CHAPTER IV

THE LAND CEILING ACT OF 1960

Sri Bisnuram Medhi, who assumed charge as Governor of Madras o the

afternoon of the 21st January 1958. Continued to hold the above office during the

calendar year 1961.

The Ministry consisting of the following members, who were worn on the

forenoon of the 13th April 1957, under the leadership of Sri K. Kamaraj, contained

in office throughout the calendar year 1961.

Sri K. Kamaraj.

Sri M. Bhaktavatsalam.

Sri C. Subramaniam.

Sri M. A. Manickavelu.

Sri R. Venkataraman.

Sri P. Kakkan.

Sri V. Ramaiah.

Smt. Lourdhammal Simon.

Sri C. Subramaniam, Minister for finance and Sri. R. Venkataraman,

Minister for Industries were away on foreign tours during certain periods of the

calendar year 1961 1. Sri C. Subramaniam, Minister for Finance left Madras on the

9th June 1961 in connection with his visit to the U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Canada, Japan

1
Madras State Administration Report, Madras 1960-62, p. 7.
128
and Malaya and returned to Madras on the 10th August 1961. Sri R. Venkataraman,

Minister for Industries left Madras on the 18th September 1961 for New York to

attend the United Nations General Assembly and returned to Madras on the 12th

December 1961. During the periods of their absence, the subjects allotted to them

were distributed among the other Minister.

The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act 1960

This Act came into force with effect from 6 April 1960. In the beginning

ceiling area for a family of five members was fixed at 30 standard areas with an

allowance of five standard acres for each additional member in the family, subject

to overall ceiling area of 60 standard acres. Subsequently, the ceiling was reduced

to 15 standard acres per family of five members were allowed to hold 10 standard

acres per family of five members were allowed to hold 10 standard acres as

Sridhana if they held such lands on the date of commencement of the Act.

However, a family cannot hold more than 30 standard acres 2.

The lands found to be in excess of the ceiling area are acquired as surplus

by Government, after following the procedure prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Land

Reforms (FCL) Act, 1961, as amended. The surplus lands are being distributed

among landless agricultural labourers and others according to the provisions

contained in the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules,

1965, as amended.

In Tamil Nadu, an extent of 170763 acres of land has been notified as

surplus up to 30 November 1988. An extent of 143311 acres of land has been

2
Tamil Nadu Code, Unrepeated Tamil Nadu Acts, from 1959-1961, Government of Madras,
Madras, Vol. V, 1986, p. 17.
129
disposed of up to 30 November 1988. Out of this, an extent of 4041 acres has been

handed over to the Tamil Nadu State Co-operative Farms Corporation Limited and

an extent of 9,976 acres has been reserved under rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu

Reforms (DSL) Rules 1965, for public purposes.

In the District of Kanya Kumari alone, an extent of 409 acres of land was

notified as surplus up to 31 October 1986, Out of this, an extent of 299 acres of

land has been assigned to 244 eligible persons. Out of the above extent, an extent

of 75 acres has been assigned to 47 persons belonging to scheduled castes and the

remaining extent of 224 acres has been assigned to 197 persons belonging to other

categories.

A target of 2,000 acres was fixed by Government for assignment of surplus

land in Tamil Nadu State for 1986-87. Up to31 October 1986, an extent of 1,161

acres had been assigned. An extent of 10 acres was fixed as target of Kanya

Kumari District for the year 1986-87 and towards this target, an extent of eight

acres had been assigned up to30 November 1988 3.

Under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of

Fair Rent) Act, 1956 and the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of

Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961, the fair rent payable by the

Cultivating tenant to the land-holder varied from 33 1/3 per cent (of the normal

gross produce of lands other than wet lands) to 40 per cent (of the normal gross

produce for wet lands). National Policy is that the fair rent due to the land holder

from the tenants should be fixed so as not to exceed 25 per cent of the gross

3
Fourth Report of Land Revenue Reform Committee, Government of Madras, Madras, 1950, p. 3.
130
produce. The Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payments of Fair Rent)

Amendment Act, 1980 (Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1980) and the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of

1980) have been enacted for reducing the fair rent to 25 per cent of the normal

gross produce. The exemption from the fair law earlier applicable to sugarcane has

also been withdrawn.

By the Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1946, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu

Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956 have been extended to

Kanya Kumari District.

Public trusts cannot cultivate land in excess of 20 standard acres it is

directed by the Assistant Commissioner concerned to lease out the lands to eligible

persons. Lands in excess of 20 standard acres under pannai cultivation by public

trusts are to be leased out to bonafide persons. Under section 52 (1) of the Act,

Government also accord exemption in respect of certain lands held by certain

public trusts from the provisions of this Act 4.

The fair rent payable by the tenants is similar to that laid down under the

Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956, which in all

cases, is 25 per cent of the gross produce 5.

The Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act,

1961, (Act XXVIII of 1961): This Act protects the interests of persons occupying

Kudiyirupu as on 31 March 1959 from eviction by land-lords. Under section 3(1)

of the Act, no person occupying a Kudiyiruppu shall be evicted from such

4
Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961,
Act 57/61.
5
Compiled from the Report on the First Five Year Plan, 1953, pp. 199-200.
131
Kudiyiruppu except in accordance with provisions of the Act. The life of the Act

was three years in the beginning. It was extended from time to time. Government

then decided to re-enact this Act with retrospective effect from 29 November 1973

and Act 23 of 1975 was enacted accordingly.

This Act provides that no cultivating Tenant shall be evicted from his

holdings except for non-payment of rent, doing any act injuries to the land and

failure to cultivate the crops. Earlier, disputes under this Act were settled by

Revenue Divisional Officers. But, tangible progress cannot be shown because of

their multifarious functions. These functions are now being carried out by eleven

(11) Revenue Courts presided over by Deputy Collectors constituted exclusively

for this purpose. By Tamil Nadu Act 4/76, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu

Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 have been extended to Kanya Kumari

District 6.

Ceilings on Agricultural Holdings

There are two main aspects of ceilings: (i) Ceiling on future acquisition,

and (ii) Ceiling on existing holdings. The first Plan had suggested the adoption of

‘Family holding’ 7. The second Plan asked the Government to define ‘Family

holding’ for the purpose of imposing ceilings.

The Ceiling Acts of 1961 and 1970, together with amendments constitute

the basis land reform of the State. The Act covered the whole of Madras State

except the hill areas. The State was divided into 13 Zones in 1962 for the

6
Madras State Administration Report, Government of Madras, Madras 1955-1956, p. 177.
7
N. Raja Lakshmi, Tamil Nadu Economy, Business Publications incorporated, Madras, 1999, p. 323.
132
administration of the Act. Each zone was placed under the jurisdiction of the

Revenue Divisional Officer on special duty.

Assessment of Ceilings

It is a assemble in a poor country where the supply of land is limited while

the number of claimants is excessively large. The basic ground for ceilings on

agricultural holdings rest in the social field. The basic aim of ceiling law is to root

out the land-lords and to hand over the land to the toiling masses. To V.M. Rao, “it

is best to distribute it among its users rather than allow part of it to go to the non-

users who would benefit merely from their title to its ownership without

performing any identifiable functions” 8.

According to Economists like Hanumantha Rao, intensive cropping and

smaller farms shall bring in increased productivity. Output, per acre shall be more

and less capital is used here. Once the surplus land is distributed and if the new

land owners amalgamate to form Co-operatives it will enable them to have

economics of large scale production 9.

The Economists’ arguments against Ceiling Act is that it may break up

large holdings. Further, most oppose on the ground of conditional set back the

other. In the long run the share of poor class may increase, and this loss of large

scale economics shall be overcome by way of increased productivity.

Agricultural Holding in Tamil Nadu

The All-India Report on Agricultural Census 1970-71 recorded that there

are 7 or 8 million operated holdings in Indian agriculture rating over a total area of
8
Madras State Administration Report, Government of Madras, Madras, 1962-64, p. 8.
9
W. Raja Lakshmi, Tamil Nadu Economy, Business Publications Incorporated, Madras, 1999, p. 324.
133
162 million hectares. The distribution of holdings has been classified according to

size as marginal (less than 1 hectare) small (1.00 – 2.00 hectares), semi-medium

(2.0 -4.0 hectares), medium (4.0 – 10.0 hectares) and large (10 hectares and

above). One half of the holdings are small and small medium holdings. 11%

belong to the group of medium sized holdings and only 4% belong to the large

holdings category10.

The size distribution of operational holdings indicates a very high degree of

concentration on the hands of medium and large farmers own 6.1% of the total area

of operational holdings. On the other hand 51% of the sub-marginal and marginal

farmers account of only 5/9% of the total area operated in agriculture.

Welfare of small and marginal farmers

The Small Farmers’ Development Agency has been set up to cater to the

minimum requirements of small and marginal farmers 11. The objectives of the

small farmers’ scheme are:

! To identify potentially stable of small farmers to compact

geographical units which command irrigation sources and for that

reason can be taken up for productive agriculture;

! To upgrade sub-marginal and marginal levels of farmers so as to

obtain progressively increasing returns.

10
All-India Report on Agricultural Census 1970-71, p. 74.
11
M.E. Adams, Agricultural Extension in Developing countries, International Tropical Agriculture
series, United Kingdom, 1985, p. 124.
134
 ! To assist the small farmers in relation to specific requirements like

irrigation and land improvement, providing them with the requisite

technical know-how;

! Introduction of new cropping pattern;

! To provide fresh incentives in certain sectors where there is a felt

need to create and impact on the development programme;

! To step up per-acre yield by using modern farming methods along

with high-yielding varieties;

! To educate the farmers in all aspects of improved scientific

technique;

! To produce adequate customer services for important agricultural

operations, chiefly land properties, manuring and harvesting;

! To provide adequate Credit through the co-operative agencies or

commercial banks in time and to recommended levels; and

! To provide facilities for assured marketing of the produce grown

through regulated markets or through co-operatives for realization

of better profits.

The chief activity of the Small Farmers’ Development Agency has been to

investigate and identify the problems of small farmers in the area of operation and

formulate a programme 12. The various supplies and service to small farmers are

made available through existing institution and authorities. Individual farmers are

12
N. Raja Lakshmi, Tamil Nadu Economy, Business Publications Incorporated, Madras, 1999, p. 325.
135
helped to secure loans for irrigation from Co-operatives and other banks. The

Agency helps farmers to secure facilities for storage, transportation, processing,

and marketing of their agricultural produce. The Agency draws up plans for

investment and production programme and supervises their implementation by

cultivation 13.

Causes for sub-division and fragmentation of Holdings

The laws of inheritance are such that all children have and equal

share in the property of their father. The inevitable consequence is

that farms get split up further and further with every generation.

Pressure of population on land has been increasing rapidly. Because of the

unsatisfactory expansion of the agricultural sector, the pressure of population on

land is increasing which lends to sub-division of holding.

The Madras Occupants of Kudiyiruppu Act, 1961 (Act 38 of 1961) was

enacted as a temporary legislation to be in force for a period of three years 14. The

idea being to have it replaced by an Act to confer permanent rights on occupants of

Kudiyiruppu. It was felt that this question was linked with the question of

conferment of rights on tenants of agriculture) lands of Kudiyiruppu rights of

ownership could be undertaken only after, or simultaneously with the enactment of

a comprehensive tenancy law which will lay down the rights of agricultural

tenants. It was also felt that a satisfactory and enduring solution on the question of

conferring permanent rights of Kudiyiruppu can be found only after the law

13
Ibid. p. 326.
14
Madras State Administration Report, Government of Madras, Madras, 1960-61, p. 17.
136
dealing with ceiling on land holdings had been fully implemented and the surplus

lands had been taken over, and after the ryotwati settlement of inam estates minor

inams and leaseholds had been completed. As this would take some time the

Government in 1964 by the Amendment Act, 24/64 extended the late of the

principal Act by another period of 3 years and for a further period of 3 years by the

Amendment Act, 15/67. In 1971 legislation was passed conferring permanent

occupancy rights on occupants of Kudiyiruppu, thus assuring right of ownership on

the residential premises of the agricultural population as a permanent measures.

The Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961

provides for a ceiling on existing holdings as well as on future acquisition in the

State. The ceiling limit is 30 standard acres (24 to 120 ordinary acres). A standard

acre means one acre of wet-land assessed to land revenue at a rate varying from

Rs. 10/- to Rs. 15/- per acre. The ceiling will apply to the aggregate area of the

family; the expression family being defined to mean the person, the husband or

wife, his or her minor sons and unmarried daughters and minor grandsons and

unmarried grand daughters in the same male line whose father and mother are

dead. In the case of person governed by Hindu law, minor sons and grandsons shall

not include sons and grandsons between whom and other members of the family a

partition by means of a registered instrument has taken place before the

commencement of the Act, i.e. April 6, 1960.

For each member in excess of 5 in the family an additional area of 5

standard acres will be allowed subject to an outside limit of 60 standard acres for

the family. In addition to the ceiling area, a person or family is entitled to hold 50

acres of grazing land. A further area up to10 standard acres in addition to the
137
ceiling area for the family, s permitted to be retained in case of Stridhan of the

wife.

For the purpose of determining the surplus area any transfer or artition

made after the publication of the Bill (6th April, 1960) will be declared void if such

transfer of partition defeats the provision of the Act.

The excess land will be acquired by the Government on payment of

compensation in accordance with the following scale:-

Where the net annual income from the land does not exceed Rs. 5,000 12

times net income 15.

Where it exceeds Rs. 5,000 but not Rs. 10,000 11 times net income

Where it exceeds Rs.10,000 but not Rs. 15,000 10 times net income

Where it exceeds Rs. 15,000 9 times net income.

The compensation for trees, buildings, machinery, plant or apparatus

acquired under the Act would be the market value of the same on the date of

acquition.

The following categories of land are exempted:

Land in any hill area;

Plantations of cardamom, cinchona, coffee, rubber or tea in

existence on the date of the commencement of the Act i.e., April

6, 1960 and any land interspersed among plantations or

contiguous to any plantation in respect of which the Land Board

has granted permission for the extension of plantation and for

15
Madras Legislative Assemly Debates, dated 14-4-1960.
138
 ancillary purpose not exceeding 20 per cent of the area used for

growing the plantation 16.

Lands converted on or before 1st July, 1959 into orchards or tops

or areca nut gardens;

Lands used exclusively for dairy farming or livestock breeding in

respect of which the Land Board has granted permission;

Any land used for the cultivation of sugarcane and in respect of

which the sugar Factory Board has granted permission;

Any land held by a Co-operative Society, provided, however that

the share of each individual member in the lands of a Co-operative

society will be taken into account in computing the ceiling area of

the member.

Lands held by any charitable or educational institution of a public

nature and any Trust and University Constituted by any law;

Any land awarded for gallantry;

Gramdan and Bhoodan lands;

Lands held by industrial or commercial undertaking as approved

by the State Government;

Lands used exclusively for growing fuel trees in existence on the

data of the commencement of the Act.

The Law was enacted in 1962 and brought into force on October 2, 1962.

Rules have been framed and notifications regarding appointment of Authorized

16
G. Venkataramani, Land Reform in Tamil Nadu, Sangam Publishers, Madras, p. 63.
139
Officers, Land Board, Land Tribunal, Land Commission and the Sugar Factory

Board have been issued 17.

The last date for furnishing of returns by persons holding land in excess of

the ceiling limit expired on December 31, 1963. According to the figures supplied

by the State Government, 4,879 land-owners had filed returns up to3st December,

1963. Returns from 743 land-owners were still due. Out of the returns received

4,783 returns have been scrutinized. Seventy cases have been referred to the Land

Board and Sugar Factory Board. Returns have also been filed by 1,197 tenants. Out

of these 1,070 have been scrutinized. Returns are still due from 557 tenants.

On a rough estimate the State Government feel that the total extent of lands

likely to be declared surplus is 79, 000 acres for the entire State.

Survey and settlement work in this State, as in most others, was undertaken

a long time ago. The last settlement took place in 1936-37 and the Government

then took the decision that no resettlement need be made and no revision of

assessment has been made since then except by way of adhoc surcharge on land

revenue or increase of water rates. Recently, a phased scheme for resurvey in the

course of about 18 years or so has been undertaken, Resurvey started in June 1963

in two Districts. It is proposed to prepare a revised record of ownership of land, but

there appears to be no proposal for recording tenancy as a part of resurvey

operations. It would be desirable to make the necessary provision in the law to

record tenancies also as a part of this resurvey.

17
Report of the Land Revenue Committee, Government of Madras, Madras, 1960, p. 3.
140
 The field staff for maintenance of village accounts and agricultural

statistics appears to be adequate. There are 14,664 villages in the State and the

number of karnams is reported to be over 11,000 18. The karnam is responsible for

maintaining village accounts and agricultural statistics. There are about 11, 954

village headmen also are responsible for collection of land revenue.

Decline of joint family system in recent decades has also led to sub-

division. The lands managed and operated were divided. Rural indebtedness and

indigenous money lenders. Most of the farms are indebted. The villages money-

lenders are highly unscrupulous and have only one interest in lending to the needy

farmers. Ultimately lands and plots pass on to the lenders.

Psychological attachment to Land: In Tamil Nadu all persons in rural

areas are sentimentally attached to land. This leads to subdivision and

fragmentation of holdings.

The practice of co-sharing: Many land owners do not cultivate their land

themselves. Though the size of holdings on ownership basis remain the same, they

are divided into small pieces on operational basis.

Disadvantages of sub-division and fragmentation

Wastage of land: It has been estimated that 6% of land is wasted on this account.

3.5% of land is wastes in drawing boundaries and hedges between small and tiny

plots 19.

18
Census of India, 1961; Vol. IX, part 1 A, Government of Madras, Madras 1961-1962, p.5.
19
N. Raja Lakshmi, Tamil Nadu Economy, Business Publications Incorporated, Madras, 1999, p. 326.
141
 Difficulties in modernization: Because of the small size of farms it is not

possible to make use of new technological innovation in the field of agriculture.

Proper irrigation and new technologies are not adopted so easily.

Difficulties in land management: Farmers find it hard to manage all plots

efficiently. There is also considerable waste of time in transplanting seeds,

manures, fertilizers and pesticides.

Disputes over boundaries: Existence of small and fragmented farms is a cause

of frequent disputes and struggles. Disputes on boundaries are very common in

villages and hence peace of village is disturbed.

Under - Employment: Small plots of lands fail to provide work to all members

of farmer’s family. Lack of alternative employment paves way for disguised

unemployment.

Low Productivity: Sub-division of land into tiny plots results in low agricultural

productivity. The farmer is compelled to use the age-old methods and so less is

the productivity.

Remedies for Sub-division and Fragmentation

“Land reforms cannot succeed without considerable extension of credit

facilities and with a programme for eliminating weakness which arise from

uneconomic and fragmented holdings and deficiencies in the use and management

of land” 20. The measures recommended are economic holding consolidated and

co-operative farming.

20
Report from 3rd Five Year Plan, Planning Commission of India, New Delhi, 1961-65, p. 59.
142
Creation of Economic holdings

Economic holding, “a holding which allows a man a chance of producing

sufficient to support himself and his family in reasonable comfort after paying his

necessary expenses” (Keating) 21.

One of the important aspect of land reforms is the increase in the size of

holdings and the consolidation of scattered holdings. The fixing of ceiling of

holdings, to make small farmers to give up their holdings and starting industrial

units in rural areas are the notable remedies. It is , however, realized to be difficult

to create economic holdings due to the sentimental attachment to land. The

existence of numerous small scattered holdings are difficult to be reformed.

Consolidation of Holdings

This measure is designed to solve the problems of fragmentation of

holdings. The method adopted is to grant one consolidated holding to the farmer

equal to the total land in different scattered plots under his possession. Initially it

was on voluntary basis and later was made compulsory.

The consolidation movement has taken considerable shape in some States.

But, the progress is not uniform throughout. In Tamil Nadu and Kerala they are

yet to pass legislations.

This programme had to encounter a number of difficulties:

! The farmers are extremely attached to land and are unwilling to give

up for the sake of consolidation.

21
N. Raja Lakshmi, Tamil Nadu Economy, Business Publications incorporated, Madras, 1999, p. 328.
143
 ! Those having better quality lands do not like to combine.

! Consolidation is a cumbersome process.

! This movement has not evolved the necessary Co operation from the

people. The Draft Fifth Plan has Stated “ A major weakness of the

programme was the consolidation was done without taking effective

steps to ensure security of tenure to tenants, particularly share-

cropping. As a result, consolidation of holdings had often led to the

large scale objection of insecure tenants” 22.

Collective farming Societies

It was not until 1958-59 that collective farming societies came into

existence in Tamil Nadu. Land, whether freehold or leasehold, is tilled collective

farming societies came into existence in Tamil Nadu 23. Land, whether freehold or

leasehold, is tilled collectively by members who are paid wages. The yield belongs

to the society. After meeting the expenses, the profits are divided as in every other

Co-operative society and the members are given a bonus on the wages earned by

them which incidentally makes labour by members compulsory. The collective

farming society and the joint farming society are almost identical in their modus

operandi. In the former, ownership vests with the society; while in the latter, it

vests in the individual members. Though in the collective farming society and

tenants farming society, the ownership of the land does not vest with the

individual members, these two differ from each other in their setup and mode of

22
Daniel Thorner, The Agrarian Prospect in India, University Press, Delhi, 1956, p. 29.
23
Madras State Administration Report, Government of Madras, Madras 1958-1960, p. 27.
144
working too. While in the case of the former, the cultivation is done on the

society’s account by the members who are paid wages, the yield belongs to the

society; in the case of latter, the cultivation is done individually on the member’s

account and the yield belongs to the members who pay the rental due to the

society. The following table gives particulars in respect of the number of societies

in Tamil Nadu under each of the categories mentioned below: 24

Sl. No Society Number

1 Land Colonisation Society

(a) for Harijans 56
(b) for ex-Servicemen 6
(c) for Civilians 25

2 Joint Farming Societies 15

3 Tenant Farming Societies 63

4 Collective Farming Societies 3

Total 168

Amendments to the Ceiling Law: Under several amendments of the Tamil Nadu

Land Reform (Fixation of Ceiling) Act 1961, the exemptions from the ceiling limit

granted in the case of grazing lands, dairy farming and livestock breeding

establishments were revoked by law with the sanction of the Legislature. The

ceiling allowed to a family consisting of more than five members was reduced

from 40 standard acres, as fixed by the 1970 Act, to 30 standard acres with effect

from March. Charitable, religious and educational institutions, for whose continued

exemptions from the ceiling limit, eloquent cases were made out in the year 1961-

24
The Registrar of Co-operative societies, A note of an Administrative Reforms Commission
meeting at the office, Madras, 1973, p. 22.

145
62 sessions of the Legislature, 25 were debarred from acquiring further land. By the

fifth amendment of the ceiling law, Co-operative Societies will no longer enjoy

exemptions from the ceiling in respect of lands not assigned by the Government.

For the first time the quantum of compensation will vary inversely with the size of

the land that falls surplus under the ceiling law. Under the sixth amendment, the

ownership of land declared as surplus vests with the Government from the day of

the commencement of the Law. Even if production is carried on by the owner was

on the land, he is liable to pay the Government for the occupation and use of the

land. The time limit for preferring objections against the enforcement of the ceiling

law by the owners and mortgages has been fixed at 30 and 60 days respectively 26.

These were some of the important agrarian reform measures enacted by the

State and Union Governments, All these measures have one thing in common in

that they attempt to correct the existing agrarian situation and to lay the

foundations of a new era of social endeavor and shared property 27.

Low Levels of Realized Surplus

Applying the rule that only 30 standard acres of agricultural land could be

owned by a person as per the ceiling law, the surplus was estimated at 2,82,105

standard acres 28. Accepting this estimate, many members pleaded that the date for

the retro-active commencement of the Act should be pushed as far back as 1955 so

that under sir able transfers of land in the interim could be avoided or nullified.

The Government stipulated that the Act was to begin from 1960. This concession

25
G. Venkataramani, Land Reform in Tamil Nadu, Sangam Publishers, Madras, 1973, p. 41.
26
Shigeru Ishikawa, Agricultural Development Strategies in Asia, The Asian Development Bank,
1970, pp. 116-117.
27
Ibid.
28
G. Venkataramani, Land Reform in Tamil Nadu, Sangam Publishers, Madras, 1973, p. 43.
146
in the matter of the date of commencement had its effect on the implementation of

the Act as can be seen presently. Eleven years after the introduction of the Act,

only 38, 043 ordinary acres have been notified as surplus, out of which

redistribution work on an extent of 6,972 acres was held up by stay orders or

injunctions. In 114 acres, standing crops had to be harvested before the

redistribution could be effected. Excluding the area covered by the above two

items, an extent of only 28,104 acres was actually taken possession of by the

Government 29. Out of this only 20,977 acres were assigned to those persons found

suitable by the Authorized Officers.

Between the extent of land taken over and the extent assigned to new

owners, there is a gap of 25.4 per cent in distribution. In other words the

implementations of the Ceiling Act of 1961 had resulted in the distribution of only

74.6 per cent of the lands taken possession of by the State. In fact, only 20,977

acres have been redistributed and this, apart from the land that the State could not

take possession of, but which in their view came under the purview of the ceiling

law, should be compared to the surplus of 21,82,105 standard acres as estimated by

the State Government to the surplus of 38,043 acres as notified in 1961.

Slow Implementation

While the gross coverage appears to be large, over 13 per cent of the cases

are still being examined and a decision is yet to be taken about them. The total

number of cases, viz, 2652 where the holding is in excess of the Ceiling area, is

small compared to the number of persons who possesses 30 standard acres and

more as furnished to the Legislature in 1960. In all 9,671 cases of persons had been

29
S.R. Sen, The Strategy of Agricultural Development, Asia Publishing House, Delhi, 1966, p. 96.
147
notified those in possession of land above the ceiling limit, while by 1972 the

number notified had decreased to 2,652 out of which drafts Statements were

prepared only in 2,306 cases 30. Out these 2,306 cases, final Statement with a view

to taking possession of the surplus land by the Government had been go ready in

1,654 cases.

Nearly 45-8 per cent of the notified cases were dropped in the event. This is

a large number considering the extent of the notified surplus so far. Only 7,33331

acres have been finally notified as surplus which would presumably be ready

acquisition and this surplus which has crossed the final hard has not been for

acquired. This would suggest that a further reduction in the ceiling limit towards

which opinion appears be veering, if the past is any guide, would meet with the

same fate as that of the 1961 Ceiling Act 32. Recently the exemption granted to hill

areas from the Ceiling Law was amended. This expected to yield a further sizeable

surplus.

The precise results of the amendment of only be judged from the

implementation there of. If all the surplus is taken over as planned for and

distributed to landless persons it can make a dent on the landholding pattern in the

areas to begin with. The experience of the previous legislation suggests that much

less than the estimated surplus can be hope for.

4.65 per cent of the household in the size-classes above 15 acres together

hold 28.61 per cent of the total cultivated land in the State. As against this, 73.34

per cent of the households holding below five acres of land together possess only

30
G. Venkataramani, Land Reform in Tamil Nadu, Sangam Publishers, Madras, 1973, p. 46.
31
Tamil Arasu, April, 1973, p.11.
32
Gunnar Myrdal, The Economic Theory and the Underdeveloped Regions, Vora & Co., Bombay,
1958, p. 172.
148
33.43 per cent of the total cultivated land 33. It is apparent from the 1961 Census

that concentration in the ownership of cultivated lands surveyed is of a high

degree. Not only does the lower group of households posses only about 35 per cent

of the lands, their holdings sizes are small. The extent of holdings by the top

bracket and the degree of inequality it implies, and the average for the top bracket

in relation to the overall average are all high. The expected surplus, if the ceiling

were to be enforced, would be high-even higher than the ceiling were to be

enforced, would be high-even higher than the surplus as estimated in the

presentation to the Legislature. It has been noticed previously that the actual

surplus distributed so far has been only about 20,000 acres 34. But this distribution

has not seriously altered the holding pattern in lands.

Another issue in land reforms is the progress achieved in legislative

protection of tenancy and the promotion of the living standards of tenants 35. The

measures were aimed the prevention of arbitrary and unauthorized evictions

tenants and the fixation of fair rents payable by them. Under certain conditions,

eviction petitions were granted and land-lords were permitted to resume personal

cultivation. At the same time, the tenants dispossessed by the resumption could

also appeal to the authorities for the restoration of their tenancy.

33
Radhakamal Mukerjee, ‘Report of the Zamindari Abolition Committee, Vol. 11. Macmillan,
1950, p. 174.
34
G. Venkataramani, Land Reform in Tamil Nadu Sangam Publishers, Madras, 1973, p. 50.
35
Andre Beteille, Studies in Agrarian Social Structure, Oxford University press, New Delhi, 1973,
p. 170.
149