Name:

Eman Fatima
Reg # RG3F18BBAM0001
Submitted To :
Sir Saeed
Subject :
Pakistan Economy
Topic:
Land reform of Pakistan
Date:
2nd Dec,2020.
Introduction :
LAND reforms in Pakistan have a long and some what chequered history. All major
reforms date from the years after independence. Almost immediately the various
provincial legislatures passed several statutes whereby the jagirdari systems were
abolished and tenants protected. The major reforms, however, came in three stages:
the first during Ayub Khan's martial law in 1959; the second and third during Zulfiqar Ali
Bhutto's rule in the 1970s.

Ayub Khan 1959:

Ayub Khan's government passed the first major piece of legislation concerning land
reforms in Pakistan. This legislation was the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation
1959 (Regulation 64 of 1959). The salient features of this regulation included a ceiling
on individual holdings. No one individual could own more than 500 acres of irrigated and
1,000 acres of unirrigated land or a maximum of 36,000 Produce Index Units (PIU),
whichever was greater. It further allowed that land be redistributed amongst tenants and
others. In addition, the regulation contained provisions which provided for security of
tenants as well as for preventing the subdivision of land holdings.

These land reforms stayed in force until 1972 and the next great wave of land reforms.

Bhutto 1970:

Z. A. Bhutto swept the elections on the riding wave of socialism. In pursuit of the
economic program, reforms began to be made to attain the end and the end was
equality in economic terms and empowering the small farmers. Pakistan was an
agriculturist country where majority of the population used to reside in the rural area.
This necessitated the introduction of land reforms. Reforming the agriculture was meant
reforming economy because agriculture was the mainstay of economy and therefore
reforming the society. Though Ayub khan introduced reforms but they had altogether
failed to accomplish the aspired objectives. Therefore, so the land reforms were
introduced in March 1974 through martial law . The ceiling fixed for individual holdings
for the irrigated land was fixed at 150 acres and that for the un-irrigated land it was fixed
at 300 acres as compared to Ayub’s 500 and 1000 acres for irrigated and un-irrigated
land respectively. No compensation was. Exemption given to orchard, stud forms etc. in
earlier reform package was taken back to regain. However, the reforms could not
produce the expected results. Therefore, second wave of land reforms had to be
introduced in 1977. 100 acres and 200 acres was the ceiling for the individual land
holdings for irrigated and un-irrigated land respectively. Moreover, victims were to be
provided compensation and exemption given to religious holdings in previous reforms
was also removed.

The reforms of 1972 resumed 1.3mn acres and 0.9mn of which was distributed among
76,000 beneficiaries. In 1977, 1.8mn acres were resumed. However, there is no
denying the fact that both episodes could not fulfill the desired purpose. This failure is
attributed to the lack of application of law with uniformity, and the enthusiasm was also
evaporated with the passage of time due to the political exigencies. Still 30% of the total
landings in Pakistan are in possession of 0.3% people.

The end of the Bhutto era also signalled the end of the era of statutory land reform in
Pakistan.

Ziaul Haq’s :
During Ziaul Haq's reign only major new laws were passed. Only two amending
ordinances came into being. The first in 1979 declared that where the provincial
government had decided to lease out surrendered land, the person who surrendered it
would have first priority, and the second allowed the federal government to exempt any
educational institution or cooperative farming society from the operation of the 1977 act.

To commence land reforms and to ensure they contain at least the same measure of
reforms as the 1972 regulations and the 1977 act did will at the very least require a
constitutional amendment which allows parliament to enact legislation regarding land
reform notwithstanding the relevant constitutional provisions.

Failing the above, any proposed reforms would have to be more limited in their ambit
than the previous reforms to avoid unconstitutionality or their lordships would have to
overrule the judgment in the Qazalbash Waqf v Chief Land Commissioner in another
case.