LAND REFORMS IN INDIA: AN ANALYSIS

SUBMITTED BY

ARCHE HANSE

UID: SM0116010

Faculty-in-charge

Ms. Dipakshi Das

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY AND JUDICIAL ACADEMY, ASSAM

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Literature review
1.3 Scope and objectives
1.4 Research questions
1.5 Research methodology

2. LAND REFORMS MEASURE

2.1 Abolition of Intermediaries

2.2 Tenancy Reforms

2.3 Ceilings on Land Holding

2.4 Bhoodan and Gramdan

2.5 Protection of Tribal Land

2.6 Consolidation of Holdings

3. CHOICE OF APPROPRIATE FORM OF FARM ORGANISATION AND

CHANGES IN THE AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE

4. CONFLICT BETWEEN RIGHT TO PROPERTY AND AGRARIAN

REFORMS

5. CONCLUSION

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

2
 1.1 INTRODUCTION

Land reform usually refers to redistribute on of land from the rich to the poor. More broadly, it
includes regulation of ownership, operation, leasing, sales, and inheritance of land (indeed, the
redistribution of land itself requires legal changes). In an agrarian economy like India with great
scarcity, and an unequal distribution, ofland, coupled with a large mass of the rural population
below the poverty line, there are compelling economic and political arguments for land reform.
Not surprisingly, it received top priority on the policy agenda at the time ofIndependence. In the
decades following independence India passed a significant bodyof land reform legislation. The
1949 Constitution left the adoption and implementation of land and tenancy reforms to state
governments. This led to a lot of variation in the implementation of these reforms across states
and over time, a fact that has been utilized in empirical studies trying to understand the causes
and effects of land reform.

In this project, the researcher will briefly discuss the economic and political arguments in favour
of land reform, and review the Indian evidence on the effects of land reform on agricultural
productivity and poverty, and economic and political determinant of the speed and intensity of
implementation of land reforms.

1.2. LITERATURE REVIEW

1.2.1 The Oxford Companion to Economics in India; Land Reforms in India, By Kaushik Basu,
Published by: Oxford University Press, Accessed: 20-09-2018 20:10 UTC

In this article the author aims to review and contribute to the literature on land reform and
economic development. It does so by evaluating the impact of land reforms in India on
agricultural modernization in twelve states over the years 1961-1987. The main findings are
although there is limited evidence of the successful implementation of land reforms, adoption of
tenancy reforms seems to have a significant positive association with some measures of
modernization, and fragmentation arising from land ceiling laws is negatively correlated to
Modernization.

3
1.2.2 AN ANALYSIS OF LAND REFORMS AND LAND HOLDING PATTERNS IN INDIA,
By PANDARAIAH. G, Published by: International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary
Research ISSN 2277-3630IJSSIR, Vol. 4 (4), APRIL(2015), pp. 53-64Stable URL:
http://indianresearchjournals.com/pdf/IJSSIR/2015/April/7.pdf, Accessed: 20-10-2018 21:39
UTC

This paper the author gives brief description of secondary source data on land holdings in
India. Land reform is a popular slogan in developing countries of the world. In this paper authors
would like to analyses the land reforms and land holding pattern in India. The study also
utilized the secondary data as a major source of information for analysis.

1.2.3 Impact of Land Reform on Productivity, Land Value and Human Capital Investment
Household Level Evidence from West Bengal, By Klaus Deininger, Published by University of
Boston, Berkley, Stable URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/6277/2/470477.pdf -2018
09:19 UTC

In this article, the study has been done on the impact of reforms in land property rights on farm
productivity in the Indian states. The analysis is distinguished from earlier studies by use of a
disaggregated farm panel, controls for farm extension programs administered by local
governments, and for endogeneity of program implementation. In this article it statistically
significant effects of tenancy registration on productivity in tenant farms, but larger general
equilibrium spillover effects on non- tenant farms. The productivity effects of tenancy reform
were overshadowed by farm input services and infrastructure spending by local governments.

1.3. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

1.3.1 SCOPE

The scope of this project is limited to the study of agrarian reforms and to assess the impact of
reforms in changing the unequal and exploitative agrarian structure.

1.3.2 OBJECTIVE

• To check the various unit data of land measures and understand the need for agrarian
reforms.

4
 • The land reform measures undertaken during 1950s and 1960s; and assess the
impact of reforms in changing the unequal and exploitative agrarian structure.
• To examine the Constitutional validity of the laws which were placed in Ninth Schedule.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• To what extent, the objective of ceiling on holdings was achieved? What led to its failure?
• Why did the scheme of consolidation of holdings fail?
• What was the impact of agrarian reforms on agrarian structure?
• Though the Ninth Schedule was added in the Constitution for the purpose of bringing out
agrarian reforms, during the course of time there is distortion of Ninth Schedule by
inserting unscientific laws. Whether the unscientific and non-agrarian laws are protected
under the Ninth Schedule?

1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1.5.1 Approach to Research

In this project doctrinal research was involved. Doctrinal Research is a research in which
secondary sources are used and materials are collected from libraries, archives, etc. Books,
journals, articles were used while making this project.

1.5.2 Type of Research

Explanatory type of research was used in this project, because the project topic was not relatively
new and unheard of and also because various concepts were needed to be explained.

1.5.3. Sources of Data Collection

Secondary source of data collection was used which involves in collection of data from books,
articles, websites, etc. No surveys or case studies were conducted.

2. LAND REFORMS MEASURES

After Independence, the Indian National Congress appointed the Agrarian Reforms Committee
under the Chairmanship of J.C. Kumarapppa, for making an in-depth study of the agrarian

5
relations prevailing in the country. The committee submitted its report in 1949 which had a
considerable impact on the evolution of agrarian reforms policy in the post-independence
period1. The committee recommended that all intermediaries between the state and the tiller
should be eliminated and the land must belong to the tiller subject to certain conditions2.

Let us now examine the various agrarian reform measures undertaken after independence.
As already mentioned, the term ‘land reforms’ refers to reforms undertaken in the land
tenure system. The steps include (i) abolition of intermediaries, (ii) fixation of ceilings on land
holdings and (iii) redistribution of surplus land among landless or semi-landless peasants.
Besides, any special measures adopted to prevent alienation of tribal land and consolidate
fragmented holdings come within the broad definition of agrarian reforms.

2.1 Abolition of Intermediaries

Following the recommendation of Kumarappa Committee, all the states in India enacted
legislation for the abolition of intermediary tenures in the 1950s, although the nature and effects
of such legislation varied from state to state. In West Bengal and Jammu

& Kashmir, legislation for abolishing intermediary tenures was accompanied by

simultaneous imposition of ceilings on land holdings. In other states, intermediaries were
allowed to retain possession of lands under their personal cultivation without limit being
set, as the ceiling laws were passed only in the1960s. As a result, there was enough time left for
the intermediaries to make legal or illegal transfers of land. Besides, in some states, the law
applied only to tenant interests like sairati mahals etc. and not to agricultural holdings 3.
Therefore, many large intermediaries continued to exist even after formal abolition of zamindari.
Nevertheless, it has been estimated that consequent upon the legal abolition of intermediaries
between 1950 and 1960, nearly 20 million cultivators in the country were brought into
direct contact with the Government.

2.2 Tenancy Reforms

1
On the origin and evolution of the zamindari system, see Habib, The Agrarian System of Mughal India, 1556-1707,
(Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999, 2nd ed.) at 169
2
Ibid at 150
3
Ibid at 173

6
The Agrarian Reforms Committee recommended against any system of cultivation by tenants
and maintained that leasing of land should be prohibited except in the case of widows, minors
and disabled persons. This viewpoint received further strength subsequently in various
Five Year Plans. According to the Second Five Year Plan, abolition of intermediary tenures
and bringing the tenants into direct relations with the state would give the tiller of the soil
his rightful place in the agrarian system and provide him with full incentives for increasing
agricultural production4.

Immediately after Independence, although the major emphasis was on the abolition of
intermediaries, certain amendments to the existing tenancy laws were made with a view to
providing security to the tenants of ex-intermediaries. But these legal measures provoked the
landlords to secure mass eviction of tenants, sub-tenants and share- croppers through
various legal and extra-legal devices5. The highly defective land records, the prevalence of
oral leases, absence of rent receipts, non-recognition in law of share- croppers as tenants and
various punitive provisions of the tenancy laws were utilized by the landlords to secure
eviction of all types of tenants.6 To counteract such a tendency, therefore, it became necessary on
the part of the State Governments to enact or amend the laws in the subsequent years and provide
for adequate safeguards against illegal eviction and ensure security of tenure for the tenants-at-
will.

Broadly speaking, tenancy reforms undertaken by various states followed four distinct patterns.
First, the tenancy laws of several states including Andhra Pradesh (Telengana region), Bihar,
Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh banned leasing out of
agricultural land except by certain disabled categories of landowners, so as to vest the
ownership of land with the actual tillers. But concealed tenancy continued to exist in all
these states.

Second, the state of Kerala banned agricultural tenancy altogether without having any exception.
Third, States like Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat and Haryana did not ban tenancy as such. But

4
‘Land Reforms in India: Constitutional and Legal Approach’ by P.K. Aggarwal. Pg.3
5
Dr. B.S.Sinha’s ‘Law and Social Change in India’ published by Deep and Deep Publications, p.234.
6
Ibid at 235

7
tenants after continuous possession of land for certain specified years, acquired the right of
purchase of the land they cultivated7. However, in all these states, leasing out by both large
and small farmers continued. In fact, a tendency towards reverse tenancy in which large
farmers leased-in land from marginal farmers was set in since the advent of green revolution in
the mid-sixties.

Fourth, states like West Bengal, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Andhra area of Andhra Pradesh
did not ban leasing-out of agricultural land. But share-croppers were not recognised as
tenants. The State of West Bengal recognised share-croppers as tenants only with effect from
1979, with the launching of ‘Operation Barga”8.

Almost all State Governments provided for the regulation of rent, excepting Kerala where
leasing out was completely prohibited. The regulated or fair rent ranged between

1/4th to 1/6th of the produce. But actual rent remained always higher than the regulated or fair
rent. In many places where small and marginal farmers leased-in land from large or absentee
landowners, the situation continued to be exploitative, thereby discouraging the actual tillers
to cultivate the land efficiently.

2.3 Ceilings on Land Holding

The term ‘ceiling on land holdings’ refers to the legally stipulated maximum size beyond
which no individual farmer or farm household can hold any land. Like all other land reforms
measures, the objective of such ceiling is to promote economic growth with social justice. It has
been duly recognised by India’s planners and policy makers that beyond a point any large
scale farming in Indian situation becomes not only uneconomic, but also unjust. Small
farms tend to increase economic efficiency of resource use and improve social equity through
employment creation and more equitable income distribution. According to C.H. Hunumantha
Rao, small farms offer more opportunities for employment compared to large farms. Hence,
even if large farms produce relatively more output per unit of area, they cannot be

7
R. Mearns, ‘Access to Land in Rural India, Policy Issues and Options’, Policy Research Working Paper Series,
No. 2123 (Washington D.C.: World Bank 1998) at, 7.
8
Bhowani Sen: ‘Evolution of Agrarian Relation in India’, pp 77-79.(1958)

8
considered more efficient in a situation of widespread unemployment and under-employment
prevalent in this country9.

Table 2.3.1

Ceilings on landholdings as imposed during 1960-197010

State Level of ceiling (hectare)

Andhra Pradesh 10.93 to 131.13
Assam 20.23
Bihar 9.71 to 29.14
Gujarat 4.05 to 53.14
Haryana 12.14 to 24.38
Jammu and Kashmir 9.21
Kerala 6.07 to 15.18
Madhya Pradesh 10.12
Orissa 8.09 to 15.18
Punjab 12.14 to 24.28
Rajasthan 8.90 to 135.97
Tamil Nadu 12.14 to 48.56
Uttar Pradesh 16.19 to 32.37
West Bengal 10.12

In 1959, Indian National Congress (Nagpur Resolution) resolved that agrarian legislation to
cover restrictions on the size of land holdings must be implemented in all states by the end of
1959. Accordingly, all the State Governments excepting north-eastern region imposed
ceilings on land holdings in the 1960s. The states of West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir had
already imposed ceilings on land holdings along with the laws for abolition of intermediaries in
the early 1950s. However, the Nagpur Resolution of 1959 had significant impact as various State
Governments immediately took to the ratification of ceiling legislation. The Gujarat

9
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/39853/5/chapter%201.pdf
10
Ibid at Page 32

9
Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960; The Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings
Act, 1960; The Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1969, The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceilings on
Land Holdings Act,

1960; The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquition of Surplus Land Act,
1961; The Karnataka Land Reforms Act1961; The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on
Holdings) Act, 1960; The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Land) Act, 1961 and
The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 were some of the results of the Nagpur Resolution on Land
Reform11. However, as the ceiling laws were not ratified simultaneously with abolition of
zamindari, except in West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir as stated before, several nami and
benami transfer of land took place. This reduced the potential ceiling surplus land that
could be available for redistribution. Besides, several states including Andhra Pradesh, Assam,
Bihar, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Orissa, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and
West Bengal followed individuals as the unit of application for ceiling, while family as the unit
of application was adopted in Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra,
Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu. We present the ceiling limits fixed by various states in Table
2.3.1.

It may be seen from Table 2.3.1 that ceilings were quite high in several states. In
addition, the following categories of land were exempted from the ceiling laws:

1) Land under Tea, Coffee, Rubber, Coco and Cardamum Plantations

2) Land used for cultivation of Palm, Kesra, Bela, Chameli or rose when such land holders
have no land for any other cultivation (U.P.)

3) Sugarcane Farms

4) Co-operative Gardens, Colonies

5) Tank Fisheries

6) Area under orchard up to 4 hectares (Punjab and Haryana)

11
http://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/19574/1/Unit-4.pdf

10
7) Land held by co-operative farming and other co-operative societies, including land
mortgage bank

8) Land held by religious, charitable and educational institutions

9) Land awarded for gallantry

10) Land held by sugarcane factories

11) Land held by state or Central Government

12) Land held by a public sector or industrial or commercial undertaking

13) Land vested in Gram Sabha, Bhoodan or Gramdan Committee

14) Land situated in any area which is specified as being reserved for non-agricultural or
industrial development under the relevant tenancy law (Gujarat)

15) Specified farms engaged in cattle breeding, dairying or wool raising

16) Several categories of other land including those held by public sector or commercial
undertakings, research farms, etc. or even private forests.

These exemptions as provided in the ceiling laws gave rise to problems of law evasion by
manipulating the classification of land. Also the size of the ceiling surplus land available for
redistribution was consequently reduced.

2.4 Bhoodan and Gramdan

The Bhoodan movement was launched in 1951, immediately after the peasant uprising in
Telengana region of Andhra Pradesh, and after some years, another movement known as
Gramdan came into being in 1957. The objective was to persuade landowners and leaseholders
in each concerned village to renounce their land rights, after which all the lands would become
the property of a village association for the egalitarian redistribution and for purpose of joint
cultivation. Vinoba Bhave hoped to eliminate private ownership of land through Bhoodan

11
and Gramdan and maintained that the movement would go a long way to ensure the just
redistribution of land, the consolidation of holding and their joint cultivation12.

However, the movement failed to achieve its targetted objectives and the degree of success in
respect of both land acquisition and land distribution was very limited.

Of the total land of about 42.6 lakh acres, received through Bhoodan, more than 17.3 lakh acres
were rejected as they were found unfit for cultivation. About 11.9 lakh acres were
distributed and 13.4 lakh acres remained to be distributed. In most cases, the village landlords
donated only those pieces of land which were either unfit for cultivation or were in dispute
with tenants or government13. In fact, the landlords preferred to part away with their
disputed lands as a compromise formula for there was little hope under the existing law, of
being able to keep this land with them. Besides, in return for such land donation, the
landlords also received input subsidies and other facilities, which was no less an inducement to
part away with the land unfit for cultivation. Furthermore, while it was provided under the
Gramdan movement that private ownership in land is to cease, only the landholders right
to sell land was restricted (though not banned), leaving intact the right of inheritance on such
lands by the children.

2.5 Protection of Tribal Land

All the concerned states ratified laws for prevention of alienation of the tribals from land. In all
the scheduled areas, land transfer from tribal to non-tribal population was prohibited by law. But
due to various legal loopholes and administrative lapses, alienation of the tribals from their land
continued on a large scale. In fact, mortgaging of land to moneylenders due to indebtedness,
poverty and acquisition of tribal land for irrigation, dams and other public purposes were largely
responsible for alienation of tribal land. Since land is the main source of livelihood for the tribal
people and they do not have much upward mobility, indiscriminate acquisition of tribal land for
public purposes should be avoided.

2.6 Consolidation of Holdings

12
http://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/19574/1/Unit-4.pdf
13
‘Land Reforms in India: Constitutional and Legal Approach’by P.K. Aggarwal.

12
The term ‘Consolidation of holdings’ refers to amalgamation and redistribution of the
fragmented land with a view to bringing together all plots of land of a cultivator in one compact
block. Due to growing pressure of population on land and the limited opportunities for work in
the non-agricultural sector, there is an increasing trend towards sub-division and
fragmentation of land holdings. This makes the task of irrigation management, land
improvement and personal supervision of different plots very difficult.

After independence, almost all states excepting Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura
and parts of Andhra Pradesh enacted laws for consolidation of holdings. But the nature of
legislation and the degree of success achieved varied widely. While in Punjab (including
Haryana) it was made compulsory, in other states law provided for consolidation on voluntary
basis, if majority of the land owners agreed.

Generally speaking, the consolidation acts provided for (i) prohibition of fragmentation below
standard area, (ii) fixation of minimum standard area for regulating transfers, (iii) schemes of
Consolidation by exchange of holdings, (iv) reservation of land for common areas, (v) procedure
for payment of compensation to persons allotted holdings of less market value in exchange, (vi)
administrative machinery for carrying consolidation schemes, and (viii) filing of objections,
appeals and penalties.

However, due to lack of adequate political and administrative support, the progress made in
terms of consolidation of holding was not very satisfactory, excepting in Punjab, Haryana
and western Uttar Pradesh where the task of consolidation was accomplished. But in
these states, there is a need for reconsolidation again due to subsequent fragmentation of
holdings under the population pressure.

3. CHOICE OF APPROPRIATE FORM OF FARM ORGANISATION AND

CHANGES IN THE AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE

After Independence there was also a debate on the choice of farm organisation. The Kumarappa
Committee (1949) expressed the view that peasant farming would be the most suitable
form of cultivation although small farmers should be pooled under a scheme of cooperative or
joint farming. Besides, collective farming and state farming was for the development of

13
reclaimed wasteland where landless agricultural workers could be settled. According to the First
Five Year Plan, the formation of co-operative farming associations by small holders would
ensure efficient cultivation. The Second Five Year Plan asserted that a step should be taken
for the development of co- operative farming, so that a substantial proportion of land is
cultivated on co-operative lines. The Third Five Year Plan agreed to this proposal, but
maintained that with the implementation of the programme of land reforms, the majority of
cultivators in India would consist of peasant proprietorship. They should be encouraged and
assisted in organizing themselves on voluntary basis for credit, marketing, processing, and
distribution and also for production.

After Independence, a number of land reform measures were undertaken in the 1950s and
1960s which were quite revolutionary in nature and impact. As a result of abolition of
zamindari, the feudal mode of production came to an end. Also the proportion of area
under tenancy declined.

However, tenancy reforms failed to yield much positive impact, as a large number of tenants-at-
will were evicted from land. Also the benefits of consolidation of holdings remained confined
to Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh.

Thus, the first phase of post-independence land reforms in the 1950s and 1960s yielded a
mixed result. It could be termed successful in the sense that all intermediaries were abolished
which provided the basis for improvement in agricultural productivity. Nevertheless, the unequal
agrarian structure remained in place14. In 1953-54 nearly 8 per cent of the ownership holdings
accounted for about 51 per cent of the total area, while in 1971, about 10 per cent of the holdings
accounted for 54 per cent of the total land. While at the all India level, the Gini coefficient
of concentration ratio marginally declined during the 1960s, in several states including Bihar,
Punjab and Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, it increased 15. In other words,
there was an increasing tendency towards unequal power structure in terms of land ownership

14
Besley, Timothy, and Robin Burgess. "Land reform, poverty reduction, and growth: evidence from India."The
Quarterly Journal of Economics115, no. 2 (2000):389-430.
15
Mearns, R. Access to Land in Rural India Policy Issues and Options, World Bank, Washington (1999).

14
(Table 3.2). Although the average size of holdings declined from 2.39 hectares in 1953-
54 to 2.21 hectares in 1971, in several states, the average size of large farms increased.

Concentration Ratio of Ownership Holdings by State16:

State 1961 1971

Andhra Pradesh 0.764 0.732
Bihar 0.701 0.712
Gujarat 0.683 0.683
Kerala 0.756 0.702
Madhya Pradesh 0.632 0.621
Karnataka 0.663 0.663
Orissa 0.684 0.645
Punjab and 0.749 0.776
Haryana NA 0.753
Rajasthan 0.654 0.607
Tamil Nadu 0.749 0.751
Uttar Pradesh 0.621 0.631
West Bengal 0.666 0.672
Maharashtra 0.707 0.682
All India 0.720 0.710

4. CONFLICT BETWEEN RIGHT TO PROPERTY AND AGRARIAN

REFORMS

Land, land tenures, land holdings, consolidation etc. are under the exclusive legislative and
administrative jurisdiction of the States.17 However, the Central Government has been
playing an advisory and co-ordinating role in the field of land reforms since the First

16
Yogandhar, B. N., K. Gopal Iyer, and P. S. Dutta.Land Reforms in India. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1995.
Print.
17
See Entry No.18 of List II (State List) in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.

15
Five-Year Plan. Agrarian reforms have been a core issue for rural re-construction as a means
of ensuring social justice to actual tillers and the landless rural poor. But attempt of the Centre
and States with respect to enact land reform laws were affected by the fundamental right to
property which was guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. The right to property

has been the one which was subjected to the largest number of Amendments. The Principles of
agrarian reforms have become an anti thesis of the right to property. As a result, conflict started
between agrarian reforms and right to property. Both have become sworn enemies. Right to
property will be given less importance when the State gives scope to the agrarian reform vis
a-vis when the State shows keen interest to protect fundamental right to property of the
citizen, it is very difficult to concentrate on agrarian reforms. Such a dilemma was faced
by the government. But ignoring this and to fulfill the promise made before independence which
was the election manifesto of the Indian Congress, the government started to enact land reforms
legislation to abolish zamindari system. This initiation irked the land lords, as a result, a number
of petitions were filed by the zamindars before the court of law to question the constitutional
validity of those agrarian laws.

Firstly, the constitutional validity of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was challenged in the
High Court of Patna in Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar.18 In this case, Court held that the
Bihar legislation relating to land reforms were unconstitutional. But at the same time on
same issues, the High Court of Allahabad and Nagpur upheld the validity of the
corresponding legislative measures passed in those States.19The parties aggrieved had filed
appeals before the Supreme Court. At the same time, certain zamindars had also approached the
Supreme Court under Art.32 of the Constitution.

Before Supreme Court entertaining these appeals filed against the decisions of different State’s
High Courts on the validity or otherwise of this type of legislation, the Central
Government under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru became restless at the delay being
caused by litigation in furthering the programme of agricultural land reforms and thought
of short circuiting the judicial process. The then P.M. Jawaharlal Nehru was an ardent supporter
of agrarian reforms which he regarded as a process of social reform and social

18
AIR 1951 Patna 91.
19
Surya Prakash v Uttar Pradesh Government, AIR, 1951, All.674, FB.

16
engineering. The Centre wanted to remove any possibility of such laws being declared invalid
by the courts and have brought the amendment to put an end to all these litigations. Therefore,
the Central Government in order to carry out agrarian scheme sponsored by the party in
the power brought the Constitutional (First Amendment) Act, 1951 by which Arts.31-A
and 31-B were introduced and in the same amendment, theParliament inserted the Ninth
Schedule containing thirteen items, all relating to land reform laws, immunizing these
laws from challenge on the ground of contravention of Art.13 of the Constitution. Art.13,
inter alia, provides that the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the
rights conferred by Part III and any law made in contravention thereof shall, to the extent
of the contravention, be void.

Thereafter, the Constitutional validity of the First Amendment was questioned in

Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India20 Supreme Court in this case upheld the First
Amendment since it was protecting the interest of agrarians. The main object of the amendment
was to fully secure the constitutional validity of zamindari abolition laws in general and certain
specified Acts in particular and save those provisions from the dilatory litigation which resulted
in holding up the implementation of the social reform measures affecting large number of
people. Upholding the constitutional amendment and repelling the challenge in Sajjan
Singh v. State of Rajasthan21 the law declared in Sankari Prasad was reiterated. It was noted that
Arts.31-A and 31-B were added to the Constitution realizing that State legislative measures
adopted by certain States for giving effect to the policy of agrarian reforms have to face
serious challenge in the courts of law on the ground that they contravene the
fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen by Part III. The Court observed that the genesis
of the amendment made by adding Arts.31-A and 31-B is to assist the State Legislatures to
give effect to the economic policy to bring about much needed agrarian reforms.

But in I.C. Golak Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr22 a Bench of 11Judges considered the
correctness of the view that had been taken in Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh. By
majority of six to five, these decisions were overruled. But, the decision in Keshavananda

20
(1952) SCR 89
21
(1965) 1 SCR 933
22
[(1967) 2 SCR 762

17
Bharati's23 case was rendered on 24th April, 197 by a 13 Judges Bench and by majority of seven
to six Golak Nath's case was overruled. The majority opinion held that Art.368 did not
enable the Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.

From Shankari Prasad case to I.R. Coelho24, many land reforms issues have been discussed
by the Indian judiciary. Many attempts have also been made by the Parliament in order to bring
socio-economic development through agrarian reforms. Judiciary in different cases also agreed
and upheld the validity of these land reform legislations since the object of those Acts is to
extinguish the interests of intermediaries like zamindars, proprietors, and estate and tenure-
holders etc., and to bring the actual cultivator into direct relations with the State Government.
Moreover, in the First Amendment, the 13 laws included in the Ninth Schedule by the Parliament
were exclusively relating to land reforms.

But after two decades from the commencement of the Constitution, the Parliament started
to abuse this Schedule in the name of land reforms. They started to insert even non-land
reform (hybrid) laws into the Schedule which have no nexus with agrarian reforms such
as, The Representation of the People Act,1951,25The Industries (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1951, The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,
1952, The Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, The
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, The Maintenance of Internal Security
Act,1971 The Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971, The Coking Coal
Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation)
Act, 1972, The Indian Copper Corporation (Acquistion of Undertaking) Act, 1972,
The Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1972, The Coal
Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act,1973, The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act,
1973, The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, The Alcock Ashdown Company
Limited (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1973, The Coal Mines (Conservation and
Development) Act, 1974, The Additional Emoluments (Compulsory Deposit) Act, 1974,
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974,
23
AIR 1973 SC 1463
24
I.R.Coelho v. State of Tamilnadu, AIR.2007 (1), SC.137
25
Central Act 43 of 1951, This Entry 87 was omitted in 44th Amendment

18
The Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939, The Essential Commodities Act, 1955, The Smugglers and Foreign Exchange
Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act,
1976, The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities
(Amendment) Act, 1976, The Levy Sugar Price Equalization Fund Act, 1976, The Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and The Departmentalization of Union Accounts
(Transfer of Personnel) Act, 1976, etc.

Inserting above laws by the Parliament through different amendments of the Constitution
into the Ninth Schedule is nothing but fraud on Constitution. Thereby Parliament
exercised its amending power under Art.368 of the Constitution against to the
principle of Constitutionalism. This mala fide constituent and legislative action by the
Parliament made controlled Constitution into uncontrolled one. Moreover, to secure above
laws, Parliament by First Amendment excluded the judicial review to question the
constitutional validity of those laws placed in the Ninth Schedule. This kind of development is
really great treachery committed against Constitutional principles and values.

In order to prevent the abuse of this Schedule by the Parliament, for the first time
Supreme Court, in Keshavananda Bharahti case invented the device of Basic Structure
Doctrine. According to this doctrine, Parliament has power to amend any provisions of
the Constitution including fundamental rights except basic structure. As a result, this
doctrine for the first, time imposed an implied limitation upon the unlimited amending
power of the Parliament. Each judge laid out separately, what he thought were the basic or
essential features of the Constitution.

This is how, the judges of Supreme Court started to define what features constitute basic
structure. In Minerva Mills case26, Sampath Kumar case,27 L.Chandrakumar Case,28
Subhesh Sharma v. Union of India29 and Waman Rao,30 in these cases Supreme Court
considered Judicial Review as a basic Structure. By interpreting and saying, so many
26
AIR 1980 SC 1789.
27
S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 124: AIR 1987 SC 386.

28
L.Chandrakumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997, SC,1125
29
AIR 1991 SC 631 at 646
30
(1981) 1 SCC 166

19
aspects as basic structure, they limited the power of amendment exercised by the Parliament
under Art.368 of the Constitution. In this regard, the Researcher has discussed this concept
of basic structure in detail in the fifth chapter focusing upon the same in pre and post
Keshavanand’s case.31

To neutralise the effect of doctrine of the basic structure, the government brought the
Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1979 and added clauses (4) and (5) to Art.368
which provided for exclusion of judicial review of amendments of the Constitution made
before or after the 42nd Amendment. It also declared that there shall be no limitation on the
amending power of the Parliament under Art.368. But, the Court held that clause (4) and
(5) of Art.368 are unconstitutional as it affects the basic structure of the Constitution i.e.
judicial review. In Minerva mills v. union of India,32 majority of judges struck down
clauses (4) and (5) of Art.368 inserted by the 42nd amendment as these clauses
destroyed the essential features of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The main cause for all above is right to property and agrarian reforms. Many
amendments were made to the Constitution because of these two. Recognizing right
to property in the list of fundamental rights at the time of commencement of the
Constitution, Arts.31-A and 31-B, Ninth Schedule and Basic structure theory took birth by
Parliament and Judiciary. Otherwise we would have not seen those provisions and doctrines.
Express provisions in the form of amendments are the product of the Parliament and implied
doctrines are the result of judiciary. Apart from this, government even faces so many
problems in determining the compensation for the acquisition of lands belonging to landlords.
This right has become a headache to the government in Centre as well as States, even to framers
of the Constitution while inserting the same under part III of the Constitution. The researcher
has discussed the right to property before and after 44th amendment completely in the third
chapter.

However, the right to property was deleted from the part of fundamental rights by Morarji
Desai Government.33 After this development, Parliament without any obstacle to its agrarian

31
Supra. 28
32
AIR 1980 SC 1789
33
44th Amendment of the Constitution.

20
programme, some more amendments were brought to the Ninth Schedule to incorporate many
more laws relating to land reform, land ceiling and tenancy reforms. But again Parliament
tried to extinguish the Constitutional principles by incorporating Tamil Nadu Act
providing for 69 percent reservation for the backward classes in the Ninth Schedule against to
the verdict of Mandal’s case. Hence laws included in the Ninth Schedule are no longer restricted
to those enacted to further agrarian and land reforms.

However, in I.R.Coelho34 case, noting the nature of Art.31-B and the Ninth Schedule, the court
states that the original intent of the First Amendment that inserted Art.31-B was only to
protect limited laws dealing with land reforms, but the exercise of this power had resulted in
covering numerous laws with in the Ninth Schedule. Finally Supreme Court held that all
laws included in Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 are subjected to judicial review if they are
violative of basic structures of the Constitution,

Presently, 282 legislations are receiving protection under Ninth Schedule from judicial
scrutiny. The Ninth Schedule now contains the Union as well as State Legislations, Land
Reform Laws containing agricultural land acquisition as well as non-agricultural land
acquisition, Tenancy laws, Land Ceiling Acts, Zamindari Abolition Acts, Laws of Eviction
and various other land laws. Some other categories of laws like Tax, Revenues, Railway,
Industries, Insurance, Coal, Mines, Textiles, Trade Practices, Essential Commodities, Motor
Vehicle Act, are added to the Ninth Schedule which are contrary to the purpose of its creation.

From the above observations, the researcher has undertaken this whole research issue to
examine the justiciability of 284 laws placed in the Ninth Schedule and to discuss the very
important aspect that, the need of Ninth Schedule of the Constitution even after deletion of
right to property from the list of fundamental right.

5. CONCLUSION

Despite large efforts made in the direction of agrarian reforms in the 1950s and 1960s,
the situation relating to the agrarian structure remained highly unsatisfactory. According to the
Planning Commission’s Task Force on Agrarian Relations, although the laws for the abolition of

34
Supra.29

21
intermediary tenures were implemented fairly efficiently, the tenancy reforms and tenancy
legislation fell short of proclaimed policy. Highly exploitative tenancy in the form of crop
sharing still prevailed in large parts of the country.

Such tenancy arrangements not only perpetuated the social and economic injustice, but also
acted as a constraint to agricultural modernisation. Besides, in the wake of the green revolution,
while the rich farmers’ condition improved, those of the agricultural labourers and the poor
tenants remained more or less unchanged. In fact these failures led to land related conflicts
including naxalite movement in several places.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

• AN ANALYSIS OF LAND REFORMS AND LAND HOLDING PATTERNS IN

INDIA, By PANDARAIAH. G, Published by: International Journal of Social Science &
Interdisciplinary Research ISSN 2277-3630IJSSIR, Vol. 4 (4), APRIL(2015), pp. 53-
64Stable URL: http://indianresearchjournals.com/pdf/IJSSIR/2015/April/7.pdf, Accessed:
20-10-2018 21:39 UTC
• AN ANALYSIS OF LAND REFORMS AND LAND HOLDING PATTERNS IN
INDIA, By PANDARAIAH. G, Published by: International Journal of Social Science &
Interdisciplinary Research ISSN 2277-3630IJSSIR, Vol. 4 (4), APRIL(2015), pp. 53-
64Stable URL: http://indianresearchjournals.com/pdf/IJSSIR/2015/April/7.pdf, Accessed:
20-10-2018 21:39 UTC
• Impact of Land Reform on Productivity, Land Value and Human Capital Investment
Household Level Evidence from West Bengal, By Klaus Deininger, Published by
University of Boston, Berkley, Stable URL:
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/6277/2/470477.pdf -2018 09:19 UTC
• On the origin and evolution of the zamindari system, see Habib, The Agrarian System of
Mughal India, 1556-1707, (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999, 2nd ed.) at 169
• ‘Land Reforms in India: Constitutional and Legal Approach’ by P.K. Aggarwal. Pg.3
• Dr. B.S.Sinha’s ‘Law and Social Change in India’ published by Deep and Deep
Publications, p.234.
• R. Mearns, ‘Access to Land in Rural India, Policy Issues and Options’, Policy Research
Working Paper Series, No. 2123 (Washington D.C.: World Bank 1998) at, 7.
• Bhowani Sen: ‘Evolution of Agrarian Relation in India’, pp 77-79.(1958)

• http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/39853/5/chapter%201.pdf
• http://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/19574/1/Unit-4.pdf
• http://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/19574/1/Unit-4.pdf
• Land Reforms in India: Constitutional and Legal Approach’by P.K. Aggarwal.

22