LAND REFORMS

INTRODUCTION

Land reforms refers to an instrumental measurement directed towards altering the

pattern of ownership, tendency and management of land. Land reforms in boarder
sense, refers to an improvement in agro economic institutions. It includes measures
and policies relating to redistribution of land, regulation of rent, improving the
condition tendency, cooperative organisation and many more.

OBJECTIVES OF LAND REFORMS

It is a part of heritage of the country’s freedom movement since there is a agrarian
structure had been made that we inherited at the time of independence during British
rule that was of the feudalistic exploitative character. These all played an important
role in exploiting the masses like zamindars, intermediaries and moneylenders.

Objectives are:

1. To eliminate the exploitation in land relations

2. To restructure the agrarian relations to achieve an structure that is egalitarian
in nature
3. To achieve a goal of land to the tiller
4. It also helps in increasing the agriculture production and productivity
5. It leads to great measure of equality in institutions which are local in nature.
6. Betterment in socio economic conditions of the rural poor by widening their
land base

The basic objectives of land reforms are GROWTH and SOCIAL JUSTICE.

MEASURES OF LAND REFORMS

The land reforms policy that have evolved till now after independence , it
consisted of :

 Consolidation of holdings
 Fixation of ceiling on land holding
 Regulation of rent
 Ownership rights
  Security of tenant
 Abolition of intermediates between the tenant and the state
 Tendency reforms are divided into sub parts

ACCESS TO LAND REFORMS

1. GANDHIAN APPROACH
2. RADICAL NATIONALIST APPROACH
3. MARXIST APPROACH
In Gandhian approach the Sarvodaya movement of Mahatma Gandhi talks more
about the universal upliftment. Inspired by Gandhism, Vinoba Bhave has started the
Gram dam movement. This movement approached the landlords to donate to
surplus to the landless or marginalised farmers.

In the radical nationalist approach , there has been formally adopted by most of the
state government, however his approach could not contribute much.

In Marxist approach , he supported in the wake of peasant movement.

ABOLITION OF ZAMINDARI SYSTEM IN INDIA

INTRODUCTION

The major objective of land reforms in free India was to abolish intermediaries and to
bring changes in the revenue system that would be favourable to cultivators. The
process of abolition of Zamindari, Jagirdari, Ryotwari etc. system had started even
before the constitution of India came into effect.

Position of the intermediaries at the time of independence On the eve of the

independence, there were two extremes in India. On one extreme, there were big
landlords having huge estates. However, various tenancy systems had undergone
vast transformation in 150 years of their practice. The coexistence of Zamindari,
Mahalwari and Ryotwari led to intermixing of their characteristics, which led to drastic
problems at the time of enactment of Zamindari abolition laws. The intermixing of the
various systems made it difficult to know who was the rentier. This problem was
made further complex due to land sub-letting, absentee landlords, absence of proper
records etc. The most harassing feature was absence of proper revenue records
which made the task of abolition of intermediaries very difficult. Thus, there was a
need felt for complete census of land holdings.

ZAMINDARI ABOLITION ACTS

 Zamindari System was introduced by Cornwallis in 1793 through Permanent
Settlement Act.
 It was introduced in provinces of Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and Varanasi.
 Also known as Permanent Settlement System.
 Zamindars were recognized as owner of the lands. Zamindars were given the
rights to collect the rent from the peasants.
 The realized amount would be divided into 11 parts. 1/11 of the share belongs to
Zamindars and 10/11 of the share belongs to East India Company.

Zamindari Abolition Acts The first important agrarian reform after independence was
the abolition of the Zamindari system. The process of passing Zamindari abolition
bills had started even when the constitution of India was not enacted. A number of
provinces such as United Provinces (UP), Central Provinces , Bihar, Madras, Assam,
Bombay had introduced such bills on the basis of a Zamindari Abolition committee,
chaired by G.B. Pant. However, there re was a widespread concern that he
Zamindars would make every effort to cause delay in acquisition of their lands. When
constitution was passed, right to property was enshrined as fundamental right under
article 19 and 31. The provinces passed the Zamindari Abolition Acts but all these
acts were challenged in the court on account of their constitutional validity. The
supreme court upheld the rights of Zamindars. To secure the constitutional validity of
these state acts, the parliament passed first amendment (1951) within 15 months of
enactment of the constitution and second amendment in 1955. By 1956, Zamindari
abolition act was passed in many provinces. Due to conferment of land rights,
around 30 lakh tenants and share-croppers were able to acquire the ownership
rights over a total cultivated area of 62 lakh acres throughout the country due to
these acts. On the other hand, the compensation paid to Zamindars was generally
small and varied from state to states.

REASONS FOR ABOLITION OF ZAMINDARI SYSTEM

1. To increase agricultural growth.
2. Everybody must work.
3. Zamindari system was uneconomical to state.
4. Zamindari system was a British rule.
5. Continuation of zamindari system may led to revolution.
 To increase agricultural growth – it may noticed that there is a strong
relationship between land tenures and agricultural production and later on
it cannot be improved without mending the former. These peasants will
not work to their capacity that should be full nor they will invest their
resources in improving his land unless peasant is certain that he will enjoy
fruits of his labours.

Under the zamindari system, peasants were not recognized as owner of

the land. In most cases tenants could be ejected by the zamindars who
were rent-receiving non-cultivating but still the owners of the land .
The zamindar had the right to cultivate the land assiduously or
indifferently.

The zamindar (landlord) had the right to keep the land idle.
He had a right to fix initially any rent he pleased but after the expiry of ten
years the rent becomes liable to enhancement or abatement .In certain
cases he had right to eject the tenants thus the cultivators had no fixity of
tenure and fixity of rent. This defective land system was one of the causes
of low productivity of agriculture in India during British period. Thus in
order to increase the agricultural production it was necessary to remove
the intermediaries who were parasites, racketeers ,operators of the
tenantry and the source of all the ills of rural society.

 Everybody must work - Everybody must work- The concept that who does
not make a return in the share of produce or social service equivalent to or
more than what he consumes is a drone and drag on social and economic
progress . Every section of people must perform a definite economic
function .The various classes of intermediaries functioning as rent-
receivers whether as zamindars or taluqdars or under-proprietors or other
subordinate holders, did nothing to improve the land and left the land and
the tenantry where they were and indeed in a plight worse than before. In
order to make everybody work it was desirable to remove the zamindars.

 The zamindari system was uneconomical to the state- The zamindari-

system was uneconomical to the state in this reason it may be noted that
in order to collect Rs. 682 lakhs as land-revenue and Rs. 71 lakhs as local
rates the state forwent no less than Rs. 1000 lakhs in maintaining the
landlord-system for the collection for its dues .None but a most
extravagant person would employ an agent which costs him about one
and a half times the amount collected. Moreover the land revenue
received by the state from the zamindars (landlord) was less than 7 crores
of rupees whereas the rent received by the zamindars from tenants
amounted to 18 crores of rupees thus zamindars appropriated more than
 11 corers of rupees annually. Thus in order to increase the state revenue,
the abolition of zamindari become necessary.

 Landlordism was British evil - It may be noted that the zamindar class
was created as a social base by the British to help them in consolidation
and maintaining their rule and acted as a check on progressive forces.
History tells that in Avadh after the first independence war of 1857, the
estates (taluqas) were given to those who had given shelter to English
people during the revolution or who had handed over the freedom fighters
to the British Government .Thus zamindars were granted lands as a
bakshish (reward) for their act, which may be called a treachery to the
nation therefore the abolition of zamindari system was necessary to
prevent any further accrual of benefit to treacherers descendants since
the evil of landlordism was a British creation hence it must end with the
British rule of India.

 Zamindars have betrayed the trust reposed in them- The Britishers in

India had expressed a pious hope that the landlord would look after the
welfare of the tenant and improvement of the soil. That he would act like
an English landlord who provides homestead and improves the quality
and fertility of land. But these hopes have however remained expressions
of pious wishes. Instead of improving the condition of the cultivator and
the soil the landlords have been responsible for the steady
impoverishment of both . They have indulged in rack renting and illegal
exactions. While on the one hand, the state share in the rent collected has
progressively decreased, the margin of profit left to the landlords has
increased. progressively decreased, the margin of profit left to the
landlords has increased.

 Continuance of Zamindari may have Led to a Bloody Revolution- It may

be noted that the zamindari system had reached a stage when it would
not have been tolerated by the peasantry any longer without putting our
national economy and social security in danger. The zamindars had
always been oppressors of the tenantry and the source of all the evils of
rural economy. The age –long simmering discontent occasionally bursting
into acts of open defiance and sometimes of violence in our state had
reached a critical stage. The discontent might develop into revolt and our
social security might be threatened by the outbreak of violence. If the
zamindari abolition was held over for a few years . Abolition might mean
expropriation without compensation and quite possibly bloodshed and
violence.
 The system of Zamindari was believed to have become obsolete and out
dated institution hence discredited everywhere in the world. All through
the world there was a wave flowing a process operating to break the
larger estates and handing over land to landless labourers in order to
solve the problem of poverty. In the context of these world developments,
it was sheer folly for the zamindars in India to insist upon the inviolability
of their rights.

WEAKNESSES IN ZAMINDARI ABOLITION

There were, however, certain important weaknesses in the manner in which some of
the clauses relating to zamindari abolition were implemented in various parts of the
country. For example, in Uttar Pradesh, the zamindars were permitted to retain lands
that were declared to be under their ‘personal cultivation’. What constituted ‘personal
cultivation’ was very loosely defined ‘(making) it possible for not only those who tilled
the soil, but also those who supervised the land personally or did so through a
relative, or provided capital and credit to the land, to call themselves a
cultivator’.1 Moreover, in states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madras, to begin with
(i.e., till land ceiling laws were introduced) there was no limit on the size of the lands
that could be declared to be under the ‘personal cultivation’ of the zamindar. This,
despite the fact that the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee (Kumarappa
Committee) in its report of 1949 had clearly stipulated that ‘only those who put in a
minimum amount of physical labour and participate in actual agricultural operations’
could be said to be performing ‘personal cultivation’. Also, the committee had
envisaged a limit or ceiling on how much land could be ‘resumed’ for ‘personal
cultivation’, under no circumstances leading to the tenant’s holding being reduced to
below the ‘economic’ level.2

The result in actual practice, however, was that even zamindars who were absentee
landowners could now end up retaining large tracts of land. Further, in many areas,
the zamindars in order to declare under ‘personal cultivation’ as large a proportion of
their lands as possible often resorted to large-scale eviction of tenants, mainly the
less secure small tenants. (This was to be followed by further rounds of evictions
once the land ceilings and tenancy legislations came into being, cumulatively leading
to a major blot in the record of land reforms in India.)

Many of the erstwhile essentially rent-receiving zamindars, however, did actually

begin to manage the lands declared under their ‘personal cultivation’. They invested
in them and moved towards progressive capitalist farming in these areas, as this was
indeed one of the objectives of land reform.

Retaining large tracts under ‘personal cultivation’ was only one way through which
the landlords tried to avoid the full impact of the effort at abolition of the zamindari
system. Several other methods were used to resist the bringing in of zamindari
abolition legislation and their implementation. Since such legislation had to be
passed by the state legislatures, the landlords used every possible method of
parliamentary obstruction in the legislatures. The draft bills were subjected to
prolonged debates, referred to select committees and repeated amendments were
proposed so that in many states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar several years passed
between the introduction of the bills and the laws being enacted.

Even after the laws were enacted the landlords used the judicial system to defer the
implementation of the laws. As we saw earlier, they repeatedly challenged the
constitutionality of the laws in the courts, going right up to the Supreme Court. In
Bihar, where the landlords put up the maximum resistance, they tried to block the
implementation of the law even after they lost their case in the Supreme Court twice.
They now refused to hand over the land records in their possession, forcing the
government to go through the lengthy procedure of reconstructing the records.
Further, implementation of the law was made difficult and, as much as possible,
skewed in favour of the zamindar, by the collusion between the landlords and
particularly the lower-level revenue officials. Such collusion was helped by the fact
that in zamindari areas many of the revenue officials were former rent-collecting
agents of the zamindars. At all levels involving the legislative, judicial and executive
arms of the state, the landlords put up resistance.

The Congress responded by repeatedly reiterating its resolve to complete the

process of zamindari abolition as quickly as possible. This resolve was seen in AICC
resolutions (e.g., that of July 1954), in the conference of the chief ministers and
presidents of PCCs (April 1950), in the First Plan document and most of all in the
Congress election manifestos. Democracy with adult franchise on the one hand
reduced the political weight of the zamindars, and on the other increased the
urgency of meeting the long-standing demands of the peasantry. The Congress itself
had over the years mobilized the peasantry to make these demands. The Congress
also took necessary administrative and legislative steps, such as getting the
constitutional amendments of 1951 and 1955 passed by parliament, which would
meet the challenge put up by the landlords.

Despite the resistance of landlords, the process of zamindari abolition was

essentially completed, as noted earlier, except in certain pockets of Bihar, within a
decade of the formation of the Indian Republic. The typically large ‘feudal’ estates
were gone. While the big landlords, who lost the bulk of their lands, were the chief
losers, the main beneficiaries of zamindari abolition were the occupancy tenants or
the upper tenants, who had direct leases from the zamindar, and who now became
landowners. Such tenants were generally middle or rich peasants who sometimes
had subleases given out to lower tenants with little rights, often called ‘tenants at
will’.
RESEARCH ON CLASSIFICATION OF HOLDINDS AFTER
ZAMINDARI ABOLITION

The Research Programme Committee of the Planning Commission sponsored a

phased programme of the studies of the impact of zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms on landowners, tenants and agricultural workers in U.P., under the
supervision of Baljit Singh and Shridhar Misra. The investigation covered the entire
State excepting the division of Kumaun and Uttarakhnnd. Eightyone sample villages
ware selected for study from nine divisions. Twentyseven out of eightyone sample
villages were in the Western U.P., eighteen in the Central U.P., nine in Bundelkhand
and twentyseven in the Eastern U.P. The surv'ay covered a period of 12 months
from June 1960 to May 1961.

The study showed that after the Zamindari Abolition, in U.P. as a whole, one third of
the total area under agricultural holdings was held under bhumidhari tenures, a little
less than two third under Sirdari and less than one per cent by asamis. Figures for
the State and for the sample villages are given in the following table.

Notes:

(1) The area figures both for the State as well as sample villages are the averages
for three years, viz. 1957-58 to 1959-60.

(2) Figures for the State are computed from Rental and Holding Registers of the
Board of Revenue by Baljit Singh A Misra.

Source: Baljit Singh and Shridhar Misra, A Study of Land Reforms in Uttar Pradesh.
Calcutta, 1964, p.121.