John Abraham, Bhumi Hukka Andolan

In this age, there is little point in talking about the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act of 1961 in terms of how it was originally conceived over 40 years ago. We cannot turn back the clock, rethink the aspirations of nation-builders or relive the lives of those who fought for independence. However, a realistic approach to the economic and social problems of India does require an understanding of history and a sense of how rural resources can be distributed more equitably in this era of the global economy.

Among all resources, the supply of land is now the most limited and its claimants the most numerous. Where land and other key resources are not equitably distributed, it is not merely socially unjust; it is flawed economics. In India, where the size of landholdings increases disproportionately, land is used less efficiently. Highly mechanized farming may require big holdings, but this is not the case in India. Here, land continues to be cropped primarily by hand, and the vast majority of the rural population continues to rely upon farming for income. When land is very unevenly distributed, then, it effects the livelihoods of millions and has the potential to cause significant social unrest.

During the Second Five-Year Plan of the independent government, the Planning Commission made recommendations on laws to redistribute land in India more evenly. The objective was to bring distributive justice to the economy, contrary to how the colonial system had operated. It was necessary to reduce economic inequalities and also to create a more labour-intensive economic system, despite the movement towards machine agriculture in other parts of the world. Large holdings invite mechanization and low employment opportunities. With low per capita land availability, only a labour intensive system can reduce unemployment in India. Moreover, efficiency in terms of productivity can increase when the operation is intensive rather than extensive.

In Maharastra the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act (hereafter the Ceiling Lands Act) was enacted in 1961 with the following premise, amended in 1970 (amendment in italics):

Other states also enacted equivalent legislation, and in some states the laws did achieve the desired goal and considerable distributive justice was achieved. But in many other states, due to illegal transfers, the lack of proper land records, compensation problems, litigation, exemptions and other matters, land acquisition and distribution did not take place as intended.

In Maharashtra, large portions of land acquired under the Ceiling Lands Act were handed over to the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation (MSFC) for efficient use, rather than to the impoverished landless themselves. However, vast areas of the land were kept fallow, contrary to the spirit of the Act. Additionally, land was organised into five categories with different limits for these categories, as follows:

1. Land with an assured supply of water, 18 acres
2. Land with assured water for one crop, 27 acres
3. Land irrigated seasonally, 36 acres
4. Dry crop land (specified regions-paddy land), 36 acres
5. Dry crop land, 54 acres

This range of ceilings gave room for improper implementation of the Act. Other obstacles included a lack of political will, absence of pressure from below because of an inarticulate and unorganized agricultural labour force, an apathetic attitude in the bureaucracy, and innumerable loopholes.

Furthermore, even though the revised Act was included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, amendments to the Act have benefited the rich and impinged on the rights of the landless for whom the original act was intended and contrary to the principles enshrined in that Constitution. For instance, up to 1972 the landholder was treated as the unit for assessing ownership, whereas after that time the family was treated as the unit. The treatment of the family as the unit resulted in much less land being in surplus by comparison to the landowner as unit.

The most recent amendment of 2003 is of greatest concern. By regranting the land to the original owners, the State Government is violating the rights of the landless established under the original Act. By selling land it acquired under the Act, as it is now doing, the MSFC is also breaching the spirit of the original Act.

Finally, another question relates to the constitutional validity of these actions. The Act was amended in the State Assembly with the approval of the President of India. However, as the Act has been incorporated into the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution this action may be unconstitutional. It may be argued that by being incorporated into the Ninth Schedule this law is exempted from judicial review. However, if an amendment to the Act reverses the original objectives of the Act and violates the rights of the intended beneficiaries this may breach the Ninth Schedule and require the approval of the full national Parliament. This is a question that to date remains unresolved.