The Maharashtra State Government moved a Bill on 20 July 2001 to amend the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Maharashtra Act No.XXVII of 1961), to enable it to return surplus lands to landlords. These lands were originally taken over from the joint stock sugar companies established during the colonial era. The intention was for the lands to be distributed among the landless rural poor. The State Government is now reversing that original intention by amending the Act to give the land back to the wealthy elite and their corporations.

Administrative approval of the Home Ministry of the Government of India was obtained to move this Bill. The original Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act and subsequent major amendments to it have been placed in the IXth Schedule of the Constitution. The amended Act was given President's assent on 22 April 2003. This new Act will affect the right to livelihood of a very large number of agricultural labourers, men and women belonging to landless families of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes--or adivasis--nomadic tribes and other backward classes, out of which 60 % are women. These are the people who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of the original Act in 1961.

Despite having no legal title, the landless people of Maharashtra began occupying and cultivating disused ceiling lands in the 1980s.

The original Maharashtra Act No. XXVII of 1961 (hereafter the Ceiling Lands Act) was placed on the Statute Book to secure the laudable object of "distribution of agricultural land as best to subserve the common good." The preamble of the Act proclaimed that it provided for the distribution of surplus land to the landless and other persons. This original Act was amended by Maharashtra Act No. XXI of 1975, which lowered the ceiling limit. The preamble to this amendment states that

This amendment proclaimed to prevent "the concentration of means of agricultural production and wealth to the common detriment". Section 2 of this Amendment declared that provisions of this Act are enacted in pursuance of Article 31-C of the Constitution of India for giving effect to policy of the state towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution of India. Those clauses read as follows:

39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State.-

The Act was amended in 1970 and given assent by the President of India. By this amended Act, the MSFC was granted the entire land on a permanent basis. This land was vested in the State Government as per the provisions of section 21 of Ceiling Lands Act, free from all encumbrances.

This amendment also made a provision to enable the State Government to grant a part of this land for self-cultivation to the persons who had previously leased their land to the industrial undertaking from who the surplus land was taken over by the State of Maharashtra. It was provided for, subject to conditions, in the amended subsection 3 of Section 28-1AA:

Under the original Ceiling Lands Act, land measuring 85,637 acres, out of which 80% was perennially irrigated held by 13 joint stock sugar companies was declared surplus, and was handed over to the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd (MSFC), for further cultivation. The Corporation also took up the 25,000 permanent and daily-rated agricultural workers, with continuity of service and other benefits. Out of the total land mass, 35,910 acres were previously owned by 13 joint stock sugar companies while 49,727 acres were taken on lease by these companies from 4015 landlords on a long term basis, for fifty or more years.

The state Government in pursuance of sub section 28-1 AA under the amendment of 1970 handed over 14,261 acres of land to 2067 ex-landlords. The remaining 1408 ex-lessors had applied for grants to the land but these applications were rejected by the state government after following the due process of law and after proper hearings, giving them the fullest opportunity to participate in the enquiry. This leads to the obvious conclusion that there was no substance in their claims.

Now, by way of the 2003 amendments, the previous decision of the State Government, denying the claims of the ex-lessors after quasi-judicial enquiry and confirmed by various tribunals and the High Court, is being reversed. The intention is to return the excess land, which had been vested permanently in the State Government, to these ex-landlords.

Meanwhile, of the small and medium sized landlords who were granted land during the seventies for self-cultivation, almost half have sold or disposed of the land, and most of the rest do not personally cultivate it. These ex-lessors' forefathers were not interested in cultivating the land or were unable to cultivate the land personally, and for this reason they transferred the land to the companies on long-term leases.

It should be noted that the MSFC has already paid the occupancy price in full as demanded by the State Government. In turn, the State Government has already paid the full amount of compensation to these ex-lessors under chapter 5 of the original Act. However, the state government has deliberately not made appropriate book entries to this effect during last 17 years, even after the payment of occupancy price. All this has been admitted in an affidavit dated 18 July 1998 by Shri S K Jondhale, an officer of the Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra.

The amended Act of 2003 has removed the income limit of Rs 35,000 for the original landlords for getting back the land.

The total land now in possession of the MSFC is 69,559 acres, out of which 20,444 is waste land, and out of which 8404 acres is occupied by buildings. The original boundaries of the individual landowners' lands no longer exist. The State Government proposes to return 33,000 acres to the ex-lessors. Out of the remaining 16,000 acres, hardly 50% are irrigated.

The amendment also enables the State Government to withdraw the entire land from the MSFC and grant any area of land now belonging to the Corporation for any "public purpose". The term "public purpose" can be misused.

A portion of the said land has already been sold to a trust for a paltry sum.

While all of this was going on, adivasis began to occupy wasteland under the custody of the MSFC, in a challenge to the government's effort to divest natural resources from the weaker sections and further enrich landlords and corporations. Even though the organised struggle has lost some of the magnitude it had in its initial stage, the determination of these tribals to withstand attacks from local landlords, police and other state agents, is testimony that everything is not lost.

Adivasis had begun occupying the land individually in the 1980s, and began their collective efforts in 1994, in response to the decision of the State Government to dissolve the MSFC and return the land to the landlords. In fact, these adivasis have been depending on these lands since even before the Corporation came into existence. The Corporation could cultivate hardly half of the land it took over, and the thorny trees growing there became a blessing in disguise for these adivasis, because they could collect and sell firewood for a small income.

A number of encroachments had already taken place even before the movement began. In 1994, when the movement began and Bhumi Hukka Andolan--Land Rights Movement--was established, large tracts of wasteland in Kopergaon and Shrirampur subdistricts, and some parts in the newly formed Rahata subdistrict, were occupied by adivasis. They cleared away the thorny bushes and brought the land under cultivation for the first time. There were a few dalits (so-called "outcastes") and landless labourers from other communities who joined the movement. However, more than 90% of the people involved were adivasis.

As adivasis occupied the lands they began facing arrest for illegal occupation. An increasingly large number of cases started piling up at Kopergaon Court. Even bailing out the arrested was problematic since it was difficult to get sureties for the adivasis. The landed class was reluctant to be guarantors and extorted money in certain cases. Attending the court frequently for various cases became a millstone around the neck of adivasis. Harassing the adivasis through court cases became entertainment for the state authorities.

Bhumi Hukka Andolan had been toying with the idea of filing a collective writ petition but to no avail. There were very few records to show that there had been occupations prior to 1990. Collating the available data was a tedious and slow process. The court expenses were formidable. Finally, the writ was filed in the Bombay High Court with the assistance of some sympathetic lawyers and the Socio-Legal Information Centre.

In January 2001, the High Court passed an order that the State Government had to examine the claims of the adivasis, in keeping with a Supreme Court order of 1990. That judgement prohibits any eviction of adivasi occupants from government wastelands before their demands are fully examined.

The order was greeted with delight by the adivasis, whose morale was boosted. Nonetheless, the government authorities were slow to act. After a month, around two hundred adivasis submitted an application at the District Collector's office responsible for pursuing the High Court order requesting that the order by followed without delay. More and more applications for land rights started piling up at the office. Finally, an indefinite hunger strike at the office had the desired effect. The District Collector agreed to undertake the enquiry regarding the land occupation. However, the District Collector rejected the land claims on a technicality. The movement made repeated written appeals to the District Collector's superior, the Revenue Commissioner at Nashik, to review the decision. These were not answered. A formal appeal was then lodged, on the grounds that the State Government owns the land in question, and that it was recorded as fallow in the official documents. On these grounds, the adivasis_ claims fall under the Supreme Court decision. However the Revenue Commissioner likewise rejected the appeal without giving it due consideration.

The latest legal step by Bhumi Hukka Andolan is to lodge a writ petition challenging the 2003 amendment to the Ceiling Lands Act in the High Court, calling for implementation of the Supreme Court order and implementation of the Ceiling Lands Act according to its original intention.