TENANCY REFORMS 15. Over the years the tenancy problem grew in magnitude from three different directions. Firstly, intermediaries did not always cultivate their homefarm lands and frequently these lands were let out to tenants. Secondly, tenants, holding lands from intermediaries, who have now come into direct relation with the State, sometimes leased lands to subtenants. Thirdly, in ryotwari areas a considerable proportion of land held by ryots has been cultivated by tenants.
16. In different States provisions for security of tenure have taken a variety of forms and there are large differences in detail. Broadly speaking,States may be classified into the following categories:-
(1) States where all tenants have been given full security of tenure;
(2) States where the tenant has a limited security of tenure but is liable to ejectment in exercise of the landlord's right to resume a limited area for personal cultivation. This is subject to the condition that a minimum area is left with the tenant;
(3) States where the landlord's right to resume is subject to an upper limit, but the tenant is not entitled to retain a minimum area for cultivation; and
(4) Other States where ejectment has been temporarily stayed or where action for protection of tenants has yet to be taken.
U.P. and Delhi fall into the first category; Bombay, Punjab, Rajasthan, Hyderabad and Himachal
94
SECOND FIVE YEAR PLAN
Pradesh in the second; and Assam, Madhya Pradesh (Berar), Orissa, Pepsu and Kutch in the third. In U.P., tenants, who were brought into direct relation with the State, were given permanent and heritable rights. The State recovers rent from them and pays compensation in the form of bonds to owners. In Delhi tenants received full ownership rights and were required to pay compensation to owners in addition to the payment of land revenue to Government; compensation being recoverable as arrears of land revenue. In Bombay a land-owner is permitted to resume half the land leased to a tenant subject to a maximum of three economic holdings, the size of the economic holding varying from 4 to 16 acres, depending upon the quality of the land. In Punjab, resumption is limited generally to 30 "standard acres" and a tenant cannot be ejected from a minimum area of 5 "standard acres" unless the State Government is able to allot alternative land from the pool of "surplus" land obtained from owners holding more than 30 "standard acres". In Hyderabad,the tenant is generally entitled to retain a basic holding except where an owner himself owns a basic holding or less. In Rajasthan generally tenants are allowed to retain a prescribed minimum holding. In Himachal Pradesh a land owner may resume upto 5 acres and the tenant is entitled to retain three-fourths of his holding. In the third category, the limit of area which may be resumed, has been set at 33-1/3 acres in Assam, 50 acres in Madhya Pradesh (Berar), 30 standard acres in Pepsu, 50 acres in Kutch and 7 to 14 acres in Orissa. In other parts of the country there are large variations, and in many cases tenants are afforded much less protection than in the States mentioned above. While summing up the position as it emerges from the enactments which have been passed, it is necessary to recognize that there are large variations in the degree of practical implementation in different parts of the country and that even in the same State some parts of the tenancy legislation are carried out to a greater extent than others.
17. During the past few years, there have been instances in some States of large-scale ejectment of tenants, and of "voluntary surrender" of tenancies. The main causes are ignorance on the part of the people of legislative provisions regarding security of tenure, possible lacunae in the law, inadequate land records and defective administrative arrangements. Most "voluntary surrenders" of tenancies are open to doubt as bonafide transactions. It is recommended that action should be taken to stay ejectment of tenants and sub-tenants except on ground of non-payment of rent or mis-use ofland. Ejectment of tenants and surrenders which may have taken place during, say, the past three years should be reviewed with a view to restoration wherever circumstances justify such a course. In order to discourage "voluntary surrenders" of land under undue pressure, for the future, provision may be made that surrender of land by a tenant will not be regarded as valid unless it is duly registered by the revenue authorities. In such cases the landlord should be entitled to take possession of the land only to the extent of his right of resumption.
MEANING OF PERSONAL CULTIVATION 18. In giving effect to legislation for the protection of tenants some difficulties have arisen which can be traced to the definiton of the expression "personal cultivation", which is frequently used, but not always with the same meaning. In all States "personal cultivation" includes cultivation through servants or hired labourers. There are variations, however, in respect of the nature of supervision over cultivation and the mode of payment to servants or hired labourers which are prescribed by legislation. In a number of States, there are no restrictions on the kind of supervision which may be exercised. In Bombay, Saurashtra and a few other States supervision may be exercised by the owner or a member of his family but the expression `Family' is not defined. As regards the mode of payment, in Bombay and a few other States payment can be made in cash or in kind but not by way of a share of the produce, whereas in Punjab servants or hired labourers may be paid in any manner. It is desirable that a degree of uniformity in the use of the term "personal cultivation" should be introduced.
19. "Personal cultivation" may be said to have three elements, namely, risk of cultivation, personal supervision and labour. A person who does not bear the entire risk of cultivation or parts with a share of the produce in favour of another cannot be described as cultivating the land personally. The expression "personal supervision" may include supervision by the owner or by a member of his family. In order to be effective, supervision should be accompanied by residence during the greater part of the agricultural season on the part of an owner or a member of his family in the village in which the land is situated or in a nearby village, within a distance to be prescribed. As an element in personal cultivation, the performance of minimum labour, though correct in principle, presents difficulties in practice. It is, therefore, suggested that the expression "personal cultivation" should be defined so as to provide for the entire risk of cultivation being borne by the owner and personal supervision being exercised in the manner described above by the owner or by a member of his family. When land is to be resumed for personal cultivation, however, the desirability of providing also for the third element in personal cultivation, namely, personal labour may be considered. If the land is not brought under personal cultivation or is let out within a period to be specified, the ejected tenant should have the right of restoration.
95
LAND REFORM AND AGRARIAN REORGANISATION
20. Existing legislation should be re-examined in terms of the definition of "personal cultivation" set out above, and suitable action taken to confer tenancy rights on individuals who have in the past been treated merely as labourers or as `partners in cultivation'. Because the definiton of "personal cultivation" has been generally defective in the past, in a number of States crop-sharing arrangements which have all the characteristics of tenancy are not regarded as such and crop-shares are denied rights allowed to tenants.
RESUMPTION FOR PERSONAL CULTIVATION 21. A number of difficult problems relating to tenancy legislation centre on the issue of resumption of land for personal cultivation. It is common practice to provide in the legislation that persons serving in the armed forces, unmarried women, widows, minors and persons suffering from mental or physical infirmities should be permitted to lease out land and should have the right to resume for personal cultivation when the disability ceases.
In the case of Defence Services personnel, it is of the highest importance that tenancy legislation should not place them under any handicap as compared to those who are able to reside in the village and cultivate their lands. Persons serving in the armed forces should have a feeling of security and full assurance that their interests would not be adversely affected. If they are owners of land, they should have the right to lease it; if they are tenants, they should have the right to sub-let the land. In either case their existing rights should remain intact. On retirement or discharge, Defence Services personnel should have unrestricted rights to resume land for personal cultivation from the tenant or sub-tenant as the case may be.
22. On general grounds, it is accepted that resumption of land for personal cultivation should be permitted. In the First Five Year Plan it was proposed that the limit of resumption for personal cultivation should be set at three times the family holding. Resumption was to be on grounds of personal cultivation only and was to be limited to the area which the adult workers in a family could bring under cultivation. In implementing this recommendation over the past three years, it has been observed that this approach calls for safeguards for reducing the risk of large-scale ejectment of tenants. The practical question which arises is, how the interest of an owner who wishes to cultivate personally and of a tenant who may be deprived of his living on account of resumption, should be reconciled. Limits to the area which can be resumed have been prescribed in a large number of States. Below the level of what may be prescribed as the ceiling, two sets of problems arise, namely, those concerning small owners who may have less than a family holding and those concerning owners whose area is in excess of one family holding but less than the ceiling limit.
23. The economic circumstances of small owners are not so different from those of tenants that tenancy legislation should operate to their disadvantage. It is desirable that a small owner wishing to resume land for personal cultivation should be permitted to do so. At the same time, it is difficult to disregard the position of the tenant. There is a consensus of opinion that owners with very small holdings should be permitted to resume their entire area. The limit may be set at what is described as a "basic holding". The expression "basic holding" is employed in legislation relating to the prevention of fragmentation which generally defines the minimum area needed for profitable cultivation. For practical purposes it may be convenient to assume that a family holding is made up, say, of three "basic holdings". Thus, owners with less than one-third of a family holding, may be free to resume their entire area for personal cultivation. As regards owners whose holdings lie between a basic holding and a family holding, the recommendation is that they should be permitted to resume for personal cultivation one-half of the area held by the tenant, but in no event less than a basic holding. Where tenants are left without any land or with areas smaller than a basic holding, the suggestion is that the Government should endeavour to find land for them so as to bring the tenancy to the level of a basic holding. To an extent this effort would be facilitated when ceilings are imposed and areas in excess of the ceiling become available.
24. In the case of owners whose holdings fall between one family holding and the limit prescribed for resumption for personal cultivation, the main consideration is that a minimum area should always be left with the tenants. What this minimum should be would depend upon the area of land which an owner has under personal cultivation. It is proposed that-
(1) where the land-owner has under his personal cultivation land which exceeds a family holding but is less than the ceiling limit, he may have the right to resume land for personal cultivation, provided that his tenant is left with a family holding and the total area obtained by the owner together with the land already under his personal cultivation does not exceed the ceiling;
(2) if the land-owner has less than a family hold- ing under his personal cultivation, he maybe allowed to resume one half of the tenant's holding or an area which, together with land under his personal cultivation, makes up a
96
SECOND FIVE YEAR PLAN
family holding, whichever is less, provided that the tenant is left with not less than a basic holding.
25. It is desirable that the area which the landowner is entitled to resume should be demarcated as speedily as possible. A reasonable period, say, six months, should be prescribed within which the landowner should apply for such demarcation and the resumable and non-resumable areas should be determined by revenue authorities in an equitable manner. In areas in excess of the limit of resumption for personal cultivation, tenants should have continuing and heritable possession. They should also have limited rights of transfer which would enable them to obtain loans on the security of land from Government and from co-operative societies. Tenants of lands liable to resumption for personal cultivation should have heritable (but not permanent) rights and the right: to make improvements. It is also desirable to prescribe a period within which the right of resumption may be exercised so that thereafter rights of ownership may be conferred on the tenants. For this purpose, the period of five years contemplated in the First Five Year Plan appears to be sufficient. In the case of small owners it is not necessary to prescribe a period during which resumption for personal cultivation should necessarily take place.
REGULATION OF RENT 26. In the First Five Year Plan it was stated that a rate of rent exceeding one-fourth or onE-fifth of the produce should be regarded as requiring special justification. Progress in the regulation of rents has been uneven and in several States legislation lags behind. Considerable variations exist at present Thus, in Rajasthan and Bombay the maximum rent has been fixed at one-sixth of the produce; in Delhi Ajmer and in certain cases in Assam and Hyderabad at one-fifth; in Orissa, Himachal Pradesh, parts of Mysore and in certain cases in Assam, Hyderabad and Vindhaya Pradesh at one fourth; in Punjab, Pepsu, parts of Mysore and in certain cases in Kutch at one-third; and in Bihar at 7/20th of the produce. At the other end are the rates of rent prevailing in Madras and West Bengal. In Madras the rent is regulated in the districts of Tanjore and Malabar only. In Tanjore the rent amounts to 60 per cent. of the gross produce of the principal crops and in Malabar it is generally one-half of the net produce. In West Bengal. a crop-sharer has to give 40 per cent of the produce if he meets the cost of cultivation and 50 per cent. if the landlord meets the cost. In some States, as in Andhra, rents, have not been regulated at all. It is necessary that, as early as possible, the rents should be brought down to the level recommended in the First Five Year Plan. would also be desirable to provide for the commutation of produce rents into cash rents. In addition to the usual form of regulation of rents it may be useful also to fix the maximum rent as a multiple of land revenue.
RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP FOR TENANTS 27. It is an agreed objective that early steps should be taken to enable tenants of non-resumable areas to become owners of their holdings. Progress in this direction has been slow. As an immediate measure,it is recommended that all tenants of non-resumable areas should be brought into direct relationship with the State. In this context reduction of rents has high priority. Once rents are brought down to reasonable levels it is important that each State should have a programme for converting tenants of non-resumable areas into owners and putting an end to vestiges of the tenant-landlord relationship. In Uttar Pradesh and Delhi as stated earlier, all tenants have been brought into direct relationship with the State. In other States the question has been approached in two different ways. In legislation enacted in Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Hyderabad, Madhya Bharat, Rajasthan and a few other States, tenants have been given an optional right of purchase, but in two States (Hyderabad and Himachal Pradesh) the Government has also taken power to establish direct relationship with tenants. It has been observed that where rights of purchase are optional they are scarcely exercised. One of the main reasons why tenants are unable to buy out landlord's rights is that they do not have a surplus from which to pay.
28. As suggested above, it appears desirable to go beyond giving an optional right of purchase and instead to take steps to bring all tenants of non-resumable areas into direct relationship with the State. This was visualised in the First Five Year Plan which suggested that for areas in excess of the limit for resumption the general policy should be to enable tenants to become owners. If this course is followed, three possibilities exist:
(1) the State recovers rent and finances payments of compensation to owners,
(2) besides land revenue the State recovers instalments of compensation from the tenants, and
(3) The State recovers land revenue and tenants pay instalments of compensation directly to owners.
In the first and the second alternatives, the State Will issue compensatory bonds which may be redeemable
97
LAND REFORM AND AGRARIAN REORGANISATION
over, say, a period of 20 years. If the first alternative is adopted, the compensation would be based upon the increase in the income of the State Government that is, the difference between the land revenue pay able by the owners and the fair rent payable by the tenants who are brought into direct contact with the State. This method raises certain difficulties on account of the fact that rent levels vary a great deal an are likely to be progressively reduced. A firm basis or determining the compensation may not thus be available. The third alternative leads to a degree of uncertainty on account of the fact that tenants may default in the payment of instalments. On the whole therefore, the balance of advantage appears to lie in favour of the second of the three methods set out above. If, however, the burden of payment falling upon the tenant is not to be too excessive, it would be necessary to ensure that the aggregate of the annual payment in the form of land revenue and the instalments of compensation does not exceed the level of rent, recommended in the Plan, that is, one-fourth or one-fifth of the total produce. It is contemplated that the aggregate amount of compensation and interest would be fully recovered from the tenants and would throw no additional financial burden upon State Governments.