in due course of time became indistinguishable from the ryotwari system.

Transcription

1 LAND REFORMS

2 Land reforms, in the traditional and accepted sense of the term, means not only the redistribution of property in land to bring equity amongst the small farmers and agricultural workers but also the growth in the agricultural productivity for national economic development. Land reform, of course, is not a modern phenomenon. Peasants have throughout the centuries agitated and fought for more secure rights to the land they tilled, yet land.reform as an explicit strategic developmental issue has gained new prominence in recent decades. The end of the second World War marks the beginning of a new era. "Many states achieved political independence in the two decades following the end of war. Colonialism crumbled and the old powers began a massive dismantling of empire. New national governments came to power with independence from foreign domination and internal development was high on the agenda of national priorities." By the middle of nineteenth century three major systems of land tenure had emerged in India namely, (a) zamindari system, (b) ryotwari system, and (c) mahalwari system. These three systems were unevenly spread out over the territories of British India and the princely states, but from their very inception all of-them got closely linked up with the fiscal requirements of the administration. The zamindari system covered completely the states of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Bihar. The ryotwari system covered Bombay, Madras, Assam and Madhya Pradesh. The mahalwari was confined to some parts of Uttar fradesh and Punjab which

3 124 in due course of time became indistinguishable from the ryotwari system. The zamindari system was structured on the pattern of landlordism in England but the social conditions under which the Indian zamindars were vested with absolute proprietary rights were totally different from those which governed the manorial system in England. The English landlord of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as an absolute proprietor of his land, was historicallyconditioned for promoting agriculture whereas the Indian zamindar of British creation, who was also vested with proprietary rights, was interested primarily in rack-renting and money making and not in agricultural development. Similarly the ryotwari system had only a superficial resemblance with french peasants proprietorship. In France peasants proprietorship emerged after revolutionary overthrow of the old feudal order whereas in India the ryotwari system was imposed from above by a colonial foreign administration interested only in extracting the maximum surplus of agricultural produce in the form of land revenue. The land tenure systems which the British imposed in India were only variants of feudal and semi-feudal land- ownership to suit the interest of the colonial ruling class. Apart from this Indian society had its own traditional feudalism, in the form of tributary landlordism, based not on serfdom or slavery but on peasant cultivators paying rent in kind to the landlord and performing certain customary services for him.

4 125 The British administrators brought three major changes in the existing land system in India. Although the Britishers followed the pattern as existed during the Moghals yet they differed on the assessment of rent and also its mode of collection. Firstly, they assessed the rent on the entire holding or on the land one was entitled to cultivate, and not on the actually cultivated land as existed during Moghal period. Secondly, during Moghal period the rent was calculated in cash but often it was collected in kind whereas the Britishers not only calculated the rent in cash but also collected in cash. Thirdly, in the eventuality of failure to pay rent in time.or repay other kinds of debt did not lead to loss of land under Moghal system but the Britishers altered this system completely. Since the assessment under Moghals were based on prbduce and not on land holding there was builtin flexibility in the system. in full except in times of war. t At times the rent was rarely collected But the system introduced by the Britishers made revenue demands inflexible in terms of cash. It also permitted the sale of land or rights to collect rent for realisation of arrears of revenue. This 2 allowed the beginning of land conversion into commodity. Thus, the Indian agrarian structure, before independence, was dominated powerfully by big feudal and semifeudal landowing interests over a large part of the country. Although the break-up of the ancient India village communities and commercialization of agriculture, to some

5 126 extent, were the product of British rule yet the agrarian society as a whole remained a backward medieval type of society restricted by archaic landlord-tenant relations and by old traditional customs, social habits and modes of thinking. The process of production continued to be marked by backward techniques with very low yields, colossal waste of labour, extremely poor accumulation of capital and diversion of agricultural surplus into non~productive channels. All these created a socio-economic set-up in which land concentration in the hands of the rural rich continued to grow and landlessness of the peasants mounted at an ever increasing pace. The Indian National Congress made its first positive declaration regarding land reforms in March 1931 and recommended that: Substantial reduction in agricultural rent or revenue paid by the peasantry and in case of uneconomic holdings, exemption from rent for such period as may be necessary, relief being given to small Zamindars wherever necessary by reason of such reduction. This resolution aroused the apprehension in the minds of landlords that in discussing proposals for nonpayment of rent or taxes the congress was contemplating a class war. The Congress Working Committee in a resolution gave the following clarification on January 1, It said: the Working Committee assures the Zamindars concerned that the no rent proposals referred to were in no way aimed at them but that they represent an economic necessity for the peasantry which is known to be half starved

6 127 and at present suffering from unprecedented economic distress. The Working Committee has no design upon any interest legitimately acquired and not in conflict with the national well-being. The Working Committee, therefore, appeals to all landed or moneyed classes to help the Congress to the best of their ability in its fight for the freedom of the country.^' Again in 1936 at the time of elections to Provincial Legislatures the Indian National Congress announced in its Election Manifesto that: the Congress reiterates its declaration made at Karachi that it stands for a reform of the system of land tenure and revenue and rent, and an equitable adjustment of the burden on agricultural land, giving immediate relief to the small peasantry by a substantial reduction of agricultural rent and revenue now paid by them and exempting uneconomic holdings from payment of rent and revenue...the relief should extend to the agricultural tenants, pjeasant proprietors, small land holders and petty traders.^ The pledge of agrarian reform was also responsible for the victory of the Congress party in the 1937 Provincial elections, A National Planning Committee, with various subcommittees including one on land policy, was constituted under the presidentship of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru which resolved that: no intermediaries between the State and cultivators should be recognised, and that all their rights and titles should be acquired by the State paying such compensation as may be considered necessary and desirable. Where such lands are acquired it would be feasible to have collective and cooperative organisation.6

7 128 In December 1947, the President of the Indian National Congress^Rajendra Prasad convened a meeting of the Revenue Ministers of the States at New Delhi to discuss the question of land reforms, with a view to studying this subject and making necessary recommendations, the Revenue Minister' s Conference unanimously requested the President to appoint a Committee. The Congress President Rajendra Prasad accordingly appointed the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee with Shri J.C.Kumarappa as its Chairman. The Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee made for the first time detailed survey of the agrarian relations prevailing in the country and made comprehensive recommendations covering almost all the major issues relating to land reforms and submitted its report in The main recommendations of the Committee are as follows: (i) The main principles which should govern the agrarian policy of the country are: (a) the agrarian economy should provide an opportunity for the development of the farmer's personality; (b) there should be no scope of exploitation of one class by another; (c) there should be maximum efficiency of production; and (d) the scheme of reforms should be within the realm of practicability. (ii) The Committee feels that there cannot be any lasting improvement in agricultural production and efficiency without comprehensive reforms in the country's land system. In the agrarian economy of India there is no place for intermediaries and land must belong to the tiller. (iii) Those who have been cultivating land contir^usly for a perio.d of six years should get full occupancy rights. In case of others the owner may have the option up to a certain period to resume the holdings for personal cultivation. Only those who put in a minimum

8 129 amount of physical labour and participate in actual agricultural operations would be deemed to cultivate land personally. (iv) Subletting of land will be prohibited except in the case of widows, minors and other disabled persons. (v) The tenant should have the right to purchase the holding at a reasonable price to be determined by Regional Land Tribunal. The tenant should be assisted by a. suitable financial agency in purchasing the holding. All tenants, to whichever class they may belong, must be protected from rack-renting and illegal exactions. On the size of holding the committee evolved the concept of three types of holdings, viz.,(a) economic holding, (b) basic holding, and (c) optimum holding. The committee defined that an economic holding would be a holding which affords a reasonable standard of living to the cultivator and provides full employment to a family of normal size and at least a pair of bullocks. Recognising that many holding are below the size of an economic holding, the committee evolved the concept of a basic holding, which is smaller than the economic holding but larger than those holdings which are palpably uneconomic from the point of efficiency of agricultural operations. The Committee recommended that the size of an optimum holding should be three times the size of an economic holding. The committee favoured individual peasant farming to constitute the general pattern of socio-economic structure of Indian agrarian society provided that individual farming should be limited to holdings above the basic holding. Holdings smaller than the basic holding should, in course of time, be brought under a scheme of cooperative joint farming.

9 130 The work of the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee was a major attempt by the party leadership to define a far reaching agrarian reform policy. The report was comprehensive in scope, based on systematically gathered evidence of party feeling throughout India, and concerned primarily with the search for patterns of uniformity. The committee covered the entire range of agrarian matters, from the abolition of intermediaries to agricultural marketing and crop insurance., in order to achieve effective land reform legislation. The various aspects of agricultural policy, particularly concerning land reforms, are listed in the Constitution of India among the legislative fields reserved for states. The relationship between landlord and tenant, improvement of land, collection of rent, agricultural loans, water supplies and irrigation, agricultural education and research, taxation of lands and agricultural income- all these aspects are specifically mentioned in the Constitution under State List. In fact, if the central government has any real authority in the field of land reform, it is only from its financial powers and from the strategic position of federal leadership regarding amendments to the Constitution. "The federal government can give or withdraw financial assistance to the states for the implementation of land reform schemes and for payment of compensation and can thus promote or hinder Q state reform programmes." The decision of the Constituent Assembly to give the states far-reaching constitutional authority in the field of land reforms was, because of the fact, that the

10 131 Indian Dominion was being governed between August 1947 and January 1950 by the Government of India Act, 1935 and under the terms of the Act, matters concerning with land tenure were alloted to Provincial Legislative List. seeking a change in the structure of constitutional "Instead of authority, the Constituent Assembly thus accepted the provisions of the 1935 Act regarding the allocation of power to the states, and proceeded to construct constitutional provisions that would determine in broad outline the contemplated' pattern of reform. Q themselves to a policy of reform through law." Here the framers committed Pt, Jawaharlal Nehru, while defending the policy of reform through law, stated before the Constituent Assembly that: There are some honourable jviembers here who, at the very outset, were owners of land, owners of zamindaries. Naturally they feel that their interests might be affected by this legislation. But I think that the way this land legislation is being dealt with today...is a better way and a juster way, from their point of view, than any other way that is going to come later. That way may not be any process of legislation. The land question may be settled differently... The House has to keep in mind the transitional and the revolutionary aspects of the problem, because, when you think of the land question in India today, you are thinking of something which is dynawic, moving changing and revolutionary... it is not a static thing. It is the control of'law and parliaments... If you look at the situation (in this way) nothing is more important and vital than a gradual reform.j-0 The inability of federal leaders to agree and their consequent desire to remain uncommitted to any one approach

11 132 on the question of reform was a reflection of the wide area of disagreement within the Congress party at that time. Although the Congress had developed a fairly detailed programme for land reforms in the course of the nationalist movement, yet, not all sections of the party were in agreement with that programme after the independence was achieved. As a result of disagreement within the party, the constitutional provisions enacted in 1949 did not envisage large scale central government interference in matters concerning land feforms. If any specific policy was intended by the constitution-makers it was one that envisaged state control over land reforms measures, adopted by ' evolutionary methods', and allowing for a lengthy period of trial and 11 error. The difference on the question of land reform measures were shared not only by the federal leadership but by the party' s rank and file. In fact, when the Congress party appointed an Economic Programme Committee, with Prime iviinister Nehru as Chairman, the recommendations of the Committee which pertained to land reforms failed to gain complete acceptance at the Annual Session of the Congress which met at Jaipur in December Similarly, the Report of the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee which received either written or oral evidence from almost 600 congressmen scattered across the subcontinent, was never formally approved by the party hierarchy, and the party was never formally 12 committed to its recommendations.

12 133 The recommendation of the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee "to immediately appoint the central land commission, whose primary duty would be to evolve an all-india scheme for crop-planning and. allocate scarce resources according to 13 priorities" also evoked resentments amongst the States as they thought that such measures would infringe on the constitutional authority of the states. As a result of disagreement amongst the party hierarchy at the federal level and disillusionment at the state level on the recommendations of the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee, it became evident that no uniform land policy could be effected on the basis of a broad party consensus. The position of the Himachal Pradesh Government, in the face of a divided and relatively unmobilized populace on the land reform issue, was also complicated by the fact that the leadership, by and large, not only belonged to the land owning segment of the hill society but also drew its major support from such a section. CWing to such implications the federal leadership "began to sidestep the land reform question by speaking of a 'phased program', which envisaged reform in states, and by settling on a policy of Evolutionary methods' that allowed for future experiment at the J. J. 1 T II l'^ state level" As a matter of fact the federal leadership and the federal government, because of disunity in the party's rank and file over the question of a uniform land policy, decided

13 134 to give directions and issue guidelines to state governments through various non-political agencies like Planning Commission to enact legislation in their respectige states according to the need and situations prevailing in the states. The role of the Planning Commission in the sphere of land policy is noteworthy. Right from its inception the Planning Commission pursued the policy to bring uniformity in state land reform programmes. The stress was put on the desirability of "a broad, common approach in land reform programmes between different states." The First Five Year Plan ( ) outlined the first stage of agrarian reforms and recommended that: agricultural economy should be diversified and brought to a much higher level of efficiency. A land policy should be~evolved which, now and in coming years, reduces disparities in wealth and income, eliminates exploitations, provides security for tenant and worker and finally, promises equality of status and opportunity to different sections of the rural population. The main outlines of that policy have to be conceived in terms of different interests in land which are: (a)intermediaries, (b) large owners, (c) small and middle owners, (d)tenants-at-will, and (e) landless workers.*^ Differentiating between small and middle owners the plan defined small owners as those having land not exceeding a family holding and middle owners as those having land in excess of a family holding but having less than the limit prescribed for resumption for personal cultivation. The plan also recommended that land under the cultivation of tenants-at-will may be allowed to be resumed for cultivation

14 135 by owners or their family members upto three family holdings on the question of reducing the holding of large owners and putting a ceiling on the same it recommended that there should be an upper limit to the amount of land that an individual may hold. The first Plan also laid down certain guidelines in relations to the tenancy problem. It recommended that: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Village panchayats should play an important role in dealing with problems relating to tenancy. They should help actively in the work of correcting land records; while it was necessary to safeguard the interest of small and middle owners and permit them to resume land for personal cultivation, the displaced tenants should also be ensured that they have lands to cultivate; it was, therefore, necessary that tenants, so displaced by small and medium owners should be able to obtain at least a minimum holding for cultivation. The displaced tenants should be ensured some form of employment in case when land is not available for giving them a minimum holding; lands belonging to substantial owners, who met the standards of efficiency prescribed by the ' land management legislation', should be supervised by some organization at the village level; and

15 13G (v) cultivation of village waste lands should be the responsibility of the village panchayats. The land management legislation will enable a village community to manage the entire area of a village, both cultivated and uncultivated as if it were a single unit. The recommendations of the Planning Commission were promulgated as suggestions and it argued for intergovernmental cooperation: In actual land reform operations...there must be considerable flexibility in approach and, considerations of theory apart, it becomes necessary to adopt those criteria which will serve best against the background of tenures and revenue arrangements peculiar to a State... The limit which may be appropriate has to be determined by each State in the light of its own circumstances but, broadly speaking, following the recommendations of the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee.-^" At the time of.the formation of Himachal Pradesh many different systems of land tenure were in existence in erstwhile princely states and in most of the princely states the rulers were recorded as superior owners of the land (Ala i>aalik) and the actual landowners as inferior owners (Adna Malik). This created various complications detrimental to the rights of enjoyment of real profits to the holders thereof. The law of excheat, the law of inheritance and succession were made to favour the feudal lords. 'Bethus' had no security of tenure. They were hereditary tillers of State lands, most of which were under their possession from

16 137 time immemorial, ^heir ancestors somehow acquired the lands, broke and cleared them and built houses thereon. With a view to securing uniformity of tenancy laws in the Pradesh, the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 was made applicable to Himachal Pradesh by the Himachal Pradesh (Application of Laws) Order Later in the year 1951, the Punjab Tenents Security of Tenure, Act, 1950 was extended to Himachal Pradesh. During the year 1952, the Punjab Tenency (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1952 and the Himachal Pradesh Tenants (Right and Restoration) Act, 1952 ware enacted. By the first mentioned Act, the maximum limit of rent payable by the tenant to a landowner was fixed at one-fourth of the produce andby the second mentioned Act certain tenants were given rights of pre-emption of land sold by the landowner, the tenants were given rights of restoration of their lands from which they were ejected after 15th August All orders and decrees of ejectment passed by the Revenue Officers or Revenue Courts were made inexecutable. Furthermore, the Himachal Pradesh Congress Committee appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr.Y.S, Parmar, Chief Minister to review the land tenure and land revenue laws. The Committee recommended that: (i) Steps should be taken for abolition of the Zaildari agency, association of village panchayats with the revenue administration in settlement of land disputes, repeal of the provision about arrest and detention of a defaulter and resumption of remission and assignmentof land revenue sanctioned before commencement of the new law.

17 138 (ii) All Muafis and Jagirs, religious or nonreligious, should be resumed by Government except the muafis granted for Military service. In resumption of religious muafi«cash allowance should be granted to deserving muafidars or institutions. (iii) The Zamindaris should be abolished. Keeping in view the recommendations of the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee, the suggestions of the Planning Commission-and also the recommendations of Dr.Y.S.Parmar's Committee the Himachal Pradesh Legislature passed the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reform Act, 1953 but it fell short of the guidelines laid down by the federal leadership, and, therefore failed to receive the assent of the President of India and the second attempt led to dissensions amongst the state congress leadership and its rank and file, Swami Krishna Nand of Mandi went on a fast unto-death. The District Congress Committee of Mandi passed the resolutions opposing the land reforms measures. MLAs from another district of Himachal Pradesh (Mahasu) absented themselves while a discussion on land reforms measure was being held in the Assembly. The 18 Himachal Pradesh Congress Committee in a resolution disapproved their conduct and warned them. Thus, the state leadership not only, could not mobilize the people of the state leo' - ' : ;> on this issue but had been ri riven with dissensions. However the legislature passed the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, which after receiving the assent of the President

18 133 came into force on 26th January The Act governed the law relating to tenancies in agricultural lands and also contained provisions of land reforms of a far-reaching importance. Under the Act, security of tenure to the tenants was secured. Resumption of land by landowners was permitted for personal cultivation from a maximum area of five acres subject to further provision that no tenant would be ejected from more than one fourth of the area held by him. This right could be exercised within one year from the commencement of the Act. These dates were later extended to March 1, 1956 and September, The other important features of the Act were: (i) All tenants other than sub-tenants were enabled by making an application to the compensation officer, under section II of the said Act, to acquire on. payment of compensation the.right, title and interest of the landowner in the land of the tenancy held by him under the landowner. (ii) A ceiling was provided to the extent that the rights, titles and interest of landowner holding land in excess offc.l25/-annual land revenue and which was with the tenants vested in the State Government. On vestment of the land in the State Government the same was transferable in favour of the cultivating tenants against payment of nominal compensation. Among the landowners were Jagirdars, Muafidars and Inamkhars and their Jagirs, ivluafis and Inams were resumed in process of vestment.

19 140 (iii) The State Government committed itself to pay rehabilitation grant to such small landowners whose rights, title and interest were extinguished and who did not have any other means of livelihood. Although the passing of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reform Act, 1953, was a very bold step taken by the state leadership in the direction of land reforms yet litigation delayed the operation of the Act to some extent. The researcher is of the opinion that the State leadership, at that time, was fully aware of the difficulties which they were going to face in coming years. Firstly, the political status of Himachal Pradesh was that of a Part ' C State of the Indian Federation and laws passed by the legislature were to receive assent from the President of India thus delaying the implementation of those laws for time being and secondly, the leadership was busy in mobilizing the hill society on the question of getting proper shape and political status for Himachal Pradesh in Indian federal set-up leaving very little time wifh the leadership to work for local issues. Finally the setting up of States Reorganization Commission and the opening of the Punjabi Suba question by the federal government also diverted the attention of the hill people in general and the leadership in particular from the issues concerning land reforms. But in spite of all these difficulties and political uncertainty the state leadership was successful in mobilizing the masses on the question of land reforms.

20 141 ^he statutory measures taken by various state governments including Himachal Pradesh during the preindependence period forthe abolition of intermediaries permitted the landowners to resume land for self-cultivation. In certain states the right of resumption was subject to an upper limit which varied in each state, for instance it existed in Assam (50 acres) Punjab (30 standard acres) and Hyderabad (ranging from 17 to 270 acres, according to the quality of land). In West Bangal, the landowner was allowed to resume land by evicting the share-cropper from upto twothird of the former's holdings. In all these cases, the upper limit was fixed not on the entire family but on the individual. On the other hand, in certain other states resumption was permitted provided a specified maximum area was left to the tenant. This existed in Bombay, Punjab, Rajasthan, Hyderabad and Himachal Prade^. Under the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed tstates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, resumption of land by landowner was permitted for personal cultivation from a maximum area of five acres subject to provision that 'no tenant woulc be ejected from more than one-fourth of the area held by him'. But in most of the states of the Indian Federation such a condition was not incorporated when the legislation for abolishing the zamindaris and jagirdaris were passed thus allowing the landlords to retain their p^roperty by taking advantage of this loophole.evict the tenants and declare the land in question as 'self-cultivated'. Commenting on

21 142 the abolition of zamindari system the Foodgrains Enquiry Committee observed: As a result of Abolition of Zamindari and in view of the proposed tenancy reforms many intermediaties have now become owner-cultivators. These erstwhile intermediaries who have evicted many of their small tenants are now medium cultivators who have better holding power than small farmers who have been evicted.-^9 The right of resumption granted to the landowners for self cultivation not merely deprived many tillers of the benefits of land reforms but they also became the victims of eviction. As Bhowani Sen has rightly commented that: Mounting eviction of the tillers from land on a mass scale is the most glaring phenomenon in the countryside after land reform proposals had begun to be introduced in the state legislatures since evictions generally signify that conditions for the capitalist ^.^ development of agriculture are being created."^ These remarks must not be taken to mean that the poor peasants did not get any benefit whatsoever from these legislations, indeed some benefits accrued to them. But generally speaking, the main direction of the agrarian legislation is towards the creation of a privileged minority of rich peasants, side by side with the ' self-cultivating' 21 landlords'. Similarily the approach of the First flan on the basic question of ensuring equality of opportunity to the rural poor was rather conservative approach. The planners felt that it was not possible to create conditions of

22 143 equality of opportunity for the landless agricultural workers. Even after the problem of substantial owners was dealt with, there remained considerable disparity of interests between the small and middle owners, the tenants and landless workers, concessions to one section at the expense of another may certainly benefit a few, but intrinsically the measures would not promote the rapid increase of agricultural production or the diversification of rural economic life or the growth of greater local employment. Likewise the 'question of ceiling on land holdings was pushed into the background during the first six years of Independence by measures relating to zamindari abolition, because of the fact that the Indian agrarian policy was very much influenced at that time by the belief that agrarian production could be increased only by large farms, using modern techniques and that the small scale farming was the main cause of backwardness of Indian agriculture. To overcome the shortcomings of the land reform legislations and to bring uniformity in land policy the Planning Commission appointed the Panel on Land Reforms under the Chairmanship of Shri Gulzarilal Nanda in May,1955. The Panel reviewed the progress of land reforms and made certain positive proposals on the question of ceiling on land, exemption from ceiling, tenancy reforms and personal cultivation.

23 144 On the question of ceiling, this lanel in its report stated: We have hitherto indicated our reasons for the imposition of the ceiling in land sector. In our view these reasons are compelling considered from all points of view which have a bearing on agricultural production viz.,(a) inducing capital investment on land, (b) encouraging personal cultivation, (c) ending present uncertainty in the land sector and, (d) providing.work and security for the landless, the pattern of land reform that we suggest appears to be inevitable. Except for a temporary period of adjustment, we consider that this pattern would also in the end increase production substantially.22 The Panel Report further stated: We have examined the question whether in applying ceiling, the aggregate area held by all the members of a family should be taken into account /or whether the land held by an individual member of a family should be regarded as constituting a separate holding for the purpose of ceiling. We are of the view that family is the real operative unit in land ownership as in land management. 'We, therefore, recommend that in the fixing of the ceiling the aggregate area held by all the members of a family should be taken into account. For this purpose, a family should be deemed to consist of husband, wife and dependent sons and daughters and grand children; land held by married daughters and earning-sons should be excluded.23 The Panel allowed the following categories of land wtiich could possibly qualify for exemption from ceiling: (i) Sugarcane farms owned by sugar factories; (ii)orchards; (tii) plantations(tea, coffee and rubber); (iv) special farms such as cattle breeding, dairy farms etc.; (v) farms in compact block; (vi) efficient farms; and (vii) mechanised farms and farms with heavy investment,

24 145 The panel also made recommendations in regard to tenancy reforms and problem of security of tenure. It recommended that pending the enactment of comprehensive legislation for tenancy reforms, the following steps should be taken in this direction and with immediate effect: (i) Ejectment of tenants or- sub-tenants should be stayed. Ejectment on grounds of non-payment of rent or misuse of land may be permitted through the due process of law. (ii) Tenants who have been dispossessed of their lands in recent years should be restored except where ejectments were made through the courts for nontpayment of rent or misuse of land. Voluntary surrenders resulted mainly from landlords influence and the tenant's low bargaining power. All such surrenders should be treated as cases of ejectments and restoration provided for. (iii) All tenants should come into direct relation with the State which should undertake the abcligation to recover fair rents from the tenants and pay it to the landlord after deducting the cost of collection. (iv) A tenant who has already held any land continuously for a period of twelve years or is in possession of land which has not been cultivated by the land owner personally at any time during a period of twelve years should have permanent and heritable rights in land ano should not be liable to ejectment on any ground whatsoever, not even on the ground that the landlord requires the land for personal cultivation. (v) All other tenants should have security of tenure subject to the landlords right to^resume land bona fide for personal cultivation.'^ The Fenel also exc'riingc the definition of the term 'Personal Cultivation'. It found that, "Many people who had never engaged themselves in actual operation of

25 146 cultivation and in some cases were living in distant towns have resumed land by ejecting tenants on the ground personal cultivation and got the lands cultivated by hired labour or through partners remunerated by a share of produce." The panel defined three major conditions for 'personal cultivation', which are :(a) risk of cultivation, (b) personal supervision and (c) personal labour. It recommended that, "while the three conditions described above represent the goal which should gradually be achieved, it is not necessary at this stage to insist upon the performance of minimum labour, provided the.owner meets the entire risk of cultivation, lives in the village and 25 personally supervises agricultural operations." The Second Five Year Plan ( ) also emphasised that land reforms would provide the social, economic and institutional framework for agricultural development, increase of agricultural production should represent the highest priority in planning over the next few years and that agricultural economy had to be diversified brought to much higher levels of efficiency. and of The objectives of land reforms in view of these considerations as laid down by Second Flan were:(a) to remove such impediments on agricultural production as arise from the character of the agrarian structure, and (b) to create conditions for evolving, as speedily as may be possible, an agrarian economy with high levels of efficiency and productivity. The abolition of intermediary tenures and the protection

26 147 given to the tenants were intended to give the tiller of the soil his rightful place in the agrarian system. The Plan recommended that some effective steps should be taken in the direction of affording opportunities to landless sections of the rural population to gain in social status. The.plan also proposed that a series of measures should be taken to lay the foundations for cooperative reorganisation of rural economy including improved land management practices through community development, extension of rural credit and marketing facilities etc. for agricultural development. The issue whether the ceiling- should apply to individual holdings or to holdings of families remained undecided in the Second Plan. However, in determining the level of ceiling it was suggested that multiples of a 'family holding' may be used. A family holding may be considered from two aspects, namely (a) as an operational unit, and (b) as an area of land which can yield a certain average income. Finding it difficult to correlate a family holding to a given level of money income adjusted to a supposed level of prices, the States were asked to decide and area of land which might be declared to be a family holding. -^he States were also delegated to decide whether the ceiling should apply to individual holdings or to holdings of families, and especially in the later case, the basis on which the size of the family should be allowed in the application of the ceiling.

27 148 In regard to distribution of surplus land, tenants displaced as a result of resumption of land for personal cultivation, farmers with uneconomic holdings and landless workers were to be given priority after application of ceiling. The Plan also recommended the setting up of special boards in each State, including non-official members, for advising on resettlement schemes for landless workers and reviewing progress from time to time. It advised that a similar board should be constituted at the national level to review the questions of policy and organization and the progress of land resettlement schemes in the country as a whole. The Third Five Year Plan ( ) merely reiterated the provisions in respect of land reforms as already outlined in the first two plans. The plan declared that, "the first condition for securing equality of opportunity and achieving a national minimum is an assurance of gainful employment for every one who seeks work." However, the recommendations of the Panel of Land Reforms and five year plans did receive the attention of the state leadership but, at the same time, the leadership was engaged in equally important matter concerning reorganization of Punjab State which was going to effect the course of land reforms legislation in Himachal Pradesh. On November 1, 1966, as a result of reorganization of the Punjab State certain areas of the erstwhile Punjab were merged in Himachal Pradesh,

28 143 thus resulting in fulfilment of aspiration of the people for greater Himachal. Immediately on merger of such areas, the disparity in land laws of the merged and old areas became evident. There were complaints of arbitrary ejectment of tenants from the merged areas. Therefore, the first step to ameliorate the lot of tenants in these areas was that Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha passed the Himachal Pradesh (Transferred Territory) Tenants (Protection of Rights) Act., 1968, providing security against ejectment of the tenants. The ejectment under the Act could be made on the grounds similar to that available in the old area tenancy laws. This act was valid for a year. Then the life of the Act was further extended for two years by two amending Acts of 1969 and 1970 and the Government was empowered to extend its validity, if necessary, by way of notification under the 1970 Act. The government further extended its validity by notification upto November In 1971, the Vidhan Sabha passed the Himachal Pradesh (Transferred Territory) Tenants (Protection of Rights) Act, 1971 putting a blanket ban on ejectments for one year. The Fourth Five Year Plan ( ) reviewed existing land reforms and acknowledged that there w«re many gaps between objectives and legislation and between the laws and their implementation. The Plan noted that there had been leasing of land on a considerable scale. Often unwritten, even in areas where intermediary tenure did not exist, and sub-leasing in areas where such tenure existed. For bringing

29 150 a sense of security among tenants and sub-tenants, the Fourth Flan proposed following measures: (a) To declare all tenancies non-resumable and permanent (exception cases of landholders who are serving inthe defence forces or suffering from a specified disability); (b) Vi^ere resumption has been permitted and where applications have already been made arrangements for quick disposal of such applications; where there is a likelihood of large number of evictions as a result of resumption, for further restricting it with a view to reducing the number of cases of resumption; (c) Regulation of ' voluntary surrenders', prohibiting land owners from taking possession of land at present tenanted and empowering the Government of Local authority to settle other tenants thereon; (d) Provision for complete security of tenure in respect of homestead lands on which cultivators artisans and agricultural labourers have constructed their dwelling houses; (e) Implementation of legislation relating to security of tenure to sub-tenants and ensuring that the provisions of law are not circumvented by the landlords; 27 (f) Provision for penalty for wrongful evictions. The Flan further held that along with the security of tenure the regulation of rent should be put on a proper basis. It «lso recognised that sizable areas of land, which should have been vested in the State or settled with the tenants, have been retained by intermediaries through evasion and obstruction. take action suo moto in the matter. It recommended that State Governments should In every Five Year Flan the importance of land ceiling was emphasized to remove the inequalities in the rural areas.

30 151 The Fourth Plan did not offer any new guidlines or suggestions in this regard. Instead it recorded that "even the legislation as it exists has not been pursued and implemented effectively." The Flan document emphasized the need to review the provisions in the existing legislations in regard to level of ceilings, transfers and exemptions in the light of recent technological developments and social requirements. The fourth plan urged for hastening the implementation of imposition of ceiling and distribution of surplus land to landless agricultural workers on a systematic basis. In September, 1970 a Conference of Chief Ministers on Land Reforms held in Delhi, which was also attended by the Prime Minister, decided that the entire range of problems connected with land reforms should be referred to a Central Body. Accordingly, Central Land Reforms Committee (CLRC) was constituted in August 1971 with Shri Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, then Minister of Food and Agriculture, as Chairman and seven other members. following important recommendations: This Committee made (i) Ceiling should be applicable to the family as a whole, the term 'family' being defined so as to include husband, wife and minor children. (ii) Where the number of members in the family exceeds five, additional land may be allowed for such members in excess of five in such a manner that the total area admissible to the family does not exceed twice the ceiling limit for a family.

31 152 (iii) The ceiling for a family of five members may be fixed within the range of 10 to 18 acres 4.05 to 7.28 ha ). for various other categories of land, the absolute ceiling for a family of five should be put at 54 acres (21.85 ha). (iv) Exemptions in the existing state laws in favour of mechanised farms, well managed farms etc. should be withdrawn. (v) The exemption in favour of the plantations of tea, coffee, cardamom, rubber etc., should be carefully examined in consultation with the Ministries concerned and State governments. Thereafter, this and other types of exemption should be discussed with the Chief Ministers in order to formulate the national policy.29 A high powered committee of nine members was appointed by the congress president to review the question of ceilings and other matters relating to land reforms. The committee in its meeting in June 1972 considered the issues referred to it and generally agreed with the recommendations of the Central Land Reforms Committee, but disagreed on the following points: (i) Ihe committee took note of the definition of family as suggested by the CLRC and the discrimination that it carried between majors and minors. The committee was of the view that ceiling should be applied to the family of five as a unit, consisting of husband, wife and three children, whether major or minor. The major sons were included in the family unit of five persons. (ii) It also recommended that to the extent that the actual number of members in a family was less than five, the ceiling should be reduced by a fifth per person. (iii) It also recommended that exemptions be further restricted by (a) rigidly defining plantations, (b) withdrawing blanket exemptions in case of lands held by trusts, institutions etc.

32 153 (iv) It considered the arguments for and against a differential ceiling as between lands irrigated from public and from private sources and recommended that to the extent private irrigation had been provided, allowance should be made by giving to the landowner an advantage of 1:1,15. For example if for land irrigated from Government source the ceiling is 10 acres (4,05 ha) the corresponding ceiling for land irrigated by a private source will be 11,5 acres (4.65 ha) but subject to a maximum of 18 acres(7.28 ha).30 It was also acknowledged in the Draft Sixth Five Year Plan that, I land ceiling not only results in more agricultural produce, but also increase employment agricultural sector, because small holdings systematically 31 employ more labour per hectare than large farms." However, a serious controversy developed on the recommendations of the committee. in The CLRC had suggested that the ceiling of land for a family of five members may be fixed within the range of 10 to 18 acres of perennially irrigated land or land capable of growing two crops. But in the Annual Report of of the Ministry of Agriculture issued on 19th April 1972, this relevant part of the original recommendation read as "10 to 18 acres of perennially irrigated land from government source capable of growing two crops." The words "government source" completely changed the nature of central directive and it could be interpreted that privately irrigated land was no longer subject to ceiling. It was alleged that "words 'land under assured irrigation from the government source' were smaggled into the recommendations by the Minister of State

33 154 A.P.Shinde, in whose home state irrigated land by tubewells contributed about two thirds of the total irrigated land." The phrase from government source was never mentioned the recommendations of the CLRC. in The replacement of words created a furore in the meetings of the Congress Parliamentary Party Executive Committee, ^his change could defeat the very purpose of land reforms, because if the ceiling was to be confined to land irrigated from government source only, it would have automatically excluded a large number of big landlords, who had their own tubewells and other private means of irrigation, Federal leadership of the congress party directed the state goverrffnentsto proceed with legislations on ceilings, pending final decision on the recommendations of CLRC. It was suggested that State laws could be later modified to conform with final decisions taken by the Chief Ministers in consultation with the centre. To clear the difficulties of states in implementing ceiling legislations, the Parliament passed the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution by 353/20 majority in the Lok Sabha on December 1, 1971, to remove legal hurdle in taking over landed property for public good. The word 'compensation' as occuring in clause 2 of Article 31 was replaced by the word ' amount' for purpose of payment 32 in lieu of acquired property. The Union Ministry of Agriculture, through a note to State Governments, reminded them that December 31, 1972 is the target date by which land ceiling laws must be