributed his share in the revenue.
5. Everyone was thus liable for the others arrears.
6. Farmers had right to sell or mortgage their property.
7. The village community did not necessarily mean entire village population. It was a
group of elders, notables of high castes.
8. A village inhabitant, called the lambardar, collected the amounts and gave to the
British
9. British periodically revised tax rates.
Mahalwari system: Consequences
Since Punjab, Northern India = fertile land. So British wanted to extract maximum
Revenue out of this region. Land Revenue was usually 50% to 75% of the produce.
As generations passed- fathers would divide land among sons=>
fragmentation=>farms became smaller and smaller and productivity declined.
But still British demanded Revenue in cash. So, farmers had to borrow money to
pay taxes in the case of crop failures.
As a result, more and more farms passed into the hands of moneylenders. When
farmer failed to repay debt, Moneylender would take away his farm but he has no
interest in self-cultivation so hed leasing it to another farmer.
Thus, sub-leasing, indebtedness and landlessness became more and more common
in Mahalwari region
Why is it called Modified Zamindari system?
Because in Mahalwari areas, the Land revenue was fixed for the whole village and
the village headman (Larnbardar) collected it. Meaning theoretically Village itself
was a landlord/zamindar.
Other names for this system: Joint rent, joint lease, brotherhood tract (mahal)
holding and gram wari etc.
Result of British Land Tenure system: Perpetual indebtedness, exploitation. When we
gained independence, picture was following:
Farmers Agro-land of India
7% villagers (richest, Zamindar and other
intermediaries)
Owned 75% of fertile land
48% of villagers (tenants, sub-tenants)
Owned 25% of fertile land. (=imagine the land fragmentation
and size of landholdings)
45% of villagers
Owned no land. Worked as farm laborers, petty traders,
craftsman etc.
Total 100% Total 100%
Consequences of British Tenure systems
Land becomes a property
Before British During British rule
private ownership of land did not exist
land belonged to the village
community
Land was never treated as the property
of the kings -benevolent or despotic,
Hindu, Muslims or Buddhist.
Land was not treated as individual
cultivators property either.
Introduced private ownership of land
This divided village into 1) landlords 2)tenants
3)labourers
This this material transformation the agrarian
society in India witnessed profound social,
economic, political, cultural and psychological
change.
with generations- land kept dividing among
sons=>land fragmentation, diseconomies of scale,
lower production.
Panchayat lost Prestige
Before British During British rule
Land matters and civil disputes were
adjudicated by Panchayat within the
village.
Farmer had to approach British courts for matters related
to Revenue, property attachment, debt-mortgage etc.
Panchayats lost their power and prestige
Food insecurity
Before British During British rule
farmers usually grew foodcrops-
wheat, maize, paddy, jowar, bajra
and pulses
Since British demand revenue in CASH, farmers resorted
to growing cash crops: indigo, sugarcane, cotton=> Area
under foodcrop cultivation declined
Then, Lacks of People would die of starvation during
famines.
Even after independence, and before green revolution-
India was not self-sufficient in grain production.
at independence India was faced with an acute food shortage
near-famine conditions in many areas.
Between 1946 and 1953 about 14 million tonnes of foodgrains worth Rs 10,000
million had to be imported = this was nearly half of the total capital investment in
the First Five Year Plan (195156).

Canals
Before British During British rule
Kings constructed ponds,
canals and wells to improve
agriculture
irrigation taxes were
moderate.
British did construct new canals
Positive: more area brought under cultivation, particularly in
Punjab.
but most canals caused salinity and swamps=>declined
productivity over the years
Taxes on Irrigation were quite high. Therefore Canal irrigation
was used to grow sugar, cotton and other cash crops, instead of
food crops=>food insecurity, starvation and death during
famines.
Cash economy & indebted farmers
Before British During British rule
Land Revenue was paid in kind.
Village was a self-sufficient
economy with cooperative units.
e.g. blacksmith would make farm-
tools, would get yearly payment in
grains/kind.
Moneylending, mortgaging were
negligible.
British obliged the farmers to pay revenue in cash and
not in kind.
The land revenue was increased arbitrarily to finance
British wars and conquests. But The farmers had no
right to appeal in the court of law.
Farmers had no understanding of cash economy +
frequent droughts and famines
Hence they had to borrow money from unscrupulous
grain traders and money-lenders=> compound interest
rate, perpetual indebtedness.
Eventually, the typical Indian villager was stripped of
all savings, caught in debt trap, mortgaging almost
everything-whether personal jewelry, land and
livestock, or tools and equipment.
Collective village life based on
common economic interests and
A new village came-where existence was based on
competition and struggle among independent
resultant cooperative relations individuals.
Farmers shifted from food crop to Cash crops. But cash crops need more inputs in
terms of seeds, fertilizer, and irrigation, hence farmer had to borrow more.
This brought moneylenders, Shroff, Mahajan, Baniya, into limelight- they were in
control of village land without any accountability.
Thus British land revenue system transfered ownership of land from farmer to
moneylender.
towards about the end of the colonial period, The total burden on the peasant of
interest payments on debt and rent on land could be estimated at a staggering Rs
14,200 million
According to RBIss survey in 1954:
credit supplier gave ___% of farmers loan requirements
moneylenders 93%
government 3%
cooperative societies 3%
commercial banks 1%
Serfdom
Before: slavery/bonded labour/Begari almost non-existent. But During British raj
Zamindars gave loan to farmers/laborers and demanded free labour in return.
This practice prevented farmers/laborers to bargaining wages.
Begari, Bonded labour, or debt bondage became a common feature in large parts of
the country.
Even in ryotwari areas, upper caste controlled the land. Lower caste was reduced to
sharecroppers and landless laborers.
Rural Industry destroyed
Before British During and After British rule
India was steadily becoming more
urbanized,
Significant portion of the Indian
population living in large or small
towns.
de-urbanization and de-industrialization of India
This led to even greater pressures on agriculture
since large categories of highly skilled artisans and
non-agricultural workers were thrown out of work.
When the British left, India had become a village-
based agricultural economy.
With an enormous population pressure on
agriculture and an adverse landman ratio of about
0.92 acre per capita at independence.
Even in Villages, there was skilled
artisans like weavers, potters,
carpenters, metal-workers, painters etc.
Trade tariffs and excise duties were set so as to
destroy Indian industries, and squeeze domestic
trade.
Bihar and Bengal: severe restrictions were placed
on the use of inland water-ways causing fishing
and inland shipping and transportation to suffer.
Lack of Capitalist Agriculture
In most economies, the evolution is traditional farming=>capitalist farming methods. But
in India, it did not happen, why?
1. Large landowners in zamindari and ryotwari areas leased out their lands in small
pieces to tenants.
2. Small tenants continued to cultivate them with traditional techniques= low
productivity.
3. Rich farmers/ zamindars lacked the riskbearing mindset for capitalist mode of
production (i.e. invest more money in seeds, fertilizer, animal husbandry, contract
farming, large-scale capitalist agriculture using hired wage labour under their
direct supervision. etc).
4. Even if they wanted to take risk, government did not give any agricultural
support, credit, insurance etc. yet demanded high taxes.
5. It is not surprising, therefore, that Indian agriculture, which was facing long-term
stagnation, began to show clear signs of decline during the last decades of
colonialism.
farming technology in 1951 % of farmers
wooden ploughs 97%
iron plough 3%
Use of improved seeds, artificial fertilizers, etc rare
some more points
Drain of
Wealth
Independent Farmer / tenant was hardly left with any money to re-investment in agriculture.
Most of his surplus income/profit went into paying taxes. These taxes were used for exporting
raw material from India to Britain. = Drain of wealth.
Social
Banditry
when individuals or small group of farmers couldnot organize a collective action against
Zamindars/government, they started robbery and dacoity.
When India got independence, the situation was:
VILLAGERS ASSOCIATED WITH
FARMING
AGRO-LAND
7% villagers (richest, Zamindar and other
intermediaries)
Owned 75% of fertile land
48% of villagers (tenants, sub-tenants)
Owned 25% of fertile land. (=imagine the land
fragmentation)
45% of villagers Owned no land. Worked as farm laborers.
Total 100% Total 100%
Mock Questions
5 marks
1. Important features of Munro settlement.
2. Mahalwari Settlement.
3. Superior and Inferior Tenants
12 marks: comment on following statements
1. British land tenure systems were moulded by greed and desire to encourage certain
type of agricultural exports.
2. Absentee landlordism was a consequence of Bengals permanent settlement.
Comment
3. Though the permanent settlement had serious defects, it gave tranquility to the
countryside and stability to the government.
4. Permanent settlement disappointed many expectations and introduced many results
that were not anticipated.
15 marks
1. What the impact was of early British land tenure policy on the villages of North
and Western India?
2. Examiner the major factors shaping British Land revenue policy in India. How did
affect Indian society?
3. Describe the impact of British Policy on agrarian society.
4. What were the consequences of British rule on Indian villages?
5. What were the three kinds of land settlement during British rule in India? Briefly
discuss their features and implications.
6. What do you understand by Commercialization of agriculture? Discuss its impact
on rural India.
In the next article, well various peasant revolts because of these oppressive land tenure
systems.

- Mrunal - http://mrunal.org -
[Land Reforms] Post Independence: Abolition of Zamindari,
Reasons, Impact, Obstacles, Limitations, First Amendment
1. Prologue
2. What is Land reform?
3. Land reforms: broad vs narrow sense
1. What are the objectives of Land reforms?
2. Increase production
3. social justice
4. Economic development
5. Improve standard of living
4. Post-Freedom: Towards land reforms
5. Why Abolish Zamindari?
6. First Amendment, 1951
1. #1: SEBC
2. #2: Freedom of Speech
3. #3 Freedom of Profession
4. #4: Land Reforms
5. #4 Minor modification
7. Timeline of Zamindari Abolition by States
8. Zamindari Abolition Acts: Salient Features
1. #1: Compensation
2. #2: Common Land/resources
3. #3: Ownership transfer
4. #4: Personal Cultivation
5. #5: Direct payment of land revenue
9. Zamindari Abolition: Limitations/Obstacles/Negative points
1. #1: Land reform Delayed= Land reform Denied
2. #2: Personal cultivation
3. #3: New form of Zamindari
4. #4: Not much for Ryotwari
10. Zamindari Abolition: Benefits/Positive points
1. #1: Agro Production increased
2. #2: Emancipation
3. #3: Changed rural power structure
4. #4: Towards an Egalitarian Society
5. #5: Rise of middleclass
11. Mock Questions
12. Appendix: the 9
th
Schedule
Prologue
So far in the [Land Reform] series, weve seen:
1. Three land tenure system of the British: Their features, implications.
2. Peasant struggles for land reforms in British Raj: causes and consequences.
3. Land reforms, Before independence: by Congress governments in Provinces, their benefits and
limitations.
Now we look into land reform measures after the independence. But first, Lets once
again recap the meaning and importance of land reforms.
What is Land reform?
Agro productivity is affected by two type of factors:
INSTITUTIONAL
FACTORS
TECHNICAL FACTORS
1. land tenure system
2. size of land holdings
3. land distribution
1. climate, soil, rainfall
2. farm mechanization
3. farming techniques: use of hybrid seeds, fertilizer, pesticides,
irrigation methods
Reforms related to ^institutional factors are called land reforms.
Lets check some more definitions
def1 Land Reforms is a planned and institutional reorganisation of the relation between man and land
def2 Land Reforms mean deliberate change introduced into system of land tenure and the farming structure
def3
Land reforms imply such institutional changes which turn over ownership of the farms to those who
actually till the soil, and which raise the size of the farm to make it operationally viable.
def4
Land reforms mean, such measures as, abolition of intermediaries, tenancy reforms, ceiling on land
holdings, consolidation and cooperative farming etc.
def5 Improving land tenure and institutions related to agriculture.
def6
redistribution of property rights
For the benefit of the landless poor.
def7
integrated program
to remove the barriers for economic and social development
Caused by deficiencies in the existing land tenure system.
Ya but why learn so many definition? Ans. UPSC may directly give you a definition and
ask you to comment on it-just like they do in public administration paper I. Example
Mock Questions:
1. Land Reforms is a planned and institutional reorganisation of the relation between
man and land. Comment.
2. Land reform is not confined to just redistribution of property rights among the
landless poor. Comment.
3. Examine the change introduced into system of land tenure and the farming structure
during first five year plan.
4. Define Land reforms. Examine its role in removing the barriers for economic and
social development in India.
Land reforms: broad vs narrow sense
broad sense narrow sense
concerned with land rent, land ownership, land holding, land revenue+
credit, marketing, abolition of intermediaries, etc.
Concerned only with land
ownership and land holdings.
What are the objectives of Land reforms?
or Why do we need land reforms?
Increase production
Tenant farmer has no motivation to improve agricultural practices because
o He doesnt own land=cant get loans through banks / formal institutions.
o He doesnt own land=why bother?
o He has to pay heavy rent to the landowner=hardly any surplus income left to
invest in hybrid seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, machinery etc.
In other words, the agrarian structure that we inherited from the past (Zamindari,
landlessness etc.) obstructs increase in agricultural production. Land reforms will
remove these obstructions.
Land ownership/ tenure security will motivate farmers to work harder, invest more
and thus produce more =more income=standard of life improved + poverty
decreased.
For Development of Indian agriculture the importance of land reforms is greater
than that of technological reforms. (according to Nobel prize-winner Gunnar
Myrdal and K.N. Raj, etc.)
social justice
1. Zamindari abolition= also eliminates Begari (forced labour)
2. Land ceiling = reduces the inequality of income and land ownership
among villagers. Provides land to landless labourers.
3. Tenancy reforms= reduces rents. Landowner cannot evict a tenant farmer
as per his whims and fancies.
1+2+3= Rural power structure changed. Upper caste domination decreased.
Empowerment of SC/ST/OBC farmers, agri.labourers.
Thus land reform=> Social justice + Egalitarian society.
Economic
development
1. on one hand: land reform increase production
2. on the other hand, land reforms will also provide social justice.
3. Abolishing intermediaries (Zamindar, Talukdar, Jagirdar etc)= the State
directly comes in contact with farmers. This direct relation will help in
rural Development and agri. Development as per five year plans.
1+2+3=long term economic development.
Improve
standard of
When,
1. agro production increased
living
2. social justice given
3. Economic development achieved.
1+2+3= villagers standard of living automatically increases.
Mock Questions
1. Land reforms have been treated as an integral part of eradicating poverty, and
increasing of agricultural production. Comment.
2. Explain the role of Land reforms in providing social justice and moving towards an
egalitarian society.
Post-Freedom: Towards land reforms
At this time, we had two set of victim-farmers
1. Those refugee-farmers who migrated from Pakistan.
2. Those exploited by zamindars, landlords and moneylenders.
So first question: what was done for those refugee farmers?
Government settled them in Eastern parts of current Punjab (because from this area,
muslim farmers had migrated to Pakistan so land was available)
First, each refugee farmer family given 4 ht. of land, irrespective of how much land
they owned in Pakistan. Government also gave them loans to buy seeds/fertilizers,
so they can start temporary cultivation.
Later, each refugee family was asked file application regarding how much land
they owned in Pakistan.
These claims were verified by village assemblies and each family was allotted
proportional land in Punjab. by 1950 this work was finished.
Now moving to the second type of victim-farmers: those exploited by zamindars,
landlords and moneylenders. What was done for them?
November 1947: the AICC appointed a special committee to draw up an economic
programme for the Congress.
name of this committee= Economic Program committee
Chairman= Nehru.
Other members: Maulana Azad, N.G. Ranga, G.L. Nanda, Jayaprakash Narayan
etc.
For land reforms, committee recommended that:
1. All intermediaries between the tiller
and the state should be eliminated aka Zamindari abolition. Covered in this article.
2. Maximum size of holding should be
fixed. The surplus land over such a
aka Land ceiling. Covered in next article.
maximum should be acquired and
placed at the disposal of the village
cooperatives.
3. Present land revenue system to be
replaced by progressive agricultural
income tax.
Not covered in any article. because income from agriculture
is exempted from income tax. And therefore, many filmstars
use fake papers to claim they are farmers. (and then they
dance in Dawoods Party @dubai, earn money, manipulate
the account books to show that cash coming from their
agriculture income and thus evade tax.)
4. All middlemen should be replaced by
non-profit making agencies, such as
cooperatives.
5. Pilot schemes for cooperative
farming among small land holders
aka Cooperative farming. Will be covered in future article.
6. Consolidate small land holdings and
prevent further land fragmentation.
Aka consolidation of land holdings. Will be covered in future
article.
Lets start with Land Reform Method #1: Zamindari Abolition. But first question:
Why Abolish Zamindari?
in the first article under [Land reform], we saw the three land tenure system of British-
Zamindari, Ryotwari and Mahalwari.
In Zamindari areas (BeBi: Bengal, Bihar), the British government outsourced the
land Revenue collection work to Zamindars. Similarly in the Princely states had
Jagirdars.
These intermediaries would:
1. Force the tenants to provide demand free labour (Begari)
2. evict tenants as per their whims and fancies = no tenure security
3. Enjoyed lavish lifestyle, did not add anything to agriculture productivity, yet
charged high rent they were like todays Middleman @APMC Mandi that we saw
under [Food processing] article series.
Therefore, it was necessary to remove these intermediaries,
1. Because Art. 23 prohibited Begari. But at the grassroot level, Begari couldnot be
stopped unless Zamindari itself was abolished.
2. Because Art. 38 wanted to minimize inequality of income, status and
opportunities. When Zamindars control ~40% of Indias cultivated land, there was
no opportunity / status for tenant farmers working under them.
3. Because Art. 39 wanted equitable distribution of the material resources of the
community for common good. But in villages, these Zamindars control ponds,
lakes, forests, grazing lands etc. and didnt allow others to freely access them.
4. Because Art.48 wanted to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern-
scientific lines but Zamindars were orthodox rent-seeking mindset, and tenant
farmer had neither the money nor the motivation to scientific farming.
5. Because First Five year plan also asked for abolition of intermediaries/zamindars to
increase agro. Production, farmers income, to provide social justice and move
towards an egalitarian society.
First Amendment, 1951
You already know that First amendment =>9
th
schedule, whatever laws listed this
schedule, courts cannot inquire into them. But first Amendment is not just about
9
th
Schedule /Zamindari abolition. It dealt with many other issues as well.
Microsoft released Windows 8 Operating System. Later, they realized limitations,
problems with Win8, so recently they released an upgrade Windows 8.1 to fix it.
Similarly, Constitution came into force from January 1950. But from January 1950
to May 1951 (=~15 months), government realized variety of deficiencies/problems
with Constitution. So, cameup with First amendment to fix those issues in 1951.
#1: SEBC
Before Amendment
Art. 15: State cannot discriminate against any citizen..
So according to this (original) provision, if government provided reservation or any
welfare scheme for SC/ST/OBC/PH, then general category could approach court saying
were discriminated against and hence our fundamental right is violated.
Another Angle:
DPSP Art.46: State should promote with special care the educational and economic
interests of the weaker sections of the people and protect them from social injustice.
But this Directive principle cannot be implement because of Art.15
so, government had to fix this inconsistency with Art.15.
After the 1
st
Amendment
Article 15 shall NOT prevent the State from making any special provision for the
advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes (SEBC) of
citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
In other words, if government makes law for SEBC/SC/ST, they cannot be
challenged in courts on the grounds that Art.15 is violated.
#2: Freedom of Speech
before
Amendment
Some courts held the 19/1/a (freedom of speech) so comprehensive and sacrosanct that
Even if a person advocated murder, violence or hatred against any
caste/religion/person/nation, he could not be convicted.
What if an ACIO leaked national security related data to a journalist? Both could
still claim immunity on the grounds of freedom of speech.
after
State can make law to put reasonable restriction on freedom of speech, with respect to:
1. National security
2. friendly relations with foreign countries
3. public order, decency or morality
4. contempt of court
5. Defamation or incitement to an offence.
#3 Freedom of Profession
BEFORE 1
ST
AMENDMENT
Art. 19(1)(g): The citizen has right to practice any profession or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business.
Now suppose
1. A person without MBBS degree, starts a clinic.
2. A person without doing any pharmacy course, opens a medical store
But if the State authorities tried to stop him, he could approach courts saying my
fundamental right is violated!
Another angle: According to Industrial licensing policy, atomic energy is reserved for
public sector. But an entrepreneur could challenge this in court and start his own private
nuclear plant. (=risky and dangerous from national security point of view)
AFTER 1
ST
AMENDMENT
1. The State CAN make laws to prescribe professional or technical qualifications
necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or
business. in other words, if you open a clinic without doing MBBS, you can be
jailed and you cannot claim protection under Art.19
2. The State can make laws to carry out any trade/business/service by itself or thru its
corporations. And can exclude any businessmen, citizen or private industries from
carrying out those activities. In other words, if state reserves atomic energy or
railways for public sector only then private entrepreneur cannot approach court
saying his fundamental right under Art.19 is violated.
#4: Land Reforms
BEFORE 1
ST
AMENDMENT
by 1949: Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Madras, Assam and Bombay
states introduced Zamindari abolition bills.
They all used the report of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Committee
(chaired by G.B. Pant) acting as the initial model.
but Zamindars approached courts, raising issues like our right to property has
been violated or were not given fair compensation etc.
Hence Union government came up with provisions to prevent courts from
entertaining such pleas.
AFTER 1
ST
AMENDMENT
Added three things to the constitution
1. two new articles (31 A and B)
2. one schedule (9
th
Schedule)
Art 31A:
State can make laws to acquire any estates / rights related to estates.
Estate =also includes any jagir, inam or muafi or other similar grant;
Rights= also includes rights of any proprietor, sub-proprietor, under-proprietor,
tenure-holder or other intermediary- with respect to land revenue.
And courts cannot declare such law void, on the ground that it violates fundamental
rights.
(But) if such law is made by a state legislation, then it cannot claim immunity under
Art.31A, until it receives assent from the President of India.
Sidenote: later Fifth Amendment added more laws that cannot be challenged in
courts.
Art31B:
The Acts and regulations listed in 9
th
Schedule of the constitution = cannot be
challenged in courts on the ground that they are violating fundamental rights.
Meaning, courts are prohibited from doing any judicial review of the items listed in
9
th
Schedule.
9
th
Schedule:
The first Amendment act listed 13 acts and regulations in 9
th
schedule. all meant
for abolishing Zamindari. Meaning Zamindars could not approach courts against
those laws. (boring list given @bottom of this current article)
Later 14
th
Amendment, 34
th
Amendment etc. also added more laws related to land
reforms in this 9
th
Schedule. You can read more about them in Laxmikanths
appendix for constitutional amendments.
#4 Minor modification
A few minor amendments in respect of articles 341, 342, 372 and 376.
Anyways we digressed much from the Zamindari abolition topic so lets come back.
So far weve seen:
1. what is land reform
2. what are the objectives of land reform
3. post-independence, how we moved towards land reform
4. we saw how first amendment 1951
o modified freedom of speech
o modified freedom of profession
o Protected Zamindari abolition/law reform laws via Art 31A, 31B and
9
th
Schedule.
Now lets talk about the actual Abolition of Zamindari:
Timeline of Zamindari Abolition by States
Era States that abolished Zamindari
1948 to 50s Madras, Bombay and Hyderabad states
1951 Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Assam
1952 Orissa, Punjab, Swarashtra and Rajasthan
1953 Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal
1954 West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi
Zamindari Abolition Acts: Salient Features
Since land = falls under State list, so state legislatures had to enact the zamindari
abolition. Meaning no uniformity. Different states have different provisions. But lets
check the common features of all such state acts.
#1: Compensation
Ownership and land revenue related rights of the zamindars = abolished.
Lands transferred to the (superior) tenants.
State governments gave compensation to Zamindars ~670 crore rupees.
Some states created Zamindari Abolition fund and gave Bonds to Zamindars as
compensation. These bonds could be redeemed after a period of 10 to 30 years.
(why long term bonds? why not pay all cash upfront? think about the fiscal deficit
angle!)
State Compensation to Zamindar
Jammu
Kashmir
No compensation paid to them. And this also led to Hindu-Muslim bitterness because Almost
all Zamindars were Hindu (in Jammu region).
Uttar
Pradesh
Compensation according to Zamindars income.
Small Zamindar= Annual income times 20
Big Zamindar= Annual income times (2 or 4)
In other words- compensation formula inversely related to Zamindars income during British
raj.
#2: Common Land/resources
Example wasteland, grazing land, ponds, wells, forest area surrounding the village.
earlier Zamindars controlled such common land/resources and
o charged fees from villagers, if they wanted to use it.
o did not allow SC/ST to full access these common land/resources.
These Zamindari Abolition acts, transferred the ownership of such common
land/resources to Village Panchayat. And Forest area= gone to Forest department.
#3: Ownership
transfer
Bhumidhar=tenant farmers, who cultivated Zamindars land.
In Uttar Pradesh, Bhumidhar can become owner of the land after
paying 10 times the annual rent to his Zamindar.
#4: Personal
Cultivation
Land which was cultivated by the zamindar himself = exempted from
purview of these acts. Zamindar was permitted to keep this land.
#5: Direct payment
of land revenue
Now Farmer was made directly liable for paying land revenue to the state
government. (Because Zamindar is no longer the middleman in land revenue
hierarchy.)
Zamindari Abolition: Limitations/Obstacles/Negative points
#1: Land reform Delayed= Land reform Denied
After laws were passed, Zamindars went to SC/HC to stay the law implementation. This
greatly reduced the effectiveness of these legislations.
^to understand this, lets check the #Epicfail of Bihar:
1946 Bihar government passed resolution to abolish Zamindari.
1949
Act was passed State assembly but landlords approached the courts and the government too felt it
necessary to repeal the legislation.
1950 State legislature passed New Act, with some amendments. But Zamindars again approached courts.
1951
Union government brings 1
st
Amendment, gives immunity to all such Zamindari abolition acts/
regulations from judicial review.
But Even, after the law was finally implemented, the Zamindars refused to cooperate with
the revenue authorities and tried all means to scuttle it implementation. The petty
revenue officials at Village and Tehsil level, either turned blind eye or actively sided with
Zamindars for bribes. Thus many years had passed by for the intention of Zamindari
abolition became a reality.
#2: Personal cultivation
Most state laws permitted Zamindars to keep part of land for personal cultivation.
But the definition was vague. Zamindars misused this loophole to evict tenant
farmers and keep most of the land with themselves.
(Counter argument: Zamindar started capitalist farming in the area- led to increase
in Agro-productivity)
#3: New form of Zamindari
Main beneficiaries of zamindari abolition were the occupancy tenants or the upper
tenants or superior tenants- They had direct leases from the zamindar, and now they
became virtual landowners.
But now these new landowners leased the same land to inferior
tenants/sharecroppers- based on oral and unrecorded agreements.
These inferior tenants/sharecroppers could be evicted as per the whims and fancies
of the new landowner.
Thus, even after the abolition of Zamindari, the system of intermediaries and
exploitation continued.
#4: Not much for Ryotwari
At the time of freedom, less than 50% of cultivated land was under zamindari
tenure. The remaining areas (ryotwari/Mahalwari) did not have Zamindari system
but they too had system of intermediaries i.e. big farmer/moneylender leasing
land to small farmers- then charging excessive rent and exploiting them.
The Zamindari abolition did not bring much relief to these people.
Overall
the Main objective of Zamindari abolition = there should be no
intermediary/middleman between the State and the land Revenue payer (farmer).
But this objective was not achieved.
Therefore, many economists do not attach much significance to Zamindari
abolition.
They opine Zamindari abolition merely changed the hierarchy of land revenue
administration, but did not bring any change in the method of farming nor in the
nature of agricultural units.
Anyways, enough of negative points, lets check some positive points:
Zamindari Abolition: Benefits/Positive points
1. ~1,700 lakh hectares of land was acquired from the intermediaries (zamindars) and
as a consequence, about two crore tenants were brought into direct relationship
with the government.
2. Many millions of cultivators who had previously been weak tenants or tenants-at-
will were became superior tenants= virtual owners. =DPSP Art. 39 fullfilled (right
to adequate means of livelihood for all citizens)
3. Many absentee zamindars actually started direct personal cultivation (so the State
cannot take away their land). They had money to buy high yielding seeds,
pesticides, fertilizers, machineries=agro productivity increased.
4. The entire process occurred in a democratic framework
5. virtually no coercion or violence was used (unlike the land reforms in China,
Russia or Cuba.)
6. Finished in remarkably short period. Perhaps because Zamindars were isolated
during and after freedom struggle due to their soft corner for the British.
#1: Agro Production increased
BEFORE AFTER
Zamindar collected Revenue. Government directly collects land Revenue from farmer.
neither the zamindars, nor the
cultivators took interest in
improvememt of agriculture land
1. Cultivators have got ownership rights and hence take keen
interest in land improvement and increase in agriculture
production.
2. Government created an enabling atmosphere- agri. cooperative
society, regional rural banks etc. to provide cheap credit.
Subsidy on fertilizers, cheap electricity, irrigation etc.
=DPSP Art. 48 fullfilled (modern and scientific agriculture and
animal husbandry)
#2: Emancipation
After abolition of Zamindari, the agricultural laborers no longer forced to give free
labors=Begari, Bonded labour declined. Art. 23 fullfilled.
Bargaining power of agri. laborers increased=>higher wages=>declined poverty.
#3: Changed rural power structure
Public land such as village ponds, grazing grounds, village streets etc. which was
used by the Zamindars as personal property, have been declared as community
property. =DPSP Art. 39 full filled (material resources of community).
This disarmed the Zamindars of economic exploitation and dominance over others.
Thus, Transferred power from Zamindars to peasants.
#4: Towards an Egalitarian Society
Abolition of intermediaries=> asset distribution=> egalitarian society.
The Planning Commission estimates that after Abolition of Zamindari, at least
twenty million tenants were brought into direct relationship with the governments.
empowerment of those who have out of the development process.
= DPSP Art.38 fullfilled. (securing a social order, minimize inequality of income,
status, facilities and opportunities.)
#5: Rise of middleclass
Since the intermediaries were removed=>farmers dont have to pay heavy
rent=>these farmers could generate profit=>could sent their kids to school and
colleges.
So in a way, land reforms helped in expansion of Indian middleclass.
Mock Questions
1. Zamindari abolition merely changed the hierarchy of land revenue administration,
but did not bring any change in the method of farming nor in the nature of
agricultural units. Comment
2. Critically evaluate the signification of Zamindari abolition as a measure of land
reforms.
3. Analyse the impact of Zamindari abolition on rural power structure. Do you agree
with the opinion that it didnt really benefit the marginalized sections of rural
society?
4. Explain how Zamindari abolition helped fullfilling the directive principles of state
policy.
5. Land reforms could not have been initiated without enactment of the First
Amendment. Comment.
6. Land reforms have been treated as an integral part of eradicating poverty, and
increasing of agricultural production. Comment.
7. Explain the role of Land reforms in providing social justice and moving towards an
egalitarian society.
8. Land Reforms is a planned and institutional reorganisation of the relation between
man and land. Comment.
9. Land reform is not confined to just redistribution of property rights among the
landless poor. Comment.
10. Examine the change introduced into system of land tenure and the farming
structure during first five year plan.
11. Define Land reforms. Examine its role in removing the barriers for economic
and social development in India.
In the next article, well the second measure of land reform: Land Ceilings.
Appendix: the 9
th
Schedule
the first amendment had added 13 laws in the 9
th
schedule. And Art.31B prohibited courts
from doing judicial review on them. Here goes the boring list only for information:
1. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950).
2. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act LXVII of
1948).
3. The Bombay Maleki Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 (Bombay Act LXI of 1949).
4. The Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 (Bombay Act LXII of 1949).
5. The Panch Mahals Mehwassi Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 (Bombay Act LXIII of
1949).
6. The Bombay Khoti Abolition Act, 1950 (Bombay Act VI of 1950).
7. The Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watan Abolition Act, 1950 (Bombay Act LX
of 1950).
8. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated
Lands) Act, 1950 (Madhya Pradesh Act I of 1951).
9. The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras
Act XXVI of 1948).
10. The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment
Act, 1950 (Madras Act I of 1950).
11. The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Uttar
Pradesh Act I of 1951).
12. The Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358F. (No. LXIX of 1358,
Fasli).
13. The Hyderabad Jagirs (Commutation) Regulation, 1359F. (No. XXV of
1359, Fasli).

- Mrunal - http://mrunal.org -
[Land Reforms] Ceiling on Land holdings: Reasons, Impact, Obstacles,
Limitations, Achievements
1. Prologue
2. What is Land Ceiling?
3. Why Ceiling on Land holdings?
4. Land Ceiling in India
5. Ceiling Phase 1: Freedom to 1972
6. Salient Features
1. Limitations/Failures of Land Ceiling (47-72)
2. Negative#1: No redistribution
3. Negative#2: Family vs Individual
4. Negative#3: Land ceilings too high
5. Negative#4: Exempted land categories
6. Negative#5: Delay in Law Making
7. Negative#6: History repeats
7. Second stage: 1972 onwards
8. 34
th
Amendment
9. Land Ceiling: problems/ limitations/obstacles
1. #Epicfail in UttarPradesh
2. Land reform Delayed is land reform denied
3. Hardly any redistribution
4. Lack of Auxiliary Support
5. Lack of Political Mobilization
6. Lack of Administrative will
7. FYP did not give direction
8. Land fragmentation=Low GDP
9. Post-LPG: Changed priorities
10. Land Ceilings: Benefits/Advantages/Positive Points
1. With political Will
2. Production increased
3. Employment increased
4. Naxal reduced
5. Social Justice
6. Growth of New political parties
11. Land Ceiling: Pro and Anti arguments
12. Mock Questions
Prologue
So far weve seen
1. Three land tenure system of the British: Their
features, implications.
How the British had difficulty learning the land
Revenue system of Desi Nawabs. So, they came up
with Permanent settlement, Ryotwari and Mahalwari
systems.
2. Peasant struggles for land reforms in British
Raj: causes and consequences.
But the British tenure systems caused much pain and
anguish among Indian peasants and led to numerous
revolts.
3. Land reforms, Before independence: by
Congress governments in Provinces, their
benefits and limitations.
After the Provincial elections of 1937, Congress
ministries took measures to protect tenant farmers.
But by and large shied away from zamindari
abolition.
4. Land reforms, After independence: Abolition
of Zamindari, Reasons, Impact, Obstacles,
Limitations.
After freedom, State Governments enacted Zamindari
Abolition Acts. As a result erstwhile (superior)
tenants became virtual owners of their land. =>This
is First tool of Land reform.
Now comes the new problem:
1. After abolition of Zamindari, the (superior) tenant farmers became virtual owners of the land.
They owned tens and hundreds of acres of land. While other (inferior
tenants/sharecroppers/landless laborers) owned nothing.
2. Many Zamindars themselves kept lot of land in pretext of personal cultivation.
Therefore, State governments enacted land ceiling acts. E.g.an individual farmer cannot own land
beyond say 10 acres. Thus, if a farmer owned 12 acres, government would take away 12-10=2 acres
of surplus land from him, and distribute it to some landless laborers. This is Second tool of Land
reform.
before going further lets again recap the players in a tenancy system
What is Ceiling on Land Holdings?
It means fixing maximum size of land holding that an individual/family can own.
Land over and above the ceiling limit, called surplus land.
if the individual/family owns more land than the ceiling limit, the surplus land is taken away
(with or without paying compensation to original owner)
This surplus land is
a. distributed among small farmers, tenants, landless labourers or
b. handed over to village panchayat or
c. Given to cooperative farming societies.
Why Ceiling on Land holdings?
1. Because DPSP Art.38 seeks to minimize the inequalities of income, status, facilities and
opportunities. Land ceiling minimize inequality in the land ownership and thus reduces
inequality of income.
2. Because DPSP Art.39 wants to ensure that the operation of economic system does not result
in the concentration of wealth. In a village, land=wealth, hence land ceiling is necessary to
prevent concentration of wealth in the hands of few.
3. Because DPSP Art.39 wants to give right to adequate means of livelihood for all citizens.
Land ceiling (and subsequent land redistribution) provides self-employment opportunities to
landless agricultural laborers.
4. If there is no land ceiling, rich farmers will buy all the land of entire village and tehsil. But
since they cannot cultivate all the land by themselves- theyll lease it to small farmers
(tenants). Small farmer (tenant) doesnt have any motivation to work harder because he
doesnt own the land and he has to give 30-50-70% of the produce to that rich farmer, as
rent= exploitation.
5. So, After abolishing Zamindari, IF State Governments had not implemented Land ceiling,
then rich farmers/superior tenants would have become the new de-facto/virtual Zamindars of
Modern India.
Although, economists who believe in free market / capitalism, donot like land ceiling. Well see
their anti-land ceiling arguments at the end of this article. But for the moment, lets continue with
the assumption that land ceiling is beneficial.
Land Ceiling in India
WE can study it in two phases:
1. From independence to 1972
2. After 1972
Ceiling Phase 1: Freedom to 1972
1946
(just before freedom) All India Kisan Sabha demanded a maximum limit of landownership of 25
acres per landholder
1947
Economic Program committee headed by Nehru, Recommended, The maximum size of holdings
should be fixed. The surplus land over such a maximum should be acquired and placed at the
disposal of the village
1949
Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee, chaired by J.C. Kumarappa.
Recommended a ceiling on landholding which was to be three times the size of an economic
holding.
An economic holding was defined as that which would give a reasonable standard of living
to the cultivator and provide full employment to a family of normal size and at least to a pair
of bullocks.
First
FYP
There should be an upper limit to the amount of land that an individual may hold.
Exact upper limit was to be fixed by each State, having regard to its own agrarian history
and present problems.
1953
AICC Agra session: State Governments should take immediate for the fixation of ceilings
on land holdings, with a view to redistribute the land,
1957
National Development Council (NDC) adopted a decision to complete the imposition of
ceilings by the end of 1960.
1959
Nagpur session of Congress. Passed resolution that
All states should complete land ceiling by 1959
Surplus land should be given to Panchayats and Cooperatives of Landless laborers.
Salient Features
During this phase, Land ceiling reform ran on following principles/features:
1. States were given freedom to fix land ceiling based on soil conditions, irrigation facilities,
agrarian history of the region etc.
2. States had to conduct census of landholdings and classify agriculture land into two parts:
Classification of land What to do here?
1. Land held by Tenants (i.e. after
Zamindari abolition, these Tenants who
had become virtual owners of the land.)
1. States had to make law, thatll enable Tenant to
take over this land with patta (i.e. document
showing possession).
2. Subject to maximum land ceiling in acres. i.e.
surplus land from tenant will be taken away.
2. Land held by Landowner himself
3. Owner could keep part of this land for his
personal cultivation (subject to maximum land
ceiling in acres)
4. State will give remaining surplus land to those
agricultural labourers, with or without paying
compensation to the original land owner.
Sounds good on paper? Yes. But Land Ceiling during this phase=EPICFAIL. Why?
Limitations/Failures of Land Ceiling (47-72)
Negative#1: No redistribution
by the end of
1961
most states passed land ceiling Acts
by the end of
1970
Not a single acre was declared surplus in large states like Bihar, Mysore, Kerala,
Orissa and Rajasthan!
In Andhra Pradesh, a mere 1,400 acres was declared surplus but no land was
distributed.
by the end of
1970
Overall India: only 2.4 million acre declared surplus. Barely 50% of that surplus land
was redistributed among landless.
This amounted to ~0.3% of total cultivated land of India in that era.
So why did this happen? Why didnt land ceiling acts achieve desired result? Because of following
reasons:
Negative#2: Family vs Individual

Initially States imposed the land ceiling on individual and not on family.
So big farmers transferred their land to sons, daughters, wives, relatives (sometimes even
non-existent/dead family member) to avoid crossing the ceiling.
Many states provided extra-ceiling if family exceeded five members. Example Andhra
Pradesh had allowing 6 to 72 acres (depending on the nature of land) per extra member of
the family.
In these day, there was no family planning= large sized family=very few families crossed
the land ceiling.
Thus, land ceiling definition itself defeated the noble purpose of land distribution.
Negative#3: Land ceilings too high
During this era, more than 70% of the landholdings were below 5 acres. Yet the ceilings were fixed
too high, example:
State land ceiling
Andhra Pradesh 27-312 (depending on land quality)
Assam 50 acres
Kerala 15 to 37.5 acres
Punjab 30 to 60 acres
West Bengal 25 acres
Maharashtra 18 to 126 acres
Result? Very few people crossed the land ceiling. Hardly any surplus land taken away.
Negative#4: Exempted land categories
2
nd
Five year plan recommended following categories of land be exempted from ceiling laws:
1. tea, coffee and rubber plantations, orchards,
2. specialized farms engaged in cattle breeding, dairying, wool raising, etc.,
3. sugarcane farms operated by sugar factories
4. Efficiently managed farms on which heavy investments had been made.
5. Land belonging to charitable trusts.
2
nd
Five year plans intention was good- it wanted to promote capitalist/progressive farming and
make foundation for the future green revolution.
But State government implemented this policy in letter and not in spirit. Result?
1. Efficiently managed farm was vaguely defined. So many farmers evaded the ceilings by
simply getting themselves declared efficient.
2. Tamilnadu exempted land held by cooperatives from land ceiling act. So, Landlords
transferring their lands to bogus cooperatives.
3. Many rich farmers setup bogus charitable trusts in connivance with state officials, then
transferred land to charitable trust and avoided ceiling.
Negative#5: Delay in Law Making
State governments took lot of time to pass the land ceiling legislation.
This gave big farmers enough time to sell their excess lands, or to transfer it to their relatives
and even make benami transfers.
Landowners evicted tenants and resume cultivation by themselves (on paper) claiming they
had shifted to Efficient farming (so the land ceiling cannot apply). But in reality they just
hired sharecroppers/landless labourers to do all the work.
Thus, by the time the ceiling legislations were in place, there were barely any holdings left
above the ceiling and consequently little surplus land became available for redistribution.
Third Five year plan also admitted this limitation.
Negative#6: History repeats
Recall that during Zamindari abolition, the Zamindars tried all tricks to resist governments
attempt. At that time, superior tenants/rich farmers supported government (with hope of
getting land)
Now as governments tried to put land ceiling on these superior tenants/rich farmers=they
tried all tricks to resist land ceiling
o using their vote bank clout over political parties at state level=bills passed with lot of
delay.
o conniving with petty revenue official at village and tehsil level to transfer land to
family members and benami persons to avoid ceiling
o filling flimsy court cases to delay the implementation
Thus history repeated itself those who sought land reform earlier, now became opponents of land
reforms themselves. Anyways, so far first phase: 1947-1972, land ceiling is epicfail. Now lets
check the second phase:
Second stage: 1972 onwards
1970: Indira Gandhi says following
The land reform measures implemented have failed to match the legitimate expectations which were
first fostered among millions of cultivators during the national movement . . . In short, we have yet
to create institutional conditions which would enable small farmers, tenants, and landless labourers
to share in the agricultural New Deal.
Soon, a conference of Chief Ministers @Delhi. They conclude:
1. Landlessness among rural poor=main cause of Naxal problem and agrarian tensions.
2. At present, Land ceiling varied anything between 10-54 acres. This has to be reduced
because thanks to High Yield Variety Seeds +intensive cropping = even small sized farms of
1-2 hectares became economically viable. So there is no need for big ceilings.
1972: Union government gave following guidelines
1. New ceiling
Type ceiling in acres
double-cropped perennially irrigated land 10-18
single-cropped land 27
inferior dry lands 54
2. land ceiling will be applied to family (husband+wife+three children) and not on individuals
3. While distributing surplus land, first priority to landless agricultural workers, particularly
SC/ST.
4. Land owner will be compensated for his surplus land- but this compensation will be fixed
below market price (so that new owner i.e. landless laborer can afford to buy it)
5. mechanised farms, land belonging to private trusts etc. should not be given exemption from
land ceiling.
Result?
After this 1972 guideline, most states revised their land ceiling acts- except some northeastern states
and Goa which had no ceiling laws. (table just for information, may be outdated right now.)
States Ceiling fixed(in hectares) States Ceiling fixed(in hectares)
Andhra Pradesh 4.05 to 21.85 Madhya Pradesh 7.28 to 21.85
Bihar 6.07 to 18.21 Maharashtra 7.28 to 21.85
Gujarat 4.05 to 21.85 Orissa 4.05 to 18.21
Haryana 7.25 to 21.85 Punjab 7.00 to 20.50
Himachal 4.05 to 28.33 Rajasthan 7.28 to 70.82
J&K 3.60 to 9.20 Tamil Nadu 4.86 to 24.28
Kamataka 4.05 to 21.85 Uttar Pradesh 7.28 to 28.33
Kerala 4.86 to 6.07 West Bengal 5.00 to 7.00
But rich farmers still continued to evade the ceiling by filling court cases on flimsy ground. In
Andhra Pradesh alone ~500,000 pending cases pertaining to land ceiling were filed!
34
th
Amendment
Since rich farmers continued to evade land ceiling by flimsy courtcases, the Union
government came up with 34
th
Constitutional amendment in 1974.
This amendment put most of the revised ceiling laws (of state governments) in the Ninth
Schedule of the constitution so that they could not be challenged in the courts on
constitutional grounds. (according to Art.31B)
Result? Some progress in surplus land being redistributed, but overall results were still far from
satisfactory.
early
80s
~2 million acres land redistributed (but rich farmers wilfully dispersed more than 30 million acre
land to avoid ceilings)
1885 ~4 million acres land redistributed.
So far weve seen
1. what is land ceiling and why do we need land ceiling
2. land ceiling in two phases: freedom to 72 and from 72 onwards.
Now lets check the overall positive/negative points:
Land Ceiling: problems/ limitations/obstacles
#Epicfail in UttarPradesh
1. U.P. Imposition of Land Ceiling Act was passed in 1960. The Act put the ceiling limit at 40
acres. It defined family in a liberal manner and allowed a large number of exemptions.
2. When ceiling came in effect, Zamindars connived with local officials. As a result, they kept
the best fertile land and mostly unlevel, wasteland, waterlogged or sandy/salty land was
declared as surplus and given to landless.
3. Poor Beneficiary had to face irregular power supply, absence of government tubewell, high
charge of water, etc.
4. The Village Pradhan and Lekhpal will not give Patta (possession document) to the poor,
unless they paid bribes.
5. Many poor who got land, resold it back to the original owner under Benami transections-
under greed, threats and coercion.
Thus, Land Ceiling Act hardly made an impact on the land distribution in UP. Former zamindars
retained large tracts of land and converted themselves into large landowners which did give them
political power.
Land reform Delayed is land reform denied
The states took four to nine years to formulate the proposals, discuss them in the assembly
and finally pass them.
This lengthy time period was enough for the intermediaries to prepare for the eventual
implementation of the Land ceiling Act.
They registered surplus/excess land under relatives names and or even fictitious persons,
manipulating land records and reclassifying land under different heads. In short most of them
managed to evade land ceiling acts.
Hardly any redistribution
Overall, the land which has been declared surplus and distributed among landless= less than
2 percent of the total cultivated land.
Hence, we cannot say land ceiling was a game changer.
But only positive thing= It prevented further concentration of land in the hands of few rich
people.
In other words, land ceiling didnt change the existing land holding pattern but merely
prevented concentration of land in few hand in the future.
Lack of Auxiliary Support
More than 6 million hectares of wastelands were distributed among the landless.
But it was #epicfail as states did not give any assistance to transform the wasteland to make it
fit for cultivation.
Lack of Structural changes @village (education, transport, healthcare etc.)
Many a times, even after a landless get land, he doesnt get credit (loans) easily to buy seeds,
fertilizer. So he leases his land to a bigger farmer and himself migrates to city in search of
jobs or works as labourer in someone elses farm.
Lack of Political Mobilization
After Abolition of Zamindari, the superior tenants (mostly rich to middle income farmers
belonging to General/OBC group) acquired a higher social status.
They economic strength also increased because of green revolution.
Subsequently these landowners wielded great authority in rural India and bitterly opposed to
a ceiling on agricultural holdings.
They are able to have their way because political parties made no serious efforts to mobilize
small/marginal farmers or landless laborers to enlist their support in favour of ceiling and
other land reforms.
Lack of Administrative will
Mere passing a law= insufficient. It must be implemented with full vigor and efficiency.
During this era (60-70s), the small/marginal farmers or Landless labourers are not organized
politically. 73
rd
Amendment for Panchayati Raj is not even passed yet.
So, there was no pressure/compulsion on district-tehsil level officials to perform efficiently.
They were corrupt and inefficient as ever.
FYP did not give direction
First Five Year Plan identified small and uneconomic holdings as the root cause of many
difficulties in the way of agricultural development. But still did not pay much attention to
land ceiling. Meaning, First Plan (secretly) did not want to disturb the big farmers or land
owners who were crucial to increased agricultural growth.
Second five year=gave the concept of exempted categories of land (tea plantation,
efficiently managed farms etc.) and we saw how this exemption was misused.
Third and Fourth Plans=War, stoppage of aid, famine, food-insecurity, fiscal deficit etc. So
they had very little to say (or do) on the issue of land reforms in general and land ceiling in
particular.
by the time we reach fifth five year plan (74-79) there is emergency, Indira-Hatao, Morarji
trying to hold a coalition government => land ceiling reform did not figure in priorities- be it
planning, policies, legislation or grassroot mobilization of peasants.
6
th
FYP onwards (80s), the focus shifts to poverty removal, self-employment, watershed etc.
and land ceiling became as obsolete to five year planning, as Vivek Mushran, Rahul Roy and
Kumar Gaurav are for todays Bollywood.
Land fragmentation=Low GDP
Between 85-92, number of beneficiaries increased more than the increase in area
distributed=> new beneficiaries received very tiny plots.
As generations passed- more and more land division among sons=>smaller and smaller
farms=no economies of scale, disguised unemployment, low productivity etc.
These small farmers could have stopped uneconomic farming, and picked up some
financially rewarding non-agro job e.g. factory worker, rickshaw driver etc. But that did not
happen because other rich farmers couldnt buy their land due to land ceiling laws.
Thus in the long run, Land ceiling killed the rural land market, and prevented land
consolidation.
Economists agree that if country wants to progress from developing=>developed nation, then
people must move from agriculture to manufacturing/service sector.
But that is not happening in India. Thus, land ceiling being one of the reason why majority of
population continues to depend on agriculture.
Post-LPG: Changed priorities
Therefore, today government is more focused on industrial sector and the service sector
growth, self-employment generation type schemes. Land reform-Land redistribution doesnt
form priority.
Whatever land redistribution was to be done, has been done by 80s. Today there is no new
land to cultivate. Infect, urbanization putting more pressure on existing agriculture land.
So, if you (government) want to redistribute land, there is only one way: amend land ceiling
e.g. no one can own more than 1 acre, then take away surplus land from farmers who own
more than 1 acre, and redistribute among landless.
But this policy is impractical for governments because
o Itll increase land fragmentation. Small sized farmers= lower economies of scale,
mechanization not possible=lower productivity
o Itll annoy the existing vote bank of small-medium farmers because their surplus land
will be taken away.
In short, land reform is no longer in the priority list of Government policies. Today Government
gives priority to food security, direct cash transfer, as far as rural India goes.
Anyways, enough of negative points about land ceiling. Lets check some positive points
Land Ceilings: Benefits/Advantages/Positive Points
With political Will
States with political will in favour of land ceiling=showed great progress. Example
1. Jammu and Kashmir, Land ceiling laws fully implemented and by the middle of 1955 about
230,000 acres of surplus land had been handed over to tenants and landless labourers, that
too without having to pay any compensation.
2. West Bengal had less than 3% of total cultivate land in India. Yet more than 25% of the total
surplus land that was distributed throughout India, belonged to WB.
Production increased
1. Earlier large tracts of wasteland belonging to big zamindars/farmers remain uncultivated.
Now this given to landless laborers= increases area under cultivation=food security.
2. More Production: Equal distribution of land will encourage intensive cultivation resulting in
increased agricultural production.
3. Some Farm management studies conducted in India testified that small farms yielded more
production per hectare. It is so because family members themselves cultivate small farms.
4. Even one hectare of land is also an economic holding these days on account of improvement
in agricultural technique. Hence, small size of holding due to ceiling will not have any
adverse effect on agricultural production.
5. Atleast some of the Land owners shifted to direct efficient farming in order to get
exemption from land ceiling.
Employment
increased
1. Landless laborer= gets employment only during sowing and harvesting
season but now he given land ownership = he is 24/7 self-employed farmer.
2. Even if he did not get land, still other farmers got land=> more demand for
agri.labourers= wage bargaining power increased.
3. In other words, land ceiling increased employment opportunities.
Naxal reduced
1. With reduction in inequality among the villagers, possibility of class struggle
will be minimised.
2. They will live with perfect peace and harmony and not join Maoists/Naxals
movements any longer. (atleast in theory)
Social Justice
3. In a rural economy, whoever controls land, controls the power.
4. Land ceiling Reduced this power inequality among villagers.
5. Promoted spirit of cooperation among villagers. Will help develop
cooperative farming later on (atleast in theory).
Growth of New political parties
1959: N.G. Ranga, C. Rajagopalachari and Minoon Masani setup the Swatantra party.
Because they were against land ceiling, compulsory cooperativization, nationalization of
private industries etc. policies of Congress government.
1967 Charan Singh formed BKD
1974 BKD+ Swatantra Party + other parties merged=>BLD
1977
BLD was major component of Janta Government under the great Morarji Desai who defeated Indira
Gandhi.
Thus, in a way land ceiling helped destroying Congress monopoly / One party rule in Indian
politics.
Land Ceiling: Pro and Anti arguments
Like I said in the middle of the article- the economists believing in free market / capitalism- they
dont like land ceiling. So lets hear their arguments
Anti-Land Ceiling Pro Land Ceiling
Land ceiling should be abolished. even
corporate sector should be allowed to buy
agri. land.
This will enable the enterprising farmer to
enlarge his holding by buying or leasing
lands of small farmers.
Although landlessness will increase but
these small farmers could find
employment in agri. and allied sector as a
result of capitalist mode of production.
Agricultural income= exempted from income
tax.
So, if land ceilings are removed, the rich people
will rush to buy farm land.
Thus land prices will soar. A new intermediary
group of Agri.land mafia will emerge.
But millions of small and marginal farmers will
be pushed off their land.
Hence, the time is not yet ripe to bring forth
such drastic reforms (of removing land ceilings).
Capitalist mode of agriculture=>more
surplus income=> invested back into the
agriculture=economic growth.
if corporate sector is allowed to enter in
agriculture=> Agri. exports will
increase=>more foreign exchange
incoming=>Current Account deficit gone,
Capitalist mode of agriculture uses more
machines, less laborers=>unemployment
increased.
Yes, Economic growth will be achieved but at
the cost of unemployment and subsequent fall in
human development.
rupee will strengthen.
small farms are not productive because
they hinder mechanised farming
Small farmers have limited capital to
invest in improving agro. Production.
large farms tend to prefer monoculture (single
crop), because they can be easily managed with
heavy machinery. = more susceptible to pest
attacks, not good from soil fertility point of
view.
Small farmers usually have mixed crops
(intercropping), they combine and rotate crops
and livestock, with manure => soil fertility
improves.
Land ceiling and distribution => poverty
and disguised unemployment continues.
Some people need to be shifted from
agricultural sector to
manufacturing/service sector. There is no
need to give land to each and every
landless person.
Villagers should be kept self-employed, even if
on small and marginal farms.
This fits with Gandhian ideas of village
republics.
In the next article, well see the third measure of land reform= Tenancy reform acts.
Mock Questions
12 marks:
1. Land ceiling is more of an impediment than a catalyst for economic growth. Comment
2. Evaluate the significance of Land ceiling as a measure of land reforms.
3. The positive impacts of Land ceiling did not trickle down below the middle rung of
peasantry. Comment.
4. Evaluate the Impact of land Ceiling and distribution of surplus land on rural power structure
post-independence.
5. Examine the reasons behind dismal performance of land ceiling reforms in India.
6. Define Land ceiling. Why was it necessary to enact land ceiling acts in post-independent
India?
7. Write a note on the land ceiling reforms before 1972. Why were they unsuccessful?
8. Briefly comment on the progress of ceiling on land holdings in India.

Published on 31/10/2013 @ 2:28 pm under Category: polity
URL to article: http://mrunal.org/2013/10/land-reforms-ceiling-on-land-holdings-reasons-
impact-obstacles-limitations-achievements.html

- Mrunal - http://mrunal.org -
[Land Reforms] Tenancy Reform, Tenancy protection Acts in
India, features, benefits, obstacles, limitations, impact,
evaluation
1. Prologue
2. Land Reform Tool #3: Tenancy Reforms
1. Element1: Landowners right to lease
2. Element2: Landowners right to Personal Cultivation
3. Element3: Tenants right against eviction & high rent
4. Element4: Tenants right to surrender
5. Element5: Tenants Right to ownership
6. Misc. rights to Tenants
3. Tenancy Reforms: Obstacles/Limitations
1. #1: Women did not benefit
2. #2: SC/ST did not benefit
3. #3: Green Revolution=land grabbing
4. #4: Personal Cultivation
4. Tenancy Reforms: Benefits
1. #1: Rise of New Politics
2. #2: Social Justice
3. #3: More investment
5. Land Reforms: Overall Negative
1. Jurisdiction
2. Outdated Land records
3. Problem in North East
4. Lack of budgetary $upport
5. Bureaucratic apathy
6. Lack of Votebank
7. Powerless Panchyat
8. Lack of Civil Society/NGO action
9. The Naxal Angle:
10. Appu
6. Land reforms: Overall Positive
7. Mock Questions
Prologue
1. Three land tenure system of the
British: Their features,
implications.
How the British had difficulty learning the land Revenue
system of Desi Nawabs. So, they came up with Permanent
settlement (Zamindari), Ryotwari and Mahalwari systems.
2. Peasant struggles for land reforms
in British Raj: causes and
consequences.
But the British tenure systems caused much pain and anguish
among Indian peasants and led to numerous revolts.
3. Land reforms, Before
independence: by Congress
governments in Provinces, their
benefits and limitations.
After the Provincial elections of 1937, Congress ministries
took measures to protect tenant farmers. But by and large
they shied away from zamindari abolition.
4. Land reforms, After independence:
Abolition of Zamindari, Reasons,
Impact, Obstacles, Limitations.
After freedom, State Governments enacted Zamindari
Abolition Acts. As a result erstwhile (superior) tenants
became virtual owners of their land. =>This is First tool of
Land reform.
5. Ceiling on Land holdings: Reasons,
Impact, Obstacles, Limitations,
Achievements
After abolition of Zamindari, the (superior) tenant
farmers became virtual owners of the land. They
owned tens and hundreds of acres of land. While other
peasants owned hardly any land.
So, State governments enacted land ceiling acts and
distributed surplus land to poors and landless. This
issecond tool of Land reforms.
Now comes the third tool of land reforms:
Land Reform Tool #3: Tenancy Reforms
Various State governments have passed the laws to protect the land owners and
(superior+inferior) tenants. Collectively these are called tenancy reform acts.
Such tenancy reform acts, usually have five elements: two for land owners + three
for tenants
but first, lets once again check the players in a tenancy system, to get a better grip
over this tenure/tenancy reform acts:
The State
1. enforces tenancy contracts
2. Maintains law and order.
Earns revenue for doing 1+2
Owner
The owner: the guy who owns land
They pay Revenue to the State.
Rich farmers, Zamindars etc. own hundreds of acres of land. Cant cultivate it
on their own.
Similarly minors, disabled, widows, soldiers, fishermen may also own land but
they cant cultivate for one reason or another.
So these people lease their land to other farmers (tenants).
Superior
tenants
They cultivate on land leased from the ^owner.
These are hereditary tenants. Meaning they cultivate same land generation after
generation.
They pay rent to the owner.
They have almost the same rights as the owners.
They can sell, mortgage or rent out the land.
They cannot be evicted against their will.
Inferior
Tenants
Other names: tenants at will, subordinate tenants, temporary tenants, subtenants.
They till the land leased from other tenants/owners.
They pay rent to the owners/superior tenants.
They have limited rights over the land.
They cannot sell or mortgage the land.
They can be evicted easily.
Share
croppers
Sharecroppers= cultivate other persons land (Owner, Superior/inferior tenant)
They get share from the produce, and remaining goes to the tenant/owner.
The equipment and inputs items may be provided owner/tenant
They have no rights whatsoever on the land.
They cannot sell, rent or mortgage the land.
Can be evicted easily.
Landless
laborers
1. They get paid in cash or kind by the owners (or tenants)
2. Sometimes work under begari/bonded labour.
Tenacy reform acts by and large protect only superior and inferior tenant.
Sharecroppers/Laborers get nothing. Anyways, lets check the salient features of such
Acts in various states:

Element1: Landowners right to lease
You own land, but you dont have the time/money/mood/intention to cultivate by
yourself. So you lease it to another farmer and extract rent from him (=25-30-40-
60-75% of the produce).
This Land leasing, again leads to system of Intermediaries (middlemen who dont
cultivate) and exploitation of tenants (farmers who actually cultivate).
Therefore, in an egalitarian/socialist/communist society: Agri.land
leasing=undesirable.
But what is the land owner is a defense personnel, widow, minor, student or
physically disabled person they cannot cultivate land by themselves.
Hence, leasing is permitted in such exceptional categories of land owners.
Lets check some examples
Tenancy Reform
Act in
Provisions (may be outdated)
Andhra
Two types of leasing are practiced.
In the Andhra region: leasing is permitted
In Telengana region: large landholdings cannot be leased, but small holdings can
be leased
Assam
Land can be leased in futureBut sub-leasing forbidden. (meaning tenant cannot lease the
land further to third party)
Bihar
In Future, agri.land cannot be leased except when owner is a person with
disabilities.
Sub-leasing forbidden in any case
sub-lessee does not acquire the right of occupancy of the land.
Gujarat Leasing is prohibited except for Defense personnel.
Haryana Leasing permitted.
Himachal
Agri land cannot be leased. Except when landowner is a minor or unmarried or a widow
or divorcee or disabled or defense personnel.
Karnataka Agri.Land cannot be leased except when landowner is seaman or soldier.
Madhya
Pradesh
No ban on future lease, but all the past leases have been abolished- to remove the
nuisance of Zamindar/Jagirdar in Malwa, Gwalior, Indore and Vindhya Pradesh
Orissa Doesnt allow leasing or sub leasing of land
Rajasthan
yes, owner can lease the land to Tenant (5 years)Tenant can further lease the land to
sub-tenant (1 year)
Uttar Pradesh
Agri. cannot be leased. Except when landowners are widows, unmarried women,
military persons, students and disabled persons.
West Bengal Leasing is prohibited, but share-cropping is allowed with some restrictions.
Element2: Landowners right to Personal Cultivation
As we saw in Element#1: Many states permit agri.land leasing (at least when
landowner is a soldiers, widows, minor, physically disabled).
But what if landowner himself wants resume cultivation later on? e.g. soldier
comes back to village after retirement, or the minor student becomes an adult, or
the widow gets remarried.
Therefore laws permit the landowner to takeback the land from the tenant, IF he
(landowner) wants to resume personal cultivation. lets check:
State Law
Can Landowner take back land from
Tenant, for personal cultivation?
Andhra
Yes but not more than 75% of the leased
land.
Bihar
50% of landholding or 5 acre, whichever
is less
Bengal
50% of landholding or 2.5 acre,
whichever is less
Kerala, Orissa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra,
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, Manipur, Tripura
Yes but not more than 50% of the leased
land.
Uttar Pradesh
No, landowners cannot take back land
for personal cultivation
So far we saw two elements that protect the rights of landowner viz (1) right to lease and
(2) right to personal cultivation. Now lets check the rights of tenants.
Element3: Tenants right against eviction & high rent
If landowner can evict the tenant according to his whims-fancies=>this system
leads to exploitation.
Hence there should be fixed term and fixed rent.
Meaning as long as the teant is within that xyz years lease limit and keeps paying
that xyz amount of rent, you (landowner) cannot evict him.
Tenure security
Insecurity of tenure is a big hurdle in the improvement of agriculture. Tenant pays
little attention to the soil improvement, digging of well or tube-well and
construction of embankment etc. This negatively affects agro productivity.
Security of tenure is must for social justice as well.
Hence, Most state made laws to provide at least 5 years tenure security.
(meaning once you lease your agri-land, you cannot take it back within 5 years-
except for personal cultivation as we saw in element #2. but even there, you can
only take back ~50% of land for personal cultivation.) Anyways, lets check with
examples:
Assam Landowner cannot evacuate tenant, IF that tenant has been tilling the land for 3 years or more.
Manipur
A tenant could not be removed from a minimum area of 1.2 acres of the land, until he is given
an alternative land.
Orissa
tenants who is lawfully cultivating any land cannot be removed.Fixed tenure for half of the
area held by Tenant
Rajasthan
yes, to both tenants and sub-tenants are given term security: (5 years and 1 year
respectively)
But tenant can be removed from the land if he fails to pay rent for two years or more
OR if he transfers holdings to third party without permission OR damages the land.
Tamilnadu
Landowner cannot evict the tenant except
1. If he wants to resume personal cultivation.
2. tenant is not paying rent
West
Bengal
tenant and Sharecroppers (bargadars) cannot be evicted, except
They stop cultivating land.
They lease the same land to third party.
They refuse to give share/rent to the owner
Rent Security
During British Raj, there was no law to protect farmers against high rents. The
Zamindar/ landowner used to determine rent according to their discretion. Often,
rent would be ~50-70% of the total produce.
Result? Tenant farmer has hardly any surplus income left=>cant buy hybrid seeds,
fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, in short he cannot invest in agri.improvement.
Therefore, after freedom, most state government passed laws to fix maximum rent
in the range of 25-33% of the produce.
State
maximum rent that an owner can charge from
tenant
Punjab, Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh (coastal
areas)
33-40% of the gross agri.produce
remaining states 20-25%
Additionally, if a tenant cannot pay rent on time, the landlord cannot approach court to
get his cattle, farm-tools and standing crops. (In other words, tenant given protection
against attachment even if he defaults on rent payment.)
Limitation: Although states had fixed Maximum rent in 20-50% range, but in most cases,
the tenants had to pay rent in the range of 50-70%- especially in the areas with high
productivity under green revolution. Corrupt District officials failed to enforce the rent
limits.
6
th
Five year plan suggested the state governments to pass laws to bring down rents to
ensure rents are not above 33% of the produce.
Operation Barga
by Leftist government in West Bengal
In the late 70s. Provided following
registration of Sharecroppers (known as Bargadar)
Fixed rent: 25% of the produce. Meaning landowner (Jotedar) can only get 25% or
1/4
th
of the produce. While Sharecropper (Bargadar) gets 75% or 3/4
th
of the
produce.
gave security of tenure: permanent and heritable
Element4: Tenants right to surrender
Ok so far, tenant is given term-security (you cannot evict him before xyz years) and
rent security (you cannot charge beyond xyz% of the produce).
But what if tenant himself wants to stop farming on that land. For example,
a. he bought his own land at a different place, or
b. his son gets a decent job in the city and asks him to relocate or
c. He joins politics and becomes a telecom/coal minister to mint truckload of
cash.
Therefore, most state laws also allow the tenant to voluntarily surrender the land
back to the original owner.
Challenge: Sometimes landowner might use bullying/coercion/gun-power to make
tenant sign stamppapers declaring his surrender.
Solution: Some states also have verification procedure. e.g. in Andhra, after
Tenant surrenders the land to owner, the Tehsildar will verify whether surrender
was genuine or not. But then again- thinking in Bollywood terms: evil Landowner
might kidnap Tenants family and order him not to complaint to Tehsildar.
4
th
Five year plan recommended: the Land Voluntarily surrendered by a tenant
=>should goto state government and then state government should allot it to
eligible poors. But very few states implemented this recommendation
So far weve learned
1. Owners right to lease
2. Owners right to personal cultivation
3. tenants right against eviction
4. tenants right to surrender
Now to the fifth and final element under Land Tenancy reform acts:
Element5: Tenants Right to ownership
Many state laws permit tenant to acquire the land IF he pays 10-20-50times the annual
rent to the landowner. Lets check:
States that permitted tenants to acquire
land after paying money to original landlord
Bombay (now Mahrashtra+Gujarat), Uttar Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, Hyderabad, Mysore and Delhi
States that permitted tenants to acquire
land without paying money to original landlord
Assam, West Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Bhopal and Vindhya
Pradesh
States reduced rent of the tenants without giving
them ownership rights
Andhra, Madras, Rajasthan, Saurashtra, Madhya Bharat,
Hyderabad (jagir areas) and Ajmer
Lets check some specific provisions of Tenants right to acquire/purchase land
Andhra Tenant can buy after paying 8 times the annual rent.
Bihar
If Tenant cultivated the land continuously for 12 years, can acquire right of
occupancy from the landowners
without paying money to original landlord.
Limitation: Many small farmers had been tilling land on oral agreements, did not
have paper records to prove 12 years.
Gujarat
Tenant has right to buy land, if he had been tilling continuously for 1 year. But he has to
pay to owner. In 1975, Gujarat ~0.8 out of 1.3 million tenants got ownership rights after
paying to their respective land owners. (=more than 50% of tenants benefit)
Madhya
Pradesh
Yes, if tenant pays 15 times the annual rent to the owner.
Maharashtra
Tenant has right to purchase land within one year of the commencement of tenancy.
in 1975, ~1.1 out of ~2.6 million tenants acquired ownership rights. (=less than
50%)
Challenge: Many tenants could not afford the large sum of money to purchase the
land.
Manipur yes, if tenant pays 30 times the annual rent to owner
Orissa Yes, if tenant pays 10 times the annual rent to the owner.
Tamilnadu
Government Abolished intermediaries but did not facilitate tenants to purchase land from
the landlord.
Limitation of Right to ownership:
In above examples, we saw how ~50% of tenants in Gujarat and Maharahstra, got
ownership rights after paying to landowner. But why didnt every tenant bought land
from his land owner? Because:
1. State laws already gave rent reduction + permanent occupancy rights= these
superior tenants were for all practical purposes virtual owners.
2. Hence there was hardly any motivation to try and acquire full ownership.
3. Besides to get full ownership=> need capital (money) and legal complications.
Misc. rights to Tenants
Some states also made laws for:
1. Compensation for tenant, if he made permanent improvements to the land such as,
digging of well, planting of trees, construction of farm house, embankment, etc.
2. During natural disaster/flood/drought etc. if government remits land-revenue to the
landlord, the latter too will have to remit rent to the cultivator.
3. Landlord cannot receive gift from the tenant and cannot ask tenant to provide him
free services. (In other words, Begari removed, Art.23)
Tenancy Reforms: Obstacles/Limitations
1. Land reform delayed, is land reform denied: The inordinate delays in law
making=>Landowners evicted potential beneficiaries (tenants) before the law came
into force.
2. Underground: These laws pushed tenancy to underground = in concealed form,
through oral agreements without anything on paper. The tenants were now called
farm servants though they continued to work in exactly the same status.
3. Oral: Most tenancy agreements were oral and informal, hence tenants could not
prove anything in court to assert their rights.
4. Creamy Layer: Didnt provide security to tenure to all tenants. Only the upper
stratum of the farmers who had the knowledge and means to fight court cases,
benefited from these laws.
5. Sharecroppers did not benefit: In many state laws, Sharecroppers dont enjoy
same rights as a tenant. Therefore, landowners converted tenants into
sharecroppers.
#1: Women did not benefit
Women in India have traditionally been deprived of property rights and their
property rights still meet with strong social opposition.
During the heydays of land redistribution (60-80s) males were given the patta
(document showing ownership right over land). But their wives got nothing.
Result? Women have been working in farmland without any title/paper documents. It
leads to following negative consequences
1. Women cannot get loan/credit, subsidy on irrigation-fertilizer-seeds etc.
2. Women become destitute in case of desertion, divorce, or widowhood. In North
India, widows often found working as agricultural laborers on the farms of their
well-off brothers or brothers-in-law.
3. Women have no bargaining power
o @household decision making
o @labour market for wages.
This is new form of Zamindari exploitation because farm operation (by female) is
divorced from farm ownership (by female). Thus, tenancy reforms/land reforms have
failed to bring gender equity in rural areas.
#2: SC/ST did not benefit
Recall the hierarchy of players in a tenancy system: landowner=>superior tenant
=>inferior tenant=>sharecropper=>landless laborers.
Major beneficiaries of land reform laws = superior tenant, who mostly fall in OBC
category.
But impact of land reform measures on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
were not significant.
Landowners- large, medium, small or marginal- all vehemently resisters tenancy
reforms. No political party could dare to lose their vote bank. Hence Tenancy
reforms didnt trickle down.
The rural strata at the bottom of land-ownership and caste hierarchy, continued to
be exploited by the old and new elite.
In other words, tenancy reforms merely replaced the old elite (upper caste) with new elite
(Backward castes). But have not trickled down below that.
#3: Green Revolution=land grabbing
The Green Revolution made agriculture profitable, thus led to role reversal among
tenancy players.
Before=: big farmers would lease land to small farmers.
After=: big farmers would take land from small/marginal farmers on lease, and
theyll cultivate with hybrid seeds, machines, fertilizers etc. (doubt: but why would
small farmer lease his land? Because he lacks the capital to buy all those hybrid
seeds n fertilizer- hence for a small farmer, it is less risky and more profitable to
lease land to big farmer).
But, eventually many of these big (tenant) farmers grabbed the land using
loopholes in tenancy laws.
In other words, rich farmers using big capital and modern technology, have
converted agriculture into a capitalist mode of production. In such cases tenancy
laws have harmed the small and marginal farmers => Green revolution has been
detrimental to land reforms.
#4: Personal Cultivation
Most State Acts allow landowners to takeback land from tenant for personal
cultivation.
On paper the term personal cultivation looked reasonable, but when applied in the
field, was confusing and subject to multiple interpretations.
Does personal cultivation mean he himself has to plough the field? or can he hire a
landless labourer for ploughing and irrigation? .. Concept was vaguely defined,
there were no definite answers in the various state laws.
Thus, ex-zamindars/landowners evicted the tenants from the land claiming that they
(owner) intended to cultivate the land personally. In Punjab alone, more than
500,000 tenants were evicted in pretext of Personal cultivation.
Some more negative points stem from bureaucratic apathy (explained in later part of this
article). Anyways, enough of negativity, lets check some positive points:
Tenancy Reforms: Benefits
#1: Rise of New Politics
After freedom but before land reforms (50-60s) After land reforms (60-70-80s)
The political process dominated by the client
patron model.
In this model, the rural elite (upper caste)
would persuade or force the lower caste
villagers to vote for their (upper caste) leader.
Hence political parties mainly focused on
pleasing those rural elite. And did not care
much for SC/ST/OBC
Paved the way for the rise of new political
forces in the country.
Particularly Superior Tenants / Bullock
Capitalists / middle Shudra castes (=Yadav,
Jat and Ahir)
Tenancy reforms+Green revolution= gave
them money power and freedom to assert
themselves politically.
First they became a pressure group, later a
political group
No government could afford to ignore their
demands for subsidized electricity,
fertilizer, irrigation etc.
Thus we can say,
1. Land reforms helped new classes/castes to gain political power directly/indirectly.
2. The participation of the backward classes deepened Indian democracy.
3. Indian democracy became more inclusive.
4. Political system became more competitive and complex.
#2: Social Justice
Before land reforms after
Upper castes owned most of the land In Village.
While the lower castes lived as tenants and
agriculture labourers.
This Landlessness and insecure tenancies forced
the majority of the rural population to be
dependent on the upper caste=>often lead to
exploitation.
These laws gave the lower castes the
security of tenure over farmland
+land ceiling+zamindari abolition+
Panchayati Raj reforms.
Result: Influence/domination of upper
caste declined in village power structure
Thus, Constitutions promise of giving
justice social, political and economic,
became a reality.
#3: More investment
In the ryotwari areas of Bombay state (MH+Guj), ~50% of the tenants became
landowners- including inferior tenants.
Even in former zamindari areas such as West Bengal, nearly half the sharecroppers
got occupancy rights under Operation Barga.
Now the tenants and sharecroppers who got occupancy rights=> they had the
motivation of becoming progressive farmers, use high yielding variety, invest more
capital etc.
So far, we learned three major land reforms measures in post independent India
1. Zamindari abolition
2. land ceiling
3. tenure reforms
Lets check their overall impact: negative+positive.
Land Reforms: Overall Negative
Jurisdiction
Land is a State subject under the Constitution=> different States have evolved
differently in the field of land management.
The Union can play only a limited role to play in this regard. At most they can
frame policy, release funds but implementation rests in the hands of State
Government.
Some states have moved quickly by passing necessary legislations, while other
states have adopted a slower and piecemeal approach in this regard.
Consequently there are considerable variations in the results achieved by different
states.
Even in the same state- different regions show different rate of progress.
UN report says: In India there seems to be great inequality in different states regarding
the land reforms.these land reforms are not implemented in the true spirit.
Outdated Land records
In Ryotwari areas (Bombay State, Madras State and Assam)
Before independence, the government directly collected land revenue from farmer.
So, district officials kept up to date land records for purpose of assessment and
collection of land Revenue.
Village Accountant (VA) had to update the entries every year.
The superiors in the hierarchy closely supervised the work of the VA.
The records showed who owned the different plots of land in the village, the area
and boundaries of each plot, who cultivated it, what crops were grown and how
much was payable to the government as land revenue.
But after independence, this system fell into disarray.
Permanent settlement areas & Princely states: There was no practice of the annual
updating of records.
But after independence, state government did not pay attention to land records.
Gradually In most States, villages and field maps, records of rights and land
measurement records have become obsolete.
Tenancy reforms can only be implemented if there is proper written records of
tenancies and land ownership. This was not always available because most of the
time land leased on oral agreement- nothing on paper.
Outdated land records = land disputes, land grabbing, court cases, landowners evade
ceilings=> Land reform remains #EPICFAIL
Problem in North East
The system of land records and land administration are entirely different in the hilly
and tribal tracts of north-eastern States.
In some of these areas, there was no legislation regarding land and land related
matters.
Therefore, accurate land records do not exist.
Jhuming or shifting cultivation is practiced. There is no record of the area or the
boundaries of plots allotted to individuals. (+ the nuisance of illegal Bangladeshi
Migrant farmers)
Lack of budgetary $upport
Cost of collecting land revenue (paperwork, staff-salary, electricity etc.)= higher
than the actual cash received under land revenue. Therefore, many states dont
even bother collecting land Revenue.
Land revenue administration falls under non-plan expenditure = doesnt get
much budgetary allocation.
As a result, administration suffers because department wont hire many
officers/employees, wont bother building new offices, buying new photocopiers,
GPS survey devices, jeeps etc.
In many places, Village accountants dont have a separate office. Lack of
photocopiers, computers= land records not maintained properly.
Many Tahsildars didnt have telephones* and jeeps. So they were out of touch from
day-to-day bribery and mismanagement by patwari @village level. (*we are talking
about 50-90s era, when India had more toilets than mobile phones)
Result? Land records are outdated => land disputes, land grabbing and frequent
litigations in courts. Poor people suffer.
Bureaucratic apathy
officers live in
cities
Today, many patwaris, village officers, Mandal officers, revenue inspectors etc.
have settled in small towns/cities with their families. They sign files from home,
run office through phone and rarely visit the villages.
They write inquire reports without doing spot inspections in village.
Villagers have to visit town to get their problem resolved=costly affair.
Land mafia and rich farmers get things done by paying bribes.
WB: In West Bengal there are no Village Accountants. The Circle Inspector is the
functionary of the Land Administration Department at the lowest level. People
have to go to his office for various purposes.
bogus training
Revenue officers are trained better in court procedures than in dispute-resolution in
a humane manner.
Hence they give more emphasis on form rather than content, on letter rather than
spirit.
They rely on documents, stamp papers, affidavits but dont bother to make field
visit, talk with people to find the ground reality.
Changed focus
Today, District officers (namely DM & SDM) mainly focused on
Conversion of Agri-land into industrial land
SEZ/industrialization related matter
law and order maintenance
How to chow down money from MNREGA, IAY etc. (or prevent it)
Hence, land reform programs=low priority for senior officers @District level. They tend to
ignore the Tehsildar/Patwaris inefficiency/corruption.
Tarikh pe
Tarik
Because of above reasons: a villager cannot get problem solved through village/tehsil level
officer. He has to approach the court. But
1. Majority of revenue courts continue to function in English language, but villagers
dont know English.
2. Revenue Courts already choked with thousands of cases related to land. Poor
litigant cannot afford making trips and hiring lawyers
Result? In most cases poor litigant will compromise with the land mafia/rich farmer/ex-
zamindar or just stop pursuing the matter.
no
coordination
Many state departments keep their own land-database e.g. Agriculture, drinking water,
irrigation, animal husbandry, forest etc. But there is no linkage amongst these different
data base.
In short, land reform= low priority for state government. All the new initiatives
(Computerization of records, Forest rights Act have come from Union.)
Lack of Votebank
(From 50-90s)
Target audience for land reforms= tenants, landless agricultural labourers, SC/ST.
But they were largely unorganized (Except WB and Kerala). They were unable to
bring required pressure on the government for speedy implementation of the land
reforms.
For political workers at grassroots are indifferent to land reforms because it was
easy to sway the ignorant voters on desired political line according to religion and
caste. The Ignorance, poverty, illiteracy and inegalitarian system has favoured such
petty politics.
Therefore land reform was more of a rhetoric rather than real agenda of
governments.
Powerless Panchyat
Panchayats dont have sufficient revenue sources of their own.
Money flow: Centrally sponsored schemes (named after you know
who)=>DRDA+Line deparments @State government=>Panchayat.
Result? Panchayats are too weak to do anything about land reforms. + The proxy
influence of rural elites stonewall any land reform initiatives.
Lack of Civil Society/NGO action
In the noteworthy movements by civil society/NGO for land
reforms= Bhoodan/Gramdan, land satyagraha etc. But all these things happened before
90s. Today civil society/NGOs very vocal about transparency, anti-corruption, anti-rape
laws, nuclear projects, mining rights etc. but land reforms hardly get any attention. Why?
1. It is easy to get national-international awards/funding, media-recognition, political
attention in these new topics.
2. Just like secularism, the land distribution also has lost its original meaning. So,
if an NGO talks too much about land redistribution- he might be labelled as naxal-
sympethizer.
3. In land reform sector: (1) computerization of land records=done by district
administration and (2) for forest rights act=>done through gram Sabha. So
Jholachhap NGOs dont see opportunities for getting government projects/funds to
mint ca$h, unlike in the schemes for under HIV/child-labour/education/SHG type
activities.
The Naxal Angle:
The present Left wing extremism (LWE) has roots at two places:
West Bengal (1967) @Naxalbari
Andhra (1949) @Telengana and @Srikakulam.
At that time, main cause of these movement = exploitation by zamindar/landlords/forest
contractors. But In the heydays of naxal movement, focus of the state governments
shifted from agrarian/land reforms to law and order preservation. As a result:
1. Many villagers remained landless.
2. Rise of upper caste militia/private armies like Ranvir Sena, Kunwar Sena etc.
3. Within village, Lack of growth in non-agricultural sector.
4. Tribal land alienation by mining mafia.
All these factors further helped the Maoists to recruit more cadres from villages. District
officials dont goto Maoist affected areas, look @all villagers with suspicion etc.etc.etc.
Ultimately, land reform cannot be carried out.
Thus, Left wing extremism (LWE) and Lack of Land Reform (LLR) have formed a
vicious cycle.
Appu
Task Force on Agrarian Relations set up by the Planning Commission headed by P. S.
Appu. (1972 )Made following observations
1. Lack of political will=no tangible progress
2. The decentralization of power to the rural sector was seen by the politicians as a
threat to their national prominence.
3. The erstwhile superior tenants belonging mostly to the upper and middle castes
have benefittd.
4. (but) A majority of the agricultural laborers =politically unorganized=could not
benefit from the land reform measures.
5. Land reform Acts were poorly drafting= many loopholes and litigations.
6. Land records were outdated, most states didnot bother updating.
7. Five year plans only gave lip service for land reforms but didnt allot significant
funds.
8. Land reform has practically disappeared from the agenda of most political parties.
but This is an inevitable consequence of the far reaching changes that have taken
place in social and economic fields;
Land reforms: Overall Positive
1. abolished exploitative the land tenure systems prevalent in agrarian society
2. Distributed the surplus land among the landless and the weaker sections of the
society.
3. Provided security of tenure i.e. the tenants are assured that they can cultivate the
land for long time period.
4. In some cases tenants even given ownership rights.
5. fixed rent in the range of 25-33%
6. Without use of violence.
7. The cumulative effect of abolition of zamindari, tenancy legislation and ceiling
legislation= motivated the cultivators to invest and improve agricultural practices.
8. Even though these land reforms were met with limited success, they made a
significant positive impact on poverty removal.
9. Land reforms+ Sanskritization + democratization + Panchayati Raj= lower castes
have become more organized and assertive about their rights.
10. In areas where land reform has not been implemented, the inequalities have
persisted, caste oppression is most acute and have generally experienced low socio-
economic development. (In other words where Land reforms were properly
implemented- inequality is less, caste oppression is less and socio-economic
Development is better).
11. Historically unique effort at transformation of agrarian relations within a
democratic framework.
12. Brought fundamental changes in the agrarian economy, rural social structure,
and rural power structure. Moved India society towards the egalitarian society.
13. Increased democratization of Indian polity and reduction in influence of the
dominant sections of the society. Counter-argument: Impact was not so significant
like China/USSR.
To sum up, Land reforms are a major instruments of social transformation in a backward
economy based on feudal and semi-feudal productive relationships. But in India, they met
with limited success mainly because of the political and bureaucratic apathy.
Mock Questions
12/15 marks
1. Analyze the role of tenancy reform laws as a measure of land reforms.
2. Write a note on the measures taken by states to provide security of tenure to
farmers.
3. Land reforms in early decades after independence, have failed to bring gender
equity in rural power structure. Elaborate.
4. Critically examine the Green revolution as a reason for non-inclusive growth in
rural India.
5. The blame for partial success of land reforms squarely falls on the local
bureaucracy. Comment.
6. Only the upper stratum of the peasants have benefited from the land reforms. For
the Landless, land reform remains an unfinished business.
7. Evaluate the impact of Land reforms measures by the state governments in the
early decades after independence.
8. Discuss, in brief, the contributions of land reforms in rural development.
9. Critically examine the impact of land reforms on Indian economy and society.
10. Critically examine the impact of social, economic and political power
structure on land reforms in rural India.
- Mrunal - http://mrunal.org -
[Land Reforms] Bhoodan, Gramdan, Jan Satyagraha 2012 &
other Non Governmental Movements: Achievements, obstacles,
limitations
@All:Happy New Year, resolve to study hard, revise harder, crack the exams and get
your dream jobs.
1. Prologue
2. Bhoodan Movement (Donation of Land)
1. Bhoodan: Mechanism/procedure/features
2. Bhoodan: Positive
3. Bhoodan: Obstacles, Limitations, Problems
3. Gramdan (Donation of the Entire Village)
1. Gramdan: Concept/Principles
2. Gramdan Mechanism
3. Gramdan: Benefits
4. Pardi Satyagraha, Gujarat, 50s
5. Great Land Struggle, 1970s
6. Land for Tillers Freedom (LAFTI), Tamil Nadu, 80s
7. Land Satyagraha, Chattisgarh, late 80s
8. Bhu-Adhikar Abhiyan, MP, 1996
9. Janadesh, 2007
10. Jan Satyagraha 2012
1. #1: General Demands
2. #2: PESA related Demands:
3. #3: Forest Rights Act (FRA) related Demands
4. Outcome of Jan Satyagraha 2012?
11. Mock Questions
Prologue
So far weve seen: British Tenure system, peasant revolts and three main land
reforms after independence viz. (1) Zamindari Abolition (2) Land ceiling (3)
Tenancy protection Acts.
In this article, well check some peoples/NGO/Civil society movements for land
reforms in India. Their achievements/limitations. by the Naxalbari related matter
ignored here. Youll find neat coverage ot it under September competition under
internal security folder click me
In the next article well come back to government actions: cooperative farming,
consolidation of land holdings and computerization of records.

@Mains 2013 Players: If running out of time and find this article too lengthy then
just read Bhoodan+Gramdan+directly Jan Satyagraha 2012 and skip the topics in
between.
Bhoodan Movement (Donation of Land)
1951
First Bhoodan in village Pochampalli, Nalgonda District, Andhra (the hotbed of Telengana
movement)By local Zamindar V. Ramchandra Reddy to Vinoba Bhave.
1953 Jayaprakash Narayan withdrew from active politics to join the Bhoodan movement
Bhoodan movement had two components:
1. Collect land as gift from zamindars and rich farmers.
2. Redistribute that gifted/donated land among the landless farmers.
Bhoodan: Mechanism/procedure/features
1. (Hierarchy) Vinoba: Sarvodaya Samaj=> Pradesh Bhoodan Committees in each
region=> local committees and individual social workers @grassroot.
2. He and his followers were to do padayatra (walk on foot from village to village).
Persuade the larger landowners to donate at least one-sixth of their lands.
3. Target= 50 million acres. (~1/6 of total cultivable land in India)
4. When a Zamindar/rich farmer gifts/donates a land, the Bhoodan worker would
prepare a deed.
5. These Deeds forwarded to Vinoba Bhave @Sevagram for signature.
6. Bhoodan Worker took help of Gram Panchayat, PAtwari (village accountant) to
survey the beneficiaries and land fertility.
7. First preference given to landless agricultural laborers, then to farmers with
insufficient land.
8. A date was fixed, entire village gathered and the beneficiary family was given land.
9. Those who receive the donation are asked to sign a printed application requesting
for land, after which they are presented with certificates of having received land.
10. No fees charged from the beneficiary.
11. Beneficiary was expected to cultivate the land for atleast 10 years. He should
start within three years of the receipt of land.
12. These Rules/procedures were relaxed by taking local conditions, cultures in
account.
Many state governments made legislation to facilitate donation and distribution of
Bhoodan land. Example: Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu,
Karnataka, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, U.P., Delhi and Himachal Pradesh.
Subsequently, the movement was widened into Gramdan. States again passed special
legislation for management of Gramdan villages.
Bhoodan: Positive
In the initial years the movement achieved a considerable degree of success,
especially in North India- UP, Bihar.
By 1956: receiving over 4 million acres of land as donation.
By 1957: ~4.5 million acres.
The movement was popularised in the belief that land is a gift of nature and it
belonged to all.
The donors of land are not given any compensation. This movement helped to
reduce the gap in haves and have-nots in rural areas.
This movement was un-official. The landlords were under no compulsion to donate
their land, it was a voluntary movement. One of the very few attempts after
independence to bring about land reform through a movement
Promoted the Gandhian the idea of trusteeship or that all land belonged to God.
Communist leader E.M.S. Namboodiripad
o the Bhoodan and Gramdan movement stimulated political and other activity
by the peasant masses
o has created a favourable atmosphere for political propaganda and agitation
o for redistribution of the land
o for abolition of private ownership of land
o for the development of agricultural producers cooperatives.
Bhoodan: Obstacles, Limitations, Problems
Slow progress
After 56 movement lost its momentum.
While nearly 4.5 million acres of Bhoodan land was available- barely 6.5 lakh
acres was actually distributed among 200,000 families (1957)
In some cases the donors took back their land from the Bhoodan workers for
certain reasons.
This created doubts in the minds of some people about the continuity of the
movement.
Bribes
village leaders, or allotting authorities, demanded money from the poor for
recommending their names for allotment. As a result, many underserving villagers also
got land e.g those already having land/ those involved in trade-commerce.
Greed
Bhoodan movement created land hunger among landless.Some of them applied multiple
times in the name of wives, children etc. to get more and more free land.
Donating bogus
land
big landlords donated those land which were unfit for cultivation (or under court
litigation). Such donations served no real purpose.
Disputed land
Sometimes Bhoodan workers would even accept disputed land as gift. Without
verification.
Later the Matter would be stuck in court litigations and beneficiary would get
nothing.
Politicization
In the later phase, Bhoodan workers got associated with one or another political
parties. Some of them tried to use the Bhoodan organization as a means to gain
political clout and dividends at the time of election.
Thus as the years passed, Bhoodan workers lost credibility and respect among
villagers=>land gifts declined.
Bribes
Since Bhoodan workers became political agents, Some landlords / Ex-Zamindars
donated land as bribe to Bhoodan workers- with hope of getting favourable
returns e.g. ticket in local election, road-contracts, building contracts etc.
And if they (landlords) were not given such favours- theyd forcibly take back
the Bhoodan land from the beneficiary later on.
Support
Mere allotment of land=insufficient. Because landless farmer also needed seeds,
fertilizer, irrigation etc.
Often the beneficiary couldnt arrange loans for these inputs.
bureaucratic
apathy
District officials were slow and inefficient in finishing the formalities of
Bhoodan land transfers.
donated land remained idle for a number of years and the revenue for it had to be
paid by the donor.
Fragmentation
1. The average size of land given to beneficiary=0.5 to 3 acres.
2. Result: land fragmentation + diseconomies of scale + disguised unemployment
without any noticeable rise in agro-production.
Marxist Criticism
3. Bhoodans main purpose was to serve as a brake on the revolutionary struggle of
the peasants
4. Thus idea of Bhoodan= reactionary, class collaborationist.
Missed the
bigger picture
5. Bhoodan based on Gandhian idea of trusteeship. Some Socialists wanted this
movement to realize the potential of trusteeship and launch mass civil
disobedience against injustice.
6. The Sarvodaya Samaj, however, on the whole failed to make this transition: to
build an active large-scale mass movement that would generate irresistible
pressure for social transformation in large parts of the country.
All these loopholes, slowly and steadily, made the movement dysfunctional.
1999: Bihar government dissolved the State Bhoodan Committee for its inability to
distribute even half the Bhoodan land available over the past thirty-eight years.
Thus, Vinobas lofty ideal remained more as a philosophy and was never realized
fully.
Gramdan (Donation of the Entire Village)
First Gramdan 1952: by the village of Mongroth in U.P.1955: Orissa, Koratpur district.
At a later phase, this progamme was extended to other states in Bihar, Maharashtra,
Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
Gramdan: Concept/Principles
1. Gramdan may be defined as an experiment in collective village living.
2. Original idea comes from Gandhis reply to Jamnalal Bajaj: it is far better for a
hundred families in a village to cultivate their land collectively and divide the
income therefrom than to divide the land any how into a hundred portions.
3. Vinoba Bhave popularized ^this concept of Gandhi.
Gramdan Mechanism
The villagers have to sign a declaration saying, We are vesting the ownership of all our
land to the Gram Sabha of the village.
1. This Gram Sabha/ Village council will unanimously nominate ten to fifteen persons
who will form an executive Committee.
2. This executive Committee will be responsible for the day-to-day administration of
the village.
3. The decisions of the Committee will be ratified by the Council.
In other words, Gramdan=A Gram Sabha like institution collectively owned and managed
entire land/farms of the villagers.
Gramdan: Benefits
1. In an ideal gramdan village, there will be no landowners, and no absentee
landlords.
2. The labourers will give all their earnings to the village community, which will then
distribute it according to needs.
3. Thus, gramdan acts as the ideal unit for putting the principles in the practice, From
each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
By 1960 Approx.Gramdan Villages
Orissa 1900+
MH 600
Kerala 550
Andhra 480+
Madras 250
Gramdan movement was considered superior to the Bhoodan movement because:
BHOODAN GRAMDAN
land fragmentation, inefficient cultivation, distribution of
poverty, decline in marketable surplus , donation of
uncultivable land, legal and other difficulties of
redistribution, etc.
Nope
Nope Economies of scale
Benefits only the person who gets the land
Sarvodaya of entire village. Everyone
benefits.
Nope
possible to correlate with economic
planning in the country.
2nd FYP recognized that Gramdan
village have great significance for co-
operative village development.
Limitation of Gramdan? Gramdan was successful mainly in villages where class
differentiation had not yet emerged and there was little if any disparity in ownership of
land or other property. E.g. Tribal villages. But didnt find cooperation from other
villages in the plains or villages near urban centers.
Pardi Satyagraha, Gujarat, 50s
WHO
1. Socialist workers: Iswarbhai Desai, Ashok Mehta.
2. Kisan Panchayat: a non-political body with no affiliation to any political party.
3. Tribals from Pardi and Dharmpur Taluka
WHEN 1953-1967
Why?
1. 75% of the agro land was owned by 100 big landlords.
2. These landlords were not interested in farming. They kept the land as such- so grass
automatically grew and sold profitably in Bombay fodder trade.
3. Local tribals would get labour work in such fodder-farms for only 1-2 months
during harvesting. They remained jobless and starving for remaining months. While
the landlords made decent profit with almost none investment or efforts.
OBJECTIVES/FEATURES/ACTION:
Redistribution of land was not on their agenda. (Themselves declared it)
Satyagrahi would enter in the private land and start tilling to grow foodcrops and
court arrest.
Tribals to boycott grass cutting work. even outside labour would not be allowed do
the work. Picketing. As a result, the grass dried up at many places.
With time, movement found support from public and political parties
Bhoodan and Gramdan movements also started but failed thanks to poor response
from landlords.
Result? Almost #EPICFAIL because:
1. 1960, Gujarat created out of Bombay state. New state government made some
promises=>Iswarbhai and other Satyagrahi joined the Congress party. Hence
momentum/pressure was lost.
2. 1965: War between India Pakistan. The CM (Balwant Rai Mehta) died in plane
crash. New CM (Hitendra Desai) did not show much interest in fulfilling promises
made by previous CM.
3. Landlords went to Gujarat Highcourt court. Although HC rejected their plea, but
state government did not show any urgency to implement the agreements.
4. 1966: Ishwarbhai Desai decide to quit congress and launch a new Satyagraha, but
he died. And others were unable to provide effective leadership/direction to the
movement.
5. 1967: A new agreement between the government, the landlords and the
Satyagrahis. But the implementation carried out at a snails pace.
Great Land Struggle, 1970s
WHEN 1970s
WHO?
Bhartiya Khet Mazdoor Union, All India Kisan Sabha and Communist Party of India
Nearly 15 lakh agricultural workers, poor peasants, the tribals, workers and the poor from
the towns
Trade unions and students, the youth and the womens organizations came forward and
directly participated in the struggle.
TYPE militant mass movement
WHY?
to highlight the fact that land is concentrated in the hands of a few landlords, former princess,
zamindars and monopolists and to alert public attention to the urgent need for radical agrarian
reforms.
OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS
1. Occupy the government lands, forest lands, the land belonging to landlords,
monopolist, black marketeers.
2. Start cultivating on ^above land
3. Landless fight for full ownership of land
4. Tenants fight to reduce rent
5. Tribals fight for tribal land grabbed by forest contractors and moneylenders from
the plains.
6. Urban poors fight for vacant land for housing
7. Everyone fight to get radical amendments to the present ceiling laws and
distribution of surplus land.
TWO PHASES:
PHASE What Who?
JULY, 1970
Occupying government land and forest
land
all the states, except Andhra Pradesh, Tamil
Nadu, Manipur and J & K,
AUGUST,
1970
Occupying huge farms of landlords,
former princes, Monopolists like Birlas
etc.
all states, except Assam (due to heavy flood) and
Kerala (due to Mid-term election) participated.
Overall, More than 2 lakh acres of land was occupied, more than lakhs of people arrested.
OUTCOMES
1. While Bhoodan movement silently faded away from public memory and political
arena silently, but the great land Satyagraha, created ripples in the public mind and
ruling party.
2. Before the land struggle, the Union and the state governments never felt the
urgency of solving the land problem. But now, Every state government came out
with figures & plans to distribute wasteland among the poor.
3. For the first time, land distribution started in actual practice, and some landless
people got Pattas of land.
4. Birlas were exposed as the biggest land grabber of India. Their farms in Uttaranchal
and Punjab were distributed to farm labourers.
5. Government appointed Central Land Reform Committee to address agrarian
inequalities in the country.
Land for Tillers Freedom (LAFTI), Tamil Nadu, 80s
LAFTI was founded by Krishnammal and her husband Jagannathan in 1981.
Features/Actions by LAFTI
1. Earlier we saw how rich farmers in Tamilnadu transfereed their land to fake
trusts/charitable organizations/ schools, hospitals and dharrnashalas to avoid land
ceiling.
2. LAFTI organized people against such illegal holdings and pleaded government to
takeover such land and redistribute it among the landless poor.
3. Highlighted the loopholes in the land related acts. LAFTI petitioned the President
of India about the weaknesses in the Benami transection ordinance and how
landlords evaded ceilings.
4. Negotiated with banks and landlords for a reasonable price for the purchase of land.
And then redistributed it among landless.
5. Generally, the nationalized bank charged a high rate of interest (14%) for offering
loan for the land transfer projects. LAFTI appealed to the government of India to
reduce interest rate to 4%.
6. Requested government to waive stamp-duty and registration fees for transferring
land to landless.
7. Started its own banking scheme, titled LAFTI Land Bank, by involving 10000
landless families. These 10000 people deposited. Re. 1 per day or Rs. 10 per week
or Rs. 500 per year for five years.
8. With this money and help from the government in the form of exemption of stamp
duties and registration fees, LAFTI planned to transfer 500 acres of land per year to
the landless families.
Land Satyagraha, Chattisgarh, late 80s
CAUSES/REASONS:
1. Land ceiling act were not implemented because nexus between the land mafia,
landlords, bureaucrats, politicians.
2. Under governments land distribution schemes- the landless were provided with
Pattas (land ownership document) but landmafias / rich farmers / forest contractors
did not allow them to physically occupy the land.
3. State Government made it mandatory for all the landlords to give back tribal land to
the tribals. But these landlords would appeal in higher courts and matter kept
pending for years.
4. The tribals lacked the money and means to fight such legal battles. State
government didnt come to their help.
5. Most of the landless were SC/ST. They were forcibly pushed out of their ancestral
land, working as bonded labour because of indebtedness to the rich landlords or
village traders.
6. By 1980s, there were 4000 bonded labourers in Raipur district alone.
PROGRESS/RESULT:
1988: Land Satyagraha launched in Raipur district. Spearheaded by bonded labours
Slogan Action
Zamin Ka Faisla, Zamin Par
Hoga (All land issues will be
settled on the land itself).
Staging dharnas (sit-ins), hunger strikes on the disputed land.
All the concerned officials, including from police to Patwari,
Tehsildar to magistrate should come the disputed land and settle
the matter.
Zamin Do Ya Jail Do (give us
land or imprisonment).
Peasants would court arrest and go to jail in a peaceful manner.
1993: thousands of villages courted arrest
Finally government officials refused to arrest people as there was
no room left in Jails.
Chakka-Jam Blocking traffic on the mains roads.
Jaun Khet man nagar Chalahi,
wohi khet ke malik ho (land to
the tiller)
directly plough the fields with or without government
intervention.
At almost all the places, the poor, landless, and small farmers
went in large numbers with their ploughs and bullocks, to register
their claim over the ancestral land.
At some places people were able to register their control over the
land, whereas in other places the official, in connivance with the
landlords and the powerful politician, forcibly dispossessed the
people from the land.
The land Satyagraha initiated a new dimension, a new movement, among the people to
take control over their resources.
Bhu-Adhikar Abhiyan, MP, 1996
Ekta Parishad is an NGO from Madhya Pradesh (1984). On principles of Samvad,
Sangharsh, Rachna (dialogue, struggle and construction). They conducted survey in MP
and found two main problems faced by SC/ST:
1. Land belonging to Scheduled tribe was illegally sold to outsiders thanks to land
mafia, forest contractors and corrupt bureaucrats.
2. Non Occupant Patta Holder leased their land poor farmers (occupant cultivators)
and exploited them via high rent and random eviction.
Ekta Parishad has launched a peoples movement with the following objectives.
3. Give Patta (land ownership document) to occupant cultivators.
4. To oppose the policy of inviting tenders from private companies, instead of giving
land to the landless.
5. To enforce joint ownership of husband and wife on the property. (recall the lack of
gender equity in land ownership)
6. Scrap the afforestation programmes funded by the World Bank. Because the money
was misused.
7. To resolve the problems of settlement of revenue land.
Result? Government appointed a Committee but it was meaningless eyewash.
Janadesh, 2007
By Ekta Parishad and sister organization / civil society / NGOs
~25000 landless tillers, labourers, Dalits and tribals, who have been deprived of
their land rights, marched from Gwalior to Delhi to assert the land rights of the
poor.
Demands?
1. Enact national land rights act.
2. setup national land authority.
3. setup land reforms council
4. fast track courts for land reforms
Result? These demands were met at least half-way by the government, but
implementation and follow-up was poor.
Jan Satyagraha 2012
About Ekta Parishad (NGO) so far weve seen:
80s
Ekta Parishad had been working for Land reforms in MP since the 80s.=>State government
setup committee just for eyewash.
2007
They organized Jansandesh. Government agreed but implementation was poor.
2008-
10
they consulted with many other NGOs/organizations to form a broader alliance for land
rights.
trained community leaders and activists from the weaker sections to run the next peaceful
movement
2011
started Jan Satyagraha Samvad Yatra over 24 states to hold public meetings and dialogues
with people.
2012
Ekta Parishad founder P.V. Rajagopal started Jan Satyagraha Yatra (foot march) from
Gwalior on 1
st
October 2012.
Their plan was to reach Delhi with 1 lakh people by 28
th
October 2012.
But Jairam (rural ministry that time), agreed with their demands and hence Yatra stopped
@Agra.
Jan Satyagraha 2012 demanded following:
#1: General Demands
1. Bhoodaan Land= do physical verification again and take back land from
encroachers/ineligible persons.
2. Womens Land Rights: To ensure that land owned by a family is recoded either in
the name of a woman or jointly in the name of the man and the woman.
3. Revisit land ceiling laws- implement them effectively.
4. Identify of lands encroached by ineligible persons and restore it back to original
owner.
5. Identify tribal lands alienated to the non-tribals and restore it back.
6. Use MNREGA etc. schemes to doing irrigation projects, land development,
wasteland restoration etc. activities.
7. If government acquired land for industrial projects but it was untilized=>give it
back to poors.
8. Written Records of tenancy to help tenant farmers get bank loans.
9. Protect/provide burial grounds and pathway to burial grounds, especially to the
most vulnerable communities in the villages;
10. Land record management in most transparent manner
11. Statutory State Land Rights Commissions to monitor the progress of land
reform.
12. State governments need to run campaigns to give land to Nomads and settle
them permanently.
13. Protect the land rights of following vulnerable groups
Tribal Groups
Single Women
HIV Affected People
Siddhis (Gujarat & Karnatka)
Fisherfolks
Slum inhabitants
Hawkers
Leprosy affected people
Physically /Mentally Challenged People
Tea Tribes
Salt/Mine/Bidi Workers
Pastoral communities
Bonded Labourers
Internally Displaced People (due to infra.projects)
#2: PESA related Demands:
1. Harmonize state revenue laws with PESA 1996, to give gram sabha the power over
land matters.
2. For any sale/mortgage of land in the village- Gram Sabha must be notified in
writing.
3. For any changes in land records, Gram Sabha must be notified in writing.
4. authorize Gram Sabha to call for relevant revenue records,
5. conduct a hearing and direct the SDMs to conduct hearings and restore illegally
occupied land
6. Expand the list of Schedule V villages to include more eligible villages under
PESA
7. Enforce in letter and spirit, the Samata Judgment in all acquisition of tribal land
for private companies
8. Governments need to make amendments in State laws that are in conflict with
PESA within a period of one year.
#3: Forest Rights Act (FRA) related Demands
1. bank loan facilities for land grander under FRA
2. Give land rights to tribals who were earlier displaced due to National Parks and
Wild life Sanctuaries
3. Settlement of Forest Rights before land acquisition related projects are started.
4. The primitive tribal groups dont have any documents/evidences to prove their
occupation of land/residence. So they must be exempted from furnishing of
evidence of residence as required under Forest Rights Act.
5. Orange Areas in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, where large extent of land is
under dispute between Revenue Department and the Forest Department =>settle
this matter immediately.
Outcome of Jan Satyagraha 2012?
Jan Satyagraha leaders agreed to discontinue their march, after Rural ministry agreed to
setup Task Force on Land Reforms to implement the following agenda:

Agenda Union government agreed that:
National land
reform policy
Land reform is state subject but we will come up with a national land reform policy-
with inputs from state governments, civil society and public.
laws
like MNREGA and Forest rights act, well come up with new laws for
1. giving land to poors in backward districts
2. guarantee 10 cents of homestead to every landless poor household in entire
India.
rights
well advice state governments to implement their existing laws to protect the land
rights of SC/ST.
Tribunals
well work with States to run Fast Track Land Tribunals/Courts for speedy disposal of
land dispute related cases particularly involving SC/ST.
PESA
Rural ministry with work with Tribal ministry and Panchayati raj ministry + state
governments for implementation of PESA 1996. (but then why were you sleeping all
these years?)
FRA
Tribal ministry has issued revised rules for Forest rights Act 2006. Well ask States to
implement them quickly.
Survey
well ask states to setup joint teams of forest+Revenue officials to do the survey of the
forest and revenue boundaries to resolve disputes
Mock Questions
12/15m
1. Critically examine the philosophy, the concept and the working of Bhoodan and
Gramdan movements in India.
2. It is far better for a hundred families in a village to cultivate their land collectively
and divide the income therefrom than to divide the land any how into a hundred
portions. Comment.
3. Write a note on the Lacunae in Bhoodan and Gramdan Movements.
4. Bhoodan was an experiment in Gandhian idea of trusteeship. Comment.
5. Evaluate the impact of Bhoodan and Gramdan movements as measures of land
reforms. In what way Gramdan was superior to Bhoodan movement?
6. Discuss the significant movements initiated by people for land reforms in India
after independence.
7. critically evaluate non-governmental initiatives in the area of land reform
8. Explain the four significant outcomes of the great land struggle
9. Write a note on the demands and outcomes of Jan Satyagraha 2012.

- Mrunal - http://mrunal.org -
[Land Reforms] Consolidation of Land Holdings, Cooperative Farming,
Computerization of Land records: features, benefits, limitations
1. Prologue
2. Topic#1: Consolidation of Land Holdings
1. What is Consolidation of Land holdings?
2. Why do we need Consolidation of Land holdings?
3. What are the methods of Land consolidation?
1. #1: Voluntary Consolidation
2. #2: Compulsory Consolidation
4. (+ve) Land Consolidation: Benefits, Advantages, Positive points
5. (-ve) Land consolidation: Difficulties, Obstacles, Negative points
3. Topic#2: Cooperative Farming
1. What is cooperative Farming?
2. Why Cooperative farming?
3. India towards Cooperative Farming
4. Cooperative Farming vs Five Year Plans
5. Cooperative Farming: Limitations/Epicfail
1. Miscalculations and false hopes
2. Bogus farms and apathetic bureaucrats
3. Free riders
4. Topic#3: Computerization of Land Records
1. National Land Records Modernization Programme (NLRMP)
2. Funding pattern of NLRMP
3. Benefits/Potential of NLRMP
5. Mock Question
Prologue
so far in the [Land reform] series, weve seen following:
1. British Land tenure System
2. Peasant Struggles for Land reforms during British Raj
3. Role of Indian Congress in Land reforms during the British Raj
4. Land Reform Tool#1: Abolition of Zamindari, Reasons, Impact, Obstacles, Limitations, First
Amendment
5. Land Reform Tool#2: Ceiling on landholdings
6. Land Reform Tool#3: Tenancy Reform reform acts
7. Bhoodan, Gramdan, Jan Satyagraha 2012 & other movements for landreforms
In this article, we see three topics related to [Land reforms]
1. Cooperative farming
2. Consolidation of land holdings
3. Computerization of Land records.
In the next article, well see forest rights act, draft national policy and few other misc topics. Thatll
be (most likely) the last article under [Land reform] series.
Topic#1: Consolidation of Land Holdings
What is Consolidation of Land holdings?
1. Converting many small and fragmented holdings into one big farm.
2. Process by which farmers are convinced to get, one or two compact farms in place of their
fragmented farms.
3. Process in which farmers fragmented land holdings are pooled and then re-allotted them in a
way that each gets a single farm of having same total size and fertility like his previous
fragmented landholdings.
1750s: Denmark was the first country to start land consolidation.
Why do we need Consolidation of Land holdings?
1. Farms in India are not only small in size but also lie scattered.
2. Scattered farms=lot of time, energy and money wasted in moving men and material from one
farm to another= sub-optimal use of resources.
3. Hence land consolidation = essential for progressive farming/ capitalist methods /
mechanization of agriculture.
What are the methods of Land consolidation?
#1: Voluntary Consolidation
If the farmers themselves agree to voluntarily consolidate their land holdings.
started in Punjab, in 1921
Positive negative
done by local co-operative societies.
does not lead to any dispute
no pressure/coercion exerted on
anybody.
very slow.
Zamindars usually create hurdles in its progress.
Sometimes a few obstinate (Stubborn) farmers oppose
the scheme.
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and W.Bengal have passed laws for voluntary consolidation.
#2: Compulsory Consolidation
When consolidation is made compulsory by law, it is called compulsory consolidation.
Again two subtypes:
Partial compulsory consolidation Complete Compulsion
If a majority of farmers in a village agree to get their
holdings consolidated, then the rest of the farmers too
will have to get their fragmented holdings
consolidated.
1923: MP passed first act.
1936: Punjab passed act. according to this act: IF
66% of the farmers owning 75% of the village land,
In this case, state government make
law to compulsory land consolidation
(irrespective of how many farmers
actually want it)
1947: Bombay state (now
Maharashtra) was the first state to
enact compulsory
agreed for land consolidation, then remaining farmers
will have to compulsory agree.
1948: Punjab also passed similar act.
Now many states have passed laws to
this effect.
(2004 data) overall, more than 1500 lakh hectares land has been consolidated so far. High performer
states: Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh. Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. Slow progress elsewhere.
(+ve) Land Consolidation: Benefits, Advantages, Positive points
1. Scientific methods of cultivation, better irrigation, mechanization = possible on consolidated
holdings = reduces cost of production + increases income.
2. Saves farmers time, energy and money in moving from one farm to the other.
3. Farmer feels encouraged to spend money on the improvement of his land.
4. No land is wasted in making boundaries between tiny farms.
5. Surplus land after consolidation can be used for construction of gardens, school, Panchayat
Ghar, roads, play grounds and desi liquor dens for the benefit of entire village.
(-ve) Land consolidation: Difficulties, Obstacles, Negative points
1. Indian farmer has orthodox mindset. He does not want to part with the land of his ancestors,
even if it the principles of modern agri.science/business management advocate land
consolidation.
2. Rich farmers own large tracts of fertile land. They oppose consolidation fearing some other
farmer will get part of their fertilize land. (And typical frog mindset: if I cannot climb out of
well, no problem, but Ill not let any other frog to climb out of well either.)
3. In many areas, farming done on oral agreements, there are no paper records.
4. Land quality/Price within tehsil will vary depending on irrigation and fertility. So, one farmer
will have to pay money (or receive money) depending on land quality, while they exchange
their land with each other.
5. But this price determination is difficult because of lack of land surveys, agri.surveys and
inefficient/corrupt revenue officials.
6. Revenue official @village / Tehsil level are inefficient and not trained in this type of
technical work.
7. Recall Ashok Khemka (the IAS officer who exposed Raabert Vadra/DLF scam.) Earlier,
Ashok Khemka was Director General Consolidation of Land holdings in Haryana. He
exposed how land consolidation related provision were misused in Faridabad district of
Haryaya. modus operandi was following:
a. the real estate mafias/dalal type elements would first buy small patches of unfertile
land scattered in Aravalli hills (using xyz farmers under benami transection.)
b. then they would bribe local tehsildar, patwari to get fragment farms exchanged for
consolidated big farms near the foothills where national/state highways are to be
constructed in future=>can be sold at extremely high prices after 5-10-15
years=truckload of profit with minimum effort. Thus original purpose of land
consolidation (to increase agro. productivity) is defeated.
Anyways, enough of land consolidation, lets move to the second topic:
Topic#2: Cooperative Farming
What is cooperative Farming?
Cooperative farming refers to an organisation in which:
1. each member-farmer remains the owner of his land individually.
2. But farming is done jointly.
3. Profit is distributed among the member-farmers in the ratio of land owned by them.
4. Wages distributed among the member-farmers according to number of days they worked.
In other words, Cooperative farming= pooling of land and practicing joint agriculture. Cooperative
farming is not a new concept in India. Since ancient times, Indian farmers have been giving mutual
aid to each other in weeding, harvesting etc. Examples
Traditional Cooperative Farming System Region
Phad Kolhapur
Gallashi Andhra
Why Cooperative farming?
Because it gives following benefits/advantages/potential:
1. Economies of scale:
a. As the size of farm increases, the per hectare cost of using tube-well, tractor comes
down.
b. Small farms=some land is wasted in forming the boundaries among them. When
theyre combined into a big cooperative farm, we can also cultivate on that boundary
land.
c. overall, Large farms are economically more beneficial than small farms.
2. Solves the problem of sub-division and fragmentation of holdings.
3. Cooperative farm has more men-material-money resources to increase irrigation potential
and land productivity. Members would not have been able to do it individually on their small
farm.
4. Case studies generally point out that with cooperative farming, per acre production increases.
India towards Cooperative Farming
before independence
Gandhi, Nehru, Socialists and Communists agreed that cooperative
farming will improve Indian agriculture and benefit the poor.
Bombay Plan44
Cooperative farming is the only way to combat sub-marginal cultivation.
Government should compel small/marginal farmers to undertake
cooperative farming.
Cooperative Planning
Committee45
1. large scale cultivation is the only solution to increase agro-production
permanently.
2. Suggested four types of cooperative farming societies viz.
a. better farming
b. tenant farming
c. joint farming
d. Collective farming society.
Economic Program
committee47
headed by Nehru. Recommended that:
1. All middlemen should be replaced by non-profit making agencies, such
as cooperatives.
2. Pilot schemes for cooperative farming among small land holders in India.
3. Well promote cooperative farming through persuasion, goodwill and
agreement of the peasantry.
4. Well not use any legal or administrative force/compulsion/coercion to
make small farmers start cooperative farming.
Congress Agrarian
Reforms Committee49
headed by Kumarappa recommended that:
Empower the state governments to enforce cooperative farming among
peasants with uneconomic land holdings/extremely small farms.
Use intelligent propaganda/awareness campaigns to promote cooperative
farming.
Give state aid/ subsidies to cooperative farms.
Specially trained cadre/officials to train and motivate farmers in
cooperative farming.
So, this is the first time, someone suggested the State to use Compulsion to
promote cooperatives.
Cooperative Farming vs Five Year Plans
First Five Year Plan (1951-56)
Apart from Cooperative farming, it also recommended Cooperative Village Management as
a more comprehensive solution for rural development.
Encourage small and middle farmers to form cooperative farming societies
If majority of farmers agreed to start cooperative farming, then decision will be binding on
the entire village.
But did not talk about giving enforcement powers to States.
Result? ~2000 cooperative farming societies formed during the First Plan period.
Second Five Year Plan (1956-61)
1956: Indian delegations sent to China to study their cooperative farming. Recommended
this system in to increase food grain production.
Develop cooperative farming as soon as possible.
Target: Setup atleast one cooperative farm in every National Extension Block, or about 5000
for the whole country.
Hoped to convert substantial proportion of Indian farms into cooperative farming by a period
of ten years.
Nagpur resolution of Congress, 1959
1. Cooperative farming will be the the future agrarian pattern of India.
2. farmers will continue to retain their property rights
3. but their land will be pooled for joint cultivation.
4. Farmers will get a share in the profit, in proportion to their land.
5. Further, those who actually work on the land, will get wages, in proportion of their work-
contribution (irrespective of whether they own the land or not.) = in other words, cooperative
farming will give employment to landless labourers also. In a way, this was a solution to the
#epicfail of land ceiling (because so far governments could not takeover the surplus land
from big farmers and redistribute it among landless laborers).
6. Start cooperatives related to agro-credit, marketing, seeds-fertilizer etc. Finish this stage
within 3 years. Then focus entirely on cooperative farming.
Epicfail of Nagpur resolution
After Nagpur resolution, Many people inside and outside congress, opposed the idea.
who? said what?
1. C. Rajagopalachari
2. N.G. Ranga
3. Charan Singh
Cooperative farming would lead to forced collectivization on the Soviet
or Chinese pattern.
Nehru is imposing a totalitarian, Communist programme upon the
country.
Nehru (clarifies in
Parliament)
were not going to make any law/act to coerce anyone to start cooperative
farming.
Later Chinese attack on Tibet and India. Critiques start pointing out how Nehrus policies are
hurting India.
Recall, earlier we sent delegations to China, to study their cooperative farming system. But
now there is Anti-China mood in press and public. Hence, gradually Congress gives up the
idea of cooperative farming.
Third Plan (1961-66)
Observed that nearly 40% of the cooperative farms are not functioning properly.
Advocated better implementation of community development program, credit societies, agri-
marketing etc. for getting success in cooperative farming.
~300 pilot projects in selected district. Each project having 10 cooperative societies.
Overall, Third Five year plan tried to put a brave face, again reaffirming the governments
faith in cooperative farming, but overall, wishful platitude not a plan of action.
Fourth Five Year Plan (1969-74)
1. Observed that cooperative farming programs have not made any substantial progress.
2. (therefore) It is not been possible to propose any additional programmes for cooperative
farming in this Plan
3. Instead, we should focus on development of agricultural credit, marketing, processing and
consumer needs.
4. In co-operative farming, funding priority only for revitalizing of the existing weak societies.
5. But avoid setting up new cooperative farming societies, unless they have a potential for
growth.
So, overall we can see that by early 70s, Planning commissions faith/interest in cooperative
farming is vanishing.
Fifth Five Year Plan (1974-79)
1. Made no mention of cooperative farming.
2. It did allot some ca$H under the heading Cooperation, but it was only meant for inter-farm
co-operative service facilities e.g. seed-fertilizer-water supply, use of tractors/agro-
machineries etc.
After this era, five year plans give more attention (and ca$H) to wasteland management, poverty
removal etc. and cooperative farming loses its relevance.
Cooperative Farming: Limitations/Epicfail
Miscalculations and false hopes
Early planners and policymakers had hoped that
1. Village panchayat and (Congress) party workers will help implementing cooperative
farming, but response was lukewarm.
2. Cooperative farming = government will have to spend less money on agriculture (+less
leakage in subsidies). But the scenario didnt change.
During 2
nd
FYP, the National Development Council proposed that in the next five years
agricultural production be increased by 25-35% via cooperative farming. But most state
government shied away from taking necessary initiatives.
Bogus farms and apathetic bureaucrats
by and large Cooperative farming societies fell into two categories:
Type#1: by big farmers = bogus farms
Theyd setup bogus cooperative farms by showing agri.labourers/tenants as bogus members.
But in reality none of them owned the land individually.
this was done to evade land ceiling and tenancy reform laws.
Adding insult to the injury: government even gave them subsidies for seeds, fertilizers etc.
At times, non-working members had been enrolled in order to fulfil the minimum
requirements of registration.
Even in legit/genuine cooperative farming societies, the rich farmers dominate the
management positions.
Sometimes societies setup with members of just one or two families to get various
subsidies/support.
Type#2: by State sponsorship= apathetic bureaucrats
State sponsored cooperative farms as part of pilot projects under FYP.
Government would allot land to the landless, SC/ST, Displaced persons etc.
but they did not get adequate support from government agencies for irrigation, electricity,
seeds-fertilizer, extension services etc.
these farms were run like government-sponsored projects rather than genuine, motivated,
joint efforts of the cultivators. Result? These experiments were unsuccessful. No gain in
productivity.
Later, those farmers started cultivating land individual (though on papers, the land continued
to be owned by the cooperative societies.)
#Epicfail in Bihar:
Cooperative farming societies were formed on Bhoodan land- for the landless labourers.
But later, they started individual farming, although officially the land still continues to be in
the name of the societies.
Free riders
Some member-farmers become lazy, thinking why bother when well get the same amount of
profit in proportion of the land owned. Just like those free-rider students in
MBA/Engineering College who do not contribute anything for the powerpoint projects yet
get full credits/marks for being member of the group.
This demotivated sincere farmers from working hard on such cooperative farms.
+ Entry of idiots with political patronage and caste affiliations entering in cooperative
farming activities, with their own vested interests.
Ultimately, nobody takes interest in the actual farming and entire project turns flop.
Overall, Cooperative farming didnt grow beyond the government projects and the bogus
cooperatives.
anyways, enough of cooperative farming, lets move to the third and last topic of this article:
Topic#3: Computerization of Land Records
Under the British Raj, Land Revenue =significant source of income for the British. so they
maintained accurate, up-to-date land records.
But after independence, Revenue administration falls under non-plan expenditure = doesnt
get much budgetary allocation.
As a result, revenue department wont hire many officers/employees, wont bother building
new offices, buying new photocopiers, survey devices, jeeps etc.
Ultimately records became outdated.
But after 80s, there was need for up-to-date land records for industrial purpose, acquiring land for
railways, highways, industries. Up to date land records also help implementing land reforms,
designing agricultural policies and resolving court cases.
So Union government comes up with two schemes in the late 80s:
1. Strengthening of Revenue Administration & Updating of Land Records (SRA&ULR)
2. Computerization of Land Records (CLR)
Later, both schemes merged together into a single scheme NLRMP in 2008. (Imagine the relief of
UPSC aspirants in that era upon knowing they had to mugup just one scheme instead of two!)
National Land Records Modernization Programme (NLRMP)
Who Department of Land Resources under Rural Development Ministry.
When 2008
It has four components:
1. Computerize the property records. Encourage states to legalize computerized copies with
digital signatures.
2. Computerize the registration process: link Sub- registrar s office with revenue offices. This
helps in real-time online synchronization of data.
3. do surveys and prepare maps using modern technology- global positioning system (GPS),
aerial photography, high resolution satellite imagery (HRSI) etc.
4. HRD, training, capacity building, awareness generation and other fancy things.
Target: cover all districts by the end of 12
th
Five year plan.
Funding pattern of NLRMP
Just for information:
work
% funding by:
center state
1. computerize land records
100 0
2. survey 90
10% north eastern
states
50 50% other states
3. computerize registration process, link sub-registrars office with
revenue offices
90
10% north eastern
states
25 75% other states
4. modern record rooms in Tehsil offices 90
10% north eastern
states
50 50% other states
5. training, capacity building
100 0
6. Core GIS
100 0
Benefits/Potential of NLRMP
1. Provides security of property rights with conclusive titles and title guarantee.
2. Minimizes land disputes.
3. Efficient functioning of the economic operations based on land, and overall efficiency of the
economy.
4. Integrated land information management system with up-to-date and real time land records.
=>even after drought/famine/disaster, helps government to award compensation to needy
farmers.
5. Even helps providing other land-based certificates such as caste certificates, income
certificates, domicile certificates; information for whether given citizen is eligible for xyz.
Government scheme or not.
6. no need for stamp papers
7. stamp duty and registration fees can be paid even through banks.
8. Computerized entries=less opportunities for patwari to demand bribes.
9. NLRMP is a demand driven scheme. States/UT frame the project according their local
requirements, send their file to Delhi and get the ca$h.
10. provides location specific information to planners and policymakers.
11. helps e-linkages to credit facilities/banks.