UNIT 5 IMPACT OF LAND REFORMS ON

'

ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

Contents
5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Impact of Abolition of Intermediataries
5.3 Impact of Tenancy Reforms
5.4 Impact of Land Ceiling and Distribution of Surplus Land
5.5 Cummulative Impact of Land Refor~naon the Society and Economy
5.6 Let Us Sum Up
5.7 Suggested Readings

5.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading the unit, you should be able to:

describe the different components of land policy in the post Independent era;
understand the changes brought about by these policies in the society and
economy;
identify the successes and failures of land reforms; and
outline future prospects and problems.

5.1 INTRODUCTION
Land reforms have been a major issue in developing countries because of their
dependence on agriculture. Recognizing its importance in the post Independent India
the Planning Commission in its First Five Year Plan declared that 'the future of land
and cultivation constitutes perhaps the most fundamental issue in the national
development'. However, according to the Constitution, agriculture and land belong to
the State List and it is the states' responsibility to implement the land reforms. The
central government's role is restricted to providing overall guidance and support to the
states. Therefore, we find that the right after the Independence considerable variations
in the manner in which different states have formulated policies and implemented
them. Some states have moved quickly by passing necessary legislations, while other
states have adopted a slower and piecemeal approach in this regard. Consequently
there are considerable variations in the results achieved by different states. We will
keep this in mind while studying the impact of land reforms on society and economy.

The Planning Commission, set up in 19.51, began to look at land reforms from a
national perspective. Land policies evolved over time according to the priorities identified
by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission also learnt from the experiences
and made necessary changes in the policies.
The five components of land reform are:
1) Abolition of the Intermediataries,
2) Tenancy Reforms,
3) Ceiling on landholdings,
4) Consolidatioll of holdings, and

5 ) Compilation and updating of land records.

Land Reforms in As you are already aware of components from your earlier block, we will focus more
Independent India on the impact they had on society.

5.2 IMPACT OF ABOLITION OF I N T E R M E D I A T A ~ S

Interm~ediatariesliterally means individual or individuals between two parties.
According to Appu (1996: 48) intermediatary interest in Indian land reform terminology
"connotes the hierarchy of proprietary interests that existed between the state and the
actual occupier of the land". Intermediataries were thus placed between the cultivator
(the person who pays the rent) and the state (the final receiver of the rent) and they
appropriated part of the rent they received from the lower layer before passing it to
the new higher layer. It is estimated that in certain places there were upto 50
intermediataries. The cultivators had to pay 5 times and in many cases. 7.7 times the
revenue they were officially required to pay to the government. Intermediataries thus
got part of the land revenue without either owning or cultivating the land or making
any investment in it.

Three broad tenure systems existed in the country - the Zamindari System, the
Ryotwari System and the Mahalwari system. According to Thirumalai the percentage
of araa under zamindari, ryotwari and mahalwari were 57 percent, 38 percent and
5 percent respectively. The British had political and economic reasons for opting for
these methods of land revenue. Owing their existence and continuation of them, the
intermediataries gave the British rule political support as their. Secondly the British
found the multiple and haphazard land tenure prevalent in those times confusing, and
simplified the land revenue administration by handing it over to the intermediataries.

The first step in the land reforms programme of the Government was to end this
explaitative system. All intermediataries between the government and the cultivator
were removed and the cultivators were brought in direct relationship with the
government. Land revenue had to be paid directly to the government at rates fixed
by the government.

The general pattern of abolition of intermediataries comprises the following measures:

1) Common lands such as waste lands, forests, abadi-sites etc., which belonged to
intermediataries, were vested in the State Government for purposes of
management and development.
2) Home-farm land and land under the personal cultivation of intermediataries were
generally left with them and lessees of home-farms continued as tenants under
them. In some States, however, tenants of home-farms of intermediataries were
also brought into direct relation with the State and the rights of intermediataries
over their tenancy land were abolished. These include Uttar Pradesh, Madhya
Bharat (Jagirdari areas), Delhi, Ajmer and Bhopal. In Rajasthan and Madhya
Bharat (zarnin-dari areas) an optional right to purchase ownership was given to
such tenants. In most of the States, intermediataries were not allotted any land
for personal cultivation over and above lands already in their cultivating possession
and included in their own home-farms. In a few States, however. such as
Hyderabad and Mysore (in the case of Inams), Rajasthan, Saurashtra, Ajmel-,
Bhopal and Vindhya Pradesh, interrnediataries were allotted land for personal
cultivation if the area already held by them was less than that specified in the

3) In most of the States tenants-in-chief holding land directly from intermediataries

were brought into direct contact with the State, with some exceptions such as
Bombay (in respect of several classes of intermediataries) and in Hyderabad
and Mysore (in the case of some inams). In these States, intermediataries were
in some cases allotted land held by the tenants. In some States tenants possesse:d
 permanent and transferable rights and it was not necessary to confer further Impact of Land Reforms on
rights upon them. These included Assam, West Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Bhopal Economy and Society
and Vindhya Pradesh. There were other States such as Bombay, Uttar Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, Hyderabad, Mysore and Delhi where tenants were required
to make payments in order to acquire rights of ownership. In a few States, such
as Andhra, Madras, Rajasthan,'Saurashtra (barkhali areas), Madhya Bharat,
Hyderabad Cjagir areas) and Ajmer, either larger rights were conferred upon
tenants or their rents were reduced without any direct payment being required
of them. (Second Five Year Plan)
A summary of the legislations and the results achieved in various states are given
below.
Andhra Pradesh
The state had different land tenure system in Telengana, Andhra and Schedule Area.
The Jagir Abolition Regulation (1949), Hyderabad Abolition of Cash Grants Act,
1952, the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana area) jagir (Commutation) Regulation 25 of
1948 and the Andhra Pradesh (absorbed) enclaves (Hyderabad Jagirdars)
(commutation) sum and allowances Act 1955 abolished all the 975 jagirs in Telengana.
Similarly in the schedule areas (parts of Madras presidency and costal areas) the
Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari ) Act, 1948 abolished the
intermediataries. In the rest of Andhra Pradesh ( Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition
and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)
Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, 11137 estates were acquired
by the government and 1.06 million minor inams were abolished.

According to the study by A.M. Khusro the most important effect was the decrease
in the land revenue which had to paid by the cultivating landowners. However, the
cultivating tenants had to pay higher rents and did not benefit from reductions in the
land revenue. More recent studies, however, show that tenants who gained ownership
rights showed greater interest in adopting new technology to increase productivity.

Assam
The Assam State Acquisition of Zarnindari Act, 1951 and Assam Lushai Hills District
(Acquisition of Chief Rights) Act, 1954 abolished intermediatary rights in the
permanently settled areas, involving 0.67 million hectares of land. The temporarily
settled areas did not have intermediataries.

Bihar
The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was one of the earliest efforts to implement land
reforms, but, it failed due to successful litigations by the zamindars and lack of
administrative support. The delay allowed the zamindars to retain much of their land.
Bihar, therefore, remains a poor performing state with regard to land reforms.

Gujarat
The Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1948 (amended in 1955) apart
from abolishing the intermediataries also gave the tenant the opportunity to purchase
the land from the landlord. This enabled more than 13 lakhs tenants to acquire land
in about 24 lakhs acres.

Haryana and Punjab

There were no zamindari settlements in these regions and landlords generally used
tenants mainly as tenants-at-will. It is estimated that around 6,47,740 occupancy
tenants got proprietary rights in the around 1.85 million acres.
Land Reforms in Jammn and Kashmir
Independent hdia
The state abolished all jagirs and muofils in 1948. Tenants were protected under the
Tenancy Act, 1923. In 1972 the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Land Reforms Act
abolished all tenancies.

Karnataka I
The state had the ryotwari system and therefore did not have any intermediataries.
The Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolishment Act, 1955 and Mysore
(Religious and Charitable Act) Inam Abolishment Act, 1955 abolished the
4
intermediataries in areas which formerly belonged to erstwhile Madras Presidency
and Bombay Presidency. The land obtained by the government after these measures
t
was around 9 lakh hectares.

Kerala
The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, effective from 1970, was passed
after the earlier Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. More than 1,40,000
hectares were acquired from intermediataries like Edaval Estates, Pattzhi Devasom
Land, Jenmis, Kandukrishi, Sreepadam Land, Thiruppuvaram Land and
Sreepandaravagal Land, after these measures were implemented.

Madhya Pradesh
The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estate, Mahals, Alienated
Land) Act, 1950, The United State of Gwalior, The Indore and Malwa Zamindari
Abolition Act, 1951, The Abolition of Jagir Act, 1951, and the Vindhya Pradesh
Abolition of Jagir and Land Reform Act, 1952 were enacted to remove intermediataries
and to enable tenants to own land. However, the tenants at will and share-croppers
could not benefit from these measures.

Maharashtra
The state passed a number of Acts to remove inams, jagirs and other intermediataries.
Around 7.3 lakh hectares of land were vested with the government. However, the
erstwhile intermediataries retained much of the land.

Orissa
The Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 abolished the intermediatary interests and later
in 1972 the Orissa Land Reforms Act was passed which entitled the tenant to acquire
the land he cultivated.

Rajasthan
The Rajasthan Land Reform and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952, the Rajasthan
Zarnindari and Biswedari Act, 1959, the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediataries and Land
Reform Act, 1955 and the Bombay Merged Territories and Area (Jagir Abolition) Act,
1953 abolished the intermediataries. 236,6 18 jagirs were abolished and one lakh
tenants got ownership rights over 7 lakh acres.

Tamilnadu 1
The Tarnilnadu Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act XXVI of 1948
and other laws were enacted to abolish various types of intermediataries and around
3.65 million hectares were acquired by the state. However, there was no provision
I
I
i

for purchase of land by the tenants. I

Uttara Pradesh
The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, 1950 after some
amendments, abolished the zamindari system in about 60.20 million acres of land. But
here too many of zamindars conveced themselves into landlords by retaining large Impact of Land Reforms on
tracts of land. Economy and Society

West Bengal
The West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 abolished all the intermediataries. The
Act also provided for the ceiling on landholdings, which prevented the intermediataries *

from holding on to large amount of land for personal cultivation. The government
gained the ownership of 3.86 million hectares of land and 3.93 million hectares of
forest land.

Achievements and Failures

The most significant impact of the abolition of intermediataries was that it ended the
exploitative system in which state power was exercised arbitrarily by non state
actors, with no, or few, checks and balances. The task of revenue collection was that
of the government and by allowing the intermediatariesperform its hnction, it allowed
for the growth of an exploitative system. The abolition of the intermediataries ended
the political power of the feudal landowners. However, the former zamindars retained
large tracts of land and converted themselves into large landowners which did give
them political power. Nevertheless, the abolition of intermediataries was an important
step towards an egalitarian society. Even those observers who pointed out the numerous
lacunae in its implementation, accepted that it brought about major changes in rural
areas. Summing up his observation, on these steps, Gunnar Myrdal agreed that
"Despite the weakness of the Indian legislation to abolish intermediataries, the reforms
should not be taken lightly dismissed." (Myrda1;1968; 1310) It also brought about
changes in the rural power structure in so far as it transferred power, which go with
landowning, from the absentee landlords to local landowners and peasants. Another
keen observer of Indian agriculture Wolf Ladejinsky observes that in spite of its
obvious limitations "the effort (abolishing intermediataries) was a great effort towards
reconstruction of Indian agriculture. (quoted in Appu;1996; 73)

The Planning Commission estimates that at least twenty million tenants were brought
into direct relationship with the governments. According to Appu the figure could be
higher at about 25 million, as there were 16 million cultivators in UP and 6 million in
West Bengal alone. These cultivators paid revenue directly to the government. The
total area which was released from the control of the intermediataries is estimated
to be around 63 million hectares.

Another achievement was that the ownership of common property resources like
forests, lakes, ponds was vested in the government. The forests were placed under
the authority of the Forest Departments. Later the wastelands, amounting to some 6
million hectares, were distributed among the landless. However, many of the
beneficiaries could not obtain or retain the land as they were not given any assistance
to transform the land to make it fit for cultivation.

There were also many failures or shortcomings in the implementation of these

legislations. The first major problem with the implementation of the programme was
that a longer time period taken by the various Legislative A;semblies to pass the
legislations. The states took four to nine years to formulate the proposals, discuss
them in the assembly and finally pass them. This lengthy time period was enough for
the intermediataries to prepare for the eventual implementation of the Act. Some of
these steps included registering excess land under relatives' names and or even
fictitious persons, manipulating land records and reclassifying land under different
heads. This greatly reduced the effectiveness of these legislations.

Secondly, when the legislations were finally passed the intermediataries went to court
against them. The courts in most cases gave verdicts in favour of the intermediataries
and declared the legislation ultra vires. It was only after the land legislations were
 Land Reforms in put in the K t h Schedule of the Constitution and made non judiciable that the legislations
Independent India were allowed to take effect. A case in point is the fate of the Bihar government's
efforts to abolish the intermediataries. It passed a Resolution in 1946 and, after
lengthy consultations, the legislation was formulated that came into affect in 1949.
Immediately the landlords approached the courts and the government too felt it
necessary to repeal the legislation. New legislations with some changes were brought
into effect in 1950 and again the landlords approached the courts. Again, after the
law was finally implemented the landlords refused to cooperate with the revenue
authorities and tried all means to scuttle it implementation. A full seven years had
passed by for the intention to become a reality.

The most adverse effect, however, was the ejecting of a large number of tenants by
claiming their land for personal cultivation. Most legislations allowed the intermediataries
to retain ownership of land if they themselves were willing to cultivate their land.
Except for West Bengal and Karnataka, no state had set any limits for landholding,
which meant that the erstwhile zamindars could retain large tracts of land claiming
that they intended to cultivate the land personally. This lead to the eviction of a large
number of tenants. It is estimated that in the Punjab alone, more than 500,000 tenants
were evicted. Ledejinsky observed in this context that a reform which results in
eviction of so many cultivators is reform' in the real sense.

Many problems were the result of using the term "personal cultivation" in the
legislations. On paper the term 'personal cultivation' looked reasonable, but when
applied in the field, was confusing and subject to multiple interpretations. Did personal
cultivation mean exactly which person could cultivate with his own hands and his
family hands or did it mean land of reasonable size which a person could cultivate
with the help of hired labour? There were no definite answers in the various legislations
where the concept was vaguely defined. The result was that these legislations gave
the right to the intermediataries to eject their tenants by claiming that they needed the
land for personal cultivation. Superior tenants had records to support their claim over
the land, while majority of the inferior tenants did not have the proper records. Their
rights to land were customary in nature. In the absence of records, these tenants
could not resist the actions of the zamindars and were evicted from the land they
were cultivating. Many State Acts also gave the right to the intermediataries if the
tenant voluntarily gave up his tenancy. Here too the right was misused by the
intermediataries. Force and threats were often used to evict the tenants, where it was
shown as voluntary surrenders. Daniel Thorner observed that many of these 'voluntary
surrenders' were anything but voluntary. Thus for these tenants the result of the
legislation was the loss of their customarily rights over their land. Ironically legislations
to help the actual cultivators of land had resulted in the loss of their rights on the land
they cultivated.

Check Your Progress 1

Note: i) Space is given below for each question for your answer.
ii) Check your answer(s) with the text
1) What are the five components of the land reforms policy in India?
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
1
4
70
 Impact of Land Reforms on
5.3 IMPACT OF TENANCY REFORMS Economy and Society

Tenancy in derived from the word 'tenure' which means 'to hold'. The various
conditions under which land (or anything else like buildings), is held is called tenancy.
When individuals take land on rent for their use it is called 'lease in' the land and
when rent out their land to others it is called 'leased out'. Tenancy rights can be seen
as a set of rights that tenanis get over the land and these rights vary according to
I
types of tenancy.

1 Tenants can be categorized according to the rights they have in relation to the land.
1) Superior tenants: These are hereditary tenants, occupational tenants and
permanent tenants and, they have almost the save rights as the owners. They
can sell, mortgage or rent out the land. The land is hereditable. The only difference
between the owners and the superior tenants is that while the owners pay
revenue to the government, the superior tenants give rent to the owners. Their
rights over the land are secure and they cannot be evicted against their will.
2) Inferior tenants, also called tenants at will, subordinate tenants, temporary
tenants: These tenants have limited rights over the land. They cannot sell or
mortgage the land. They can be evicted. They pay rent to the owners.
3) Subtenants: Their position is more insecure than the inferior tenants. They
have leased in the land from other tenants and they can be evicted easily.
4) Landless labours and share-croppers: They have no rights whatsoever on
the land. Labourers work for wages which may be paid in cash or in kind.
Sharecroppers cultivate other person's land for a share in the returns. The
equipment and items may be provided by the landlord or by the share-croppers
themselves.
Tenancy was seen as an exploitative system as it was constituted of the individuals
who had no land or had insufficient land and who were forced to become tenants.
The U.P. Zarnindari Abolition Act abolished tenancy, but the effects have been largely
negative, as tenancy went underground creating more problems for the tenants. In
addition, it was recognized by the governments that certain categories of persons, like
members of armed forces and widows, may not be able to cultivate their land
themselves and would therefore have no option other than to lease out their land to

Tenancy reforms in India had basically three elements: (1) Security of Tenure,
(2) Regulation of Rent, and (3) Ownership of land.

Security of Tenure
The first step needed to protect the tenants was to provide them protection against
arbitrary eviction. The Five Year Plans recommended that, in ordinary conditions, a
tenant should be given security of tenure for the period of five years.

According to Appu, there were the following factors on which the actual protection
was available to the tenants - definition of the tenants, right of the owner to resume
personal cultivation, provision for regulating voluntary surrender of tenancy, and status
of land records. Some Acts defined tenants in a very limited way and excluded share-
croppers from the definition. For example, the U.P. share-croppers were not included
in the category of the tenants, whereas the West Bengal land reform5 Act was
amended to include share-croppers (bargadars). According to the West Bengal Act,
the tenant (including the bargadars) cannot be evicted, unless on these grounds (i)
Failure to cultivate the land; (ii) failure to cultivate the land personally, (iii) failure to
render the share of the landowner and a bona fide case of landowner wanting to
cultivate the land himself.
71
Land Reforms in Regulation of Rent
Independent India
The landowners were allowed to resume cultivation, subject to ceilings and they could
evict their tenants, if necessary. The $ e m 'personal cultivation' was interpreted in
many ways and was often used to the advantage of the landowner and to the
disadvantage of the tenants. Similarly, there was a provision of voluntary surrender
of tenancies, which was abused by the landowners. The Third Five Year Plan took
note of this and made voluntary surrender of land conditional; the voluntary surrenders
had to be registered and was subject to the right of resumption, permitted by law,

Lastly, the actual exercise of the tenancy rights could be done only when there are
proper land records and they are properly maintained. Land records in most areas 1
were in poor condition. This was true especially in those ireas where Permanent
Settlement was in force.

Ownership of Land
The third element was conferring the rights of ownership to the tenant. The Plan
recognized that while the tenants had to be given rights of ownership, the rights of
the landowners too had to be protected to the extent possible. Keeping these two
demands in mind, the First Five Year Plan divided the existing landowners into two
categories based on landownership namely large landowners, and middle and small
landowners.

The large bandowners were allowed to retain as much land as permitted by the land
ceiling Acts. The rest of the land was to be distributed among the tenants who would
be given first preference and the remaining land, if any, among the other landless. In
the case of the middle and small landowners the Plan recommended that they be
allowed to retain land upto three family holdings and the size of one family holding
would be the area which one family can cultivated with or without the support of
hired labour. The actual size would differ from place to place, depending on soil
conditions, irrigation facilities etc. In such cases the Plan recommended that the
tenant should be given at least half of the family holding.

The ownership of land to the tenants was part of the land reforms programme only
in some states. Appu's study related to granting of rights of ownership to tenants and
the progress made by various states in this context summed up as there was no
provision of conferring ownership rights to tenants in Tamilnadu and certain parts of
Andhra Pradesh. Share-croppers in U.P. and West Bengal did not have rights to
acquire land that they cultivated, in Rajasthan the tenant admitted after 1961 are not
entitled to gain ownership rights nor do they have any security. In Bihar, Punjab and
Haryana tenants whose landowners own land below the ceiling limit are not entitled
to the rights of ownership. All other states have conferred the rights of ownership to
tenants. (Appu 1996 p. 103)

Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Rradesh (Telengana Area) Tenancy and Agficultural Land Act, 1950
(amended in 1954) applicable in the Telengana regions gave tenants who held land
for 6 years, the status of protected tenants and their landowner could not resume
cultivation there. Besides, ordinary tenants were to have minimum period of lease and
all voluntary surrenders were to be verified. It is estimated that 13,611 protected
tenants got ownership rights. The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act gave
no right of ownership to the tenants. As of 2005, 1.07 lakh tenants obtained the rights
of ownership, or security of tenure over the area of 5.95 lakh acres.

It is observed that the superior tenants and big farmers"benefited from reforms as
they leased in the land that was more than the small and marginal farmers. Moreover,
in most tenancies involving small and marginal fanners, the nature of agreement was
oral which made it difficult to enforce the law related to the protection of tenants.
fie~ice,rht! measure were largely seen as having failed to provide full protection to Impact of Land Reforms on
the tenants. Economy and Society

Assani

The Assani (T&nporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act made two categories of tenants
occupancy tenants, who held land for at least three years, and Non Occupancy
tenants. The former were given protection against eviction and were allowed to buy
tlie land on certain conditions. The later would become Occupancy tenants if they
could continue their tenure for three years. As of 2005, 29.08 lakh tenants obtained
the rights of ownership, or security of tenure, over the area of 3 1.75 lakh acres.

Bihar
The Rihar Tenancy Act. 1885 (amended in 1970) gave the tenant the right of occupancy
if they were in continuous possession of land for twelve years on certain conditions.
However. its ma-jor limitation is that it does not have any specific provisions for the
protcction of tenants of oral agreement. The result has been that the exploitation of
s~iialland marginal landowners, especially those of tribal community. Often they
lease-out their land to the larger farmers on minimal rents and at the same time work
as labourers for low wages.

No information is available, as of 2004, on the number of tenants, or the area which

has benefited from these measures.

Gujarat
I'he Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (amended in 1955 and 1960)
gave the tenants the rights of ownership if they had continuously held the land for
one year. Also, specific protection was given, such as establishment of Tribunals,
voluntary surrender to be registered and disposed to the district collector, non-eviction
of SCIS'T farmers etc. The number'of tenancies went down as a result of this.
Howeker, the incidence of oral lease agreement to the detriment of tenants continued.
Aroi~~id1.38 million tenants were offered land but only 0.82 million could actually gain
ownership as remaining land, was held up in litigation or bureaucratic procedures,
malpractices, delays etc. As of 2004, 12.76 lakh tenants over 25.92 lakh acres of
land benefited from the measure.

Harayana
'The Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1955 and Punjab Tenancy and Agricultural
Land Act, 1955 provided the tenant the right of security of ownership of land, if he
is in continuous possession of land for 12 years and the land is not more than 15
acres. There is no bar on future leasing. In Punjab, it is observed that the instances
of leasing-in by larger farmers from smaller farmers is extensively prevalent and
protection of tenants gives protection to them at the cost of the latter.

Himachal Pradesh
The Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reform Act, 1932 (amended in 1976)
prohibited leasing except by special categories like widows, soldiers etc. it also gave
tlie right of ownership. Hbwever, only 40,626 tenants could acquire ownership of
39,899 acres of land. As of 2004, the number of tenants rose to 4.08 lakh tenants.
The problems of illegal eviction, absence of regulatory authority etc. prevented the
proper implementation of the land reforms in the state.

Jammu Kashmir
Till the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act was passed in 1976, the tenants
in the state had virtually no rights. Rut after the Act was passed ownership rights was
conferred lo the tenants, subject to certain conditio~isof the income and size of tlie
Land Reforms in land. However, here too the share-croppers did not derive any benefit from the
Independent India legislation. 'AS of 2005, 6.10 lakh tenants benefited from the measure.

The Mysore Land reform Act, 1961 (amended in 1973) allowed the landowner the
right to resume personal' cultivation on half the leased land and the tenants on'the
other half got the right to come in direct contact with the state and subsequently
become landowners. Also leasing was prohibited except for soldiers. The performance
of the state is considered better than in other states. Quoting M.S.A. Rao Appu says
that a small proportion of cultivated holdings changed hands through the abolition of
tenancies (11 percent) and the landless could be relieved to a limited extent (12
percent). However like in other states, there were large scale evictions of tenants.
By 1992, 6.05 lakhs gained ownership over 26.32 lakhs, which was about 9 percent
of the operated land.

Eeraln
The Kerala Land Reform Act, 1963 (amended in 1969) conferred security of tenure
and provided for transfer of ownership rights to all tenants, including the share-
croppers and the homestead dwellers. Upto 2.8 million tenants, over the 14.5 lakh
acres could become ownership of lea.ses land. Area under tenancies reduced from
13.4 percent to 1.4 percent. However, there were large numbers of concealed tenancies
taking place. Also there were high incidences of leasing-out by small and marginal
to the larger farmers and many of them lost their land to the later.

Manipur
The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1980, gave the tenant the
security of tenure upto the maximum of 1.2 acres and in 1975 (through an amendment)
the right to gain ownership of land by paying a maximum of 30 times the land value.
No up to date data is available.

~ a d h y aPradesh
The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1939 prohibited leasing except by special
categories and gave the right of ownership to the tenants. 3 lakhs 60 thousand tenants
benefited from the step till 1973. However, it was also observed the area under
tenancy increased from 1 percent to 2.1 percent between 1971 and 1976-77, revealing
the limitations in the implementation of land reforms. As of 2005, there is no tenancy
prevalent legally.

Maharashtra
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1958 and the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 were
applicable in different areas of Maharashtra. These Acts gave the right to the tenant
to purchase the land from the landowners' non-resumable part of land. About 14..92
lakh tenants over the area of 42.9 lakh acres, benefited from the step. However, a
large number of tenants could not afford the large sum of money that was needed
to purchase the lapd. Tenancies continued in significant parts of cultivated area of the
state.

Orissa
The Orissa Land Reform Act, 1980 (amended in 1973), like many other Acts, gave
the tenant the security of tenure on at least over half the area held by him and the
right to purchase the non-resumable part after paying 10 times the fair rent. Share-
croppers did not benefit from the step. Similarly the small and marginal farmers could
not benefit from the legislations as many tenancies were not recorded and could not
be proved. As of 2004, 1.65 lakhs tenants over the area of 0.98 !&IS acres,
benefited from the measure.
 Impact of Land Reforms on
Economy and Society
The Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 and the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural
Land Act, 1955 gave the tenants the security of tenure for those above the maximum
acres (the number varied with the Act applicable in different areas) allowed for a
landowner. The tenant in the permissible (below the maximum area allowed by the
Act) area could be evicted only if a certain amount of land was left with the tenant.
An optional right to purchase the land was given. As mentioned earlier, the provision
for voluntary surrender was abused by the land owners, resulting in large scale
eviction of tenants.

The Green Revolution made agriculture profitable, leading to large farmers requiring
greater amount of land for cultivation. They mostly fulfilled this requirement by
leasing-in from small farmers who were forced to lease-out due to shortage of
capital. Eventually many of them were forced to work for wages on their own land.
No data is available as of 2005.

Rajasthan
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 gave the security of tenure to the tenants and optional
right to purchase the non-resumable area. The tenant could be evicted only on the
grounds of non payment of rent, subletting without permission or willfully damaging
the land. It is estimated that about 1, 30,0,00 tenants gained ownership over 6,70,000
acres. As of 2005, the numbers of tenants increased to 1.8 lakhs. The land reforms,
thus, had marginal impact on the landowning pattern of the state.

The Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, gave security of tenure to the
tenant and also gave the right to regain alienated land. Except on certain conditions
like non-payment of rents etc, the landlord could not evict the tenant. Landlords were
given rights to resume cultivation in the half of the leased-out areas. A ceiling was
fixed beyond which the landowner could not resume cultivation. Further, the Tarnilnadu
Occupants of Kudiyirippu (conferment of ownership) Act 1971 and Tamilnadu Rural
Artisans (conferment of ownership) Act, 1976 gave right of ownership of land to the
agricultural labourers and the rural artisans. Like in other area where agriculture has
become a profitable venture leasing-out by small and marginal farmers to large
farmers has taken place. Besides the position of the tenants in many areas are
insecure. As of 2004, 4.98 lakh tenants over the area of 6.95 lakh acres benefited
from these measures.

The T i u r a Land Revenue and Land Reforms gave the security of tenure to the
tenant over non-resumable area of the landlord and the optional right to purchase the
land. The performance of the state is considered to be better than of other states.
As of 2004, 0.14 lakh tenants over the area of 0.39 lakh acres benefited from these
measures.

Uttar Pradesh
The Uttar Pradesh Abolition and Land reforms Act, 1950 gives the tenants security
of tenure without any right of resumption by the landlord. Leasing has been prohibited,
but continues in a disguised form. No data therefore is available from the state.

West Bengal
The West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 brought all cultivators in direct contact
with the state and gave them permanent, heritable and transferable rights over the
land. West Bengal is considered a better performing state. As of 2004, 14.60 tenants
benefited from the measure.
Land Reforms in Achievements and Failures
Independent India
According to the 2005 Annual report of the Ministry of Rural Development the
number of beneficiaries of the tenancy reforms is 124.22 lakhs and the total area over
which their rights have been protected is 156.30 lakh acres. The statewise details are
shown in Annexure I. However, progress has been less than satisfactory. The Third
Five Plan reviewing the tenancy legislation, said that "in practice the impact of
tenancy legislation on the welfare has been less than was hoped for". Here too, some
states account for most of the successful implementation of the tenancy legislation.
Kerala, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Assam accounted for the more than 60
percent of the tenants protected. Based on the report of the 37& N.S.S., Appu
calcu~latesthat tenants got ownership on about 4 percent of the operated land.

KeraIa and West Bengal are two states where tenancy reforms have been relatively
successful. Political will, mass organizations of insecure tenants rather than superior
tenants and presence of these sections in the political parties, are the important
reasons for the success. In Kerala the tenants got tenancy rights and this included
hut dwellers who were landless. In West Bengal the share-croppers were given
security of tenure and right against arbitrary eviction under Operation Barga. Rents
were regulated and the rights were made hereditary. It is estimated that around 14
lakh share-croppers/bargadars benefited from the process.

There were major failures also. The whole process of reform was carried on in an
unsatisfactory manner. Again, like in the abolition of intermediataries, there was no
support from the administration. Tenancy reforms can only be implemented if there
is proper recording of the tenancies. This was not always available becausehost of
tenancies were done orally and often not recorded.
,
However, the most negative consequence was the actual loss of tenant's rights in
many areas. Here too the landowners took advantage of the right to resume personal
cultivation. Thus, ironically in many places where tenants previously had customary
rights, they lost even that after the tenancy reforms. One estimate put these loses at
about 30 percent of the total operated land. (Ray, S.K in Rao and others fed) 2005;
220-237)

The incidence of tenancy has fallen according to the National Sample Survey estimates,
but it is still a long way before it become done away with. On the other hand, there
has been increasing tendency for small and marginal landowners leasing-out their land
to larger farmers. This is especially true of the Green Revolution areas, where large
farmers using big capital and modern technology, have converted agriculture into a
capitalist mode of production. In such cases laws to regulate tenancies are working
adversely for the small and marginal farmers.
Check Your Progress 2
Note: i) Space is given below for each question for your answer.
ii) Check your answer(s) with the text
1) What are the types of tenants present in India and how has land reforms
benefited them?
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
 Impact of Land Reforms on
5.4 IMPACT OF LAND CEILING AND DISTRIBUTION Economy and Society
OF SURPLUS. LAND
The meaning of land ceiling is that 'there should be an absolute limit to the amount
of land which any individual may own'. These limits become necessary as there are
large inequalities in land ownership in the country side. Land ceiling was implemented
in'two phases: (1) From Lndependence to 1972, and 2) from 1972 to the present.

Phase I
The major issues related to land ceiling according to the Second Five Year Plan are:

a) Where should land ceilings be applied

b) The levels at which the ceiling may be fixed
C) What exemptions should be made
d) What stkps are necessary to prevent malafide transfers
e) What should be the required rate of compensations, and
f) How should redistribution of lands be done
The Second Plan discussed the level at which the ceilings to land should apply. One
option was to fix the ceiling at the individual level i.e. individual holding and another
option was to fix the ceiling at the family level i.e. family holding whch is calculated
according to the number of adults in the family. In case the number of family
members were more than five ceiling on the family was raised to the maximum of
six members. The states were allowed to choose the level where land ceilings should
apply. The Plan suggested that the ceilings should be fixed at three family holding;
a family holding being equivalent to a plough unit or a work unit for a family working
with such as is customary in agricultural practices. Here too the s,tates were given
freedom to fix the size of the agricultural holding according to the soil conditions,
imgation facilities etc. The Plan suggested ceiling exemptions to certain categories of
land like tea, coffee and plantations, orchards, specialised farms engaged in cattle
breeding, dairying, efficiently managed farms on which heavy investments and structural
improvements can be done. Regarding the compensations to be paid by the landowners,
it suggested that they be paid in bonds which can be redeemed over long periods like
20 years, Land obtained after ceilings should be distributed to the landless, the displaced
tenants and the farmers with uneconomic holdings.

West Bengal and Jarnmu & Kashmir were the two states which formulated and
implemented the land ceiling Acts before 1961. Both these states had fixed area of
ceiling. In J&K the ceiling was fixed at 22% acres for a landowner without any
allowance'for differences in quality of land and size of the land. According to Appu
(ibid; 144) the performance of these two states were good. By 1961, all the states
had passed ceiling Acts. But their performance were less than satisfactory. By 1970
the land that was declared surplus stood at a meagre one million acres and in that
only about half million was distributed.

Phase I1
A renewed effort by governments to enforce land ceilings and reduce the level of
land ceilings was initiated in 1960s, as it became clear that the progress was tardy.
A meeting of Chief Ministers was held in Delhi in 1969 and reviewed the measure
undertaken for land reforms after the introduction of High Yield Variety Seeds and
intensive cropping. It was felt that with the new agricultural technology available,
even small sized farms of 1-2 hectares became economically viable. It also noted the
increasing agrarian tension and identified lack of land for large numbers of rural poor
as the major cause. It recommended that suitable amendments be made to (a) reduce '
Land Reforms in the existing ceiling limit, (b) make conditions of transfer more stringent to prevent
Independent India malafide transfers, and (c) reduce evasions due to liberal exemptions. Some states
like Kerala and Tamilnadu immediately reduced the land ceilings in their respective
states.

Another meeting of Chief Ministers was held in 1972, which recommended the
following changes: (a) reduction of land ceiling to 10-18 acres for land which could
produce two crops a year, upto 27 acres for one crop land and 54 acres for other
types of land; (b) the family with husband and wife was to be the unit of application
of ceiling, and (c) exemptions were to continue for certain limited categories.

The ceilings have been reduced according to the guidelines in all states, except in
Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh.

Achievements and Failures

Since inception till March, 2003, the total quantum of land declared surplus in the
entire country is 73.36 lakh acres, out of which about 64.81 lakh acres have been
taken possession of, and 52.93 lakh acres have been distributed to 56.73 lakh
beneficiaries, of whom 36 percent belong to Scheduled Castes and 15 percent belong
to Scheduled Tribes. An area of 8.49 lakh acres has been involved in litigation.
Annexure I1 shows the list of the states with their performances. The numbers
of SC & ST beneficiaries are also given.

The land which has been declared surplus and distributed constitute less than 2
percent of the total cultivated land. Hence, it cannot be said that there was a major
impact on the land distribution in the country due to this step. However, can be
claimed that the step has prevented further concentration of land. One indicator of
this is the reduction in the percentage and absolute land below 10 hectares.

Also, there was a serious failure with the implementation of the land ceiling and
distribution of land components. Absence of land records, benami records, corrupt
patwaris, indifferent bureaucratic leadership and lack of political will, contributed to
the failure of the programme.

5.5 CUMMULATIVE IMPACT OF LAND REFORMS ON

THE SOCIETY AND ECONOMY
Impact of Land Reform on Social Structure and Political System

Most observers of the land reform have judged its performance as a limited success.
Daniel Thorner and Ladejinsky, while pointing out the limitations and failures, a f f m
the view that land reforms have made some major changes in Indian society.

Reducing inequalities in rural areas: Land reforms, along with other factors like i
increased democratization, rising political consciousness and participation and '
i
mobilization, has played an important role in the reducing inequalities in rural India. 1
I
Landlessness and insecure tenancies forced the majority of the rural population to be 1
dependent on the landed minority which often lead to exploitation. The problem also ,
has a caste dimension. Generally it is the upper castes which owned most of the land '
while the shudras and the untouchables were mostly tenants and agriculture labourers.
Consequently caste based inequalities and oppression is related to land ownership.
This situation went against the letter and spirit of the Constitution, which promised 1
justice - social, political and economic. Thus the land reform programme was a step
towards the realization of these goals. In areas where land reform has not been
implemented, the inequalities have persisted, caste oppression is most acute and have
generally experienced low socio-economic developtent. i
Rise of new political forces: The political process in the decades after Independence Impact of Land Reforms on
was dominated by the client patron model. The rural elite usually from the dominant Economy and Society
castes would persuade or force the lower caste members to vote for the candidates
of their choice. Therefore, the major concern of the political parties was to ensure
that the dominant caste members of the rural areas support them. However, albng
with other changes like growing political consciousness, greater competition among
elites land reforms paved the way for the rise of new political forces in the country.
Most of the new forces were from the sections which can be called superior tenants.
They belonged.to the middle Shudra castes - the Yadavs, the Jats and the Ahirs.
They were the major gainers in the land reform programme and it gave them sufficient
economic strength and independence to assert themselves politically. These sections
were also able to take advantage of the government initiatives to increase food
production through use of hybrid seeds, fertilizers and provision of irrigation facilities.
Rudolph and Rudolph (1987) have called these groups 'bullock capitalists'. Many of
these groups began to organize themselves politically and were able to gain political
power directly or indirectly. They constitute a pressure group, which no government
can afford to ignore and many of their demands like subsidised power, fertilizers etc.
have been almost always met. The participation of the backward classes deepened
Indian democracy and made it more participatory and inclusive. It has also made the
political system more competitive and complex.

Consequences of incomplete land reforms: On the other side, the failure of the land
reforms to benefit the agricultural labourers and the landless most, of who belong to
Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes, has been a growing concern. The lack of
growth in Jobs in the non-agricultural sector has further contributed to poor condition
of these groups. Related to this is the problem of Left extremism, popularly called,
Naxal movement. The core issue that attracts the people to such movements is
landlessness and tribal land alienation. Again, it is mainly in areas where remnants of
feudalism still survive that the support bases of these groups exist and flourish.

Land reform and land inequality: Land reform is basically aimed at asset distribution
for a more egalitarian society. Has land reform made a major influence in the land
ownership pattern in the country? As we have already seen, only about two percent
of the cultivated land was distributed, which could not have had a large impact on
the landowning pattern. The Gini coefficient of ownership holding was 0.710, 0.713
and 0.716 and of operational holding were 0.586, 0.629 and 0.672 in 1971, 1981 and
1991 respectively, indicating that landholding patterns have become more and more
skewed over the years. However, this does not mean that there has been no significant
change in the land ownership pattern.
The distribution of ownership holdings in rural India from 1952-53 to 1982 shows
certain changes. In 1952-53 large holdings was 52.51 percent of all landholdings and
households owning these holdings constituted 7.72 percent of all landowning households.
By 1982 the percent of large holding to all holdings had declined to 33.26 percent and
the households owning these holdings were only 3.98 percent of all landowning
households. The number of landless households experienced a percentage decline
from 23.09 percent to 11.33 percent. During the same period, the share of area under
sub-marginal holdings, marginal holdings, small holdings, and medium holdings increased
from 1.36 percent to 2.75 percent, from 4.86 percent to 9.47 percent, from 12.40
percent to 16.49 percent and 31.18 percent to 38.03 percent respectively. Similarly
the percentage of households holding sub-marginal holdings, marginal holdings, small
holdings, medium holdings, increased from 24.18 percent to 36.88 percent, from 13.98
percent to 18.43 percent and from 13.49 percent to 14.70 percent. Medium holdings
showed a decline from 17.54 percent to 14.68 percent. Thus there has been an
increased concentration of land in the middle, especially in the categories of marginal
and small holdings. However, there are interstate differences. While the middle
concentration of land is more pronounced in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Assam,
Land Reforms in Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan and West Bengal, in other states like Bihar,
Independent India Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Haryana, Maharashtra, Tamilnadu and Uttar Pradesh
concentration of land has increased. Another important characteristic has been that
the percentage of land owned by the top 40 percent has not changed in majority of
the states, except Assam, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Orissa and Rajasthan. The
major causes, apart from land reforms, include the' growing population which lead to
fragmentation of large holdings.

Did land reform contribute to decline in poverty in India? Besley and Burgress (2000)
study of fourteen states show that even the limited land reforms which was implemented
in India made a significant impact on the poverty levels. Land reform in general
appears to be associated with reduction in rural poverty, with these effects most
strongly attributed to tenancy reforms. There was less so due to distribution of surplus
land. This is not surprising that less than 2 percent of the operated land was
distributed. The increased security of tenure &d removal of fear of arbitrary eviction
allowed the tenants to invest more capital and adopt new technologies. Consequently
returns improved and incomes improved. For agricultural labourers, the abolition of
intermediataries resulted in the increase in bargaining power, which in turn increased
wages contributing to the decline in poverty rates. These observations have been
supported by micro studies conducted at regional levels. However, it is conceded that
indifferent implementation by the administration limited the efficacy of the reforms.
- - - -

Check Your Progress 3

Note: i) Space is given below for each question for your answer.
ii) Check your answer(s) with the text
1 What are the major consequences of land reforms?
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

5.6 LET US SUM UP

Land reforms, in spite of its limitations and shortcomings, did have a sipficant impact
on the Indian society and economy. But at the same time, the impact was not so
significant as was expected, nor was it as much as it was in other countries, like
China and Soviet Russia. However, it did result in increased democratization of Indian
polity and reduction in influence of the dominant sections of the society.

Land reforms were a major issue in the first few decades after Indian independence.
But in the recent years the issue has taken a back seat, the major reasons being that
the industrial sector and the service sector became priorities for the government and
also because it began to be felt that further land reforms cannot be implemented due
to the non-availability of land. Increased fragmentation of land was not desirable as
it resulted in loss in productivity and increased production costs. The government of
India is now focusing on the computerization of land records which is a crucial
component of land reforms. As seen in this unit the absence of proper and updated
records has caused the failure of many policies of the government.

\
 Impact of Land Reforms on
5.7 SUGGESTED READINGS Economv and ~ocietd

Appu, P. S. (1996), Land reforms in India, A survey of Policy, Legislation and

Implementation, Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd. New Delhi.

Haque, T. and Sirohi, A.S. (1986), Agrarian Reforms and Institutional changes in
India, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi.

Sharma, H. R. (1994), "Distribution of Landholdings in Rural India, 1953-54 to 1981-

1982: Implications for Land Reforms," Economic and Political Weekly,
. Vol.XXIX, No.39.

Sinha, B.K. and Pushpendra (2000), Land Refoms in India, An Unfinished Agenda,
Volume 5, Sage publications, New Delhi.

Brass, Paul (1994), The Politics of India Since Independence, Cambridge University
Press. New Delhi.

Rao, Hanumantha and Others (2005), Indian Economy and Society in the era of
Globilisation and Liberalization, Academic Foundation, New Delhi.

Rudolph I. Lloyd and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph (1987), In Pursuit Of h k s h m i , The

Political economy of the Indian State, Oriental Longman, New Delhi.

Five Year Plan Documents from First to the Tenth Five Year Plans, Planning
Commission, New Delhi.
'
Besley, Timothy and Robin Burgess (2000), 'Land reform, Poverty Reduction, and
Growth: Evidence from India" in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, May,
pp. 389-430.

Robin Mearns, Access to Land in Rural India Policy Issues and Options, World
Bank Publications.

Myrdal, Gunnar (1968), Asian Drama, Vol.11, Pantheon, New York.

Ladensky (1980), Collected Papers, World Bank Publications, Washington.

Implementation of Land Reforms: A Review by the Land Reforms Implementation

Committee of the National Development Council (1966), Government of India,
Planning Commission, New Delhi.
Land Reforms in Annexure 1
Independent India
Number of Tenants Conferred Ownership Rights (or Rights Protected)
and Area Accrued to them
S. States No. of Tenants Area Accrued
No. (in Lakhs) (Lakh Acres)
1 Andhra Pradesh 1.07 5.95
2 Atunachal Pradesh System not prevalent
3 Assam 29.08 31.75
4 Bihar* NR NR
5 Gujarat 12.76 25.92
6 Goa NR NR
7 Haryana Nil Nil
8 Himachal Pradesh 4.01 NR
9 Jammu and Kashrnir 6.1 Mi
10 Karnataka 6.05 26.32
11 Kerala 28.42 14.5
12 Madhya Pradesh# Tenancy not prevalent
13 Maharashtra 14.92 42.9
14 Manipur NR NR
15 Meghalaya Nil Nil
16 Mizoram Nil I Nil
17 Nagaland Mi Mi
18 Orissa 1.65 0.98
19 Punjab NR NR
20 Rajasthan 0.18 NR
21 Sikkim NR Mi
22 Tarnilnadu 4.98 6.95
23 Tipura 0.14 0.39
24 Uttar Pradesh@ NR NR
25 West Bengal 14.6 Mi
Union Territories
26 A.N. Islands Nil Nil
21 Chandigarh NR NR
28 D&N Haveli 0.26 0.64
29 Delhi NR NR
30 Darnan and Diu NR NR
31 Lakshadweep Neg Neg
32 Pondicherry Neg Neg
All India 124.22 156.3
NR: Not Reported, * Including Jharkhand, # Including Chhattisgarh, @ Including Uttaranchal
 Annexure 2
Statement Showing the Distribution of Ceiling Surplus Land as on 31st March, 2003

S1. StateslUts. Other Beneficiaries Area deeld Total number of Revenue Courts High Courts Supereme
surplus ca.andareaInvo-
No. Area but not lved in litigation
distributed Area No.of Area No. Area No. Area No.
Involved cases
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 Andhra Pradesh 230734 230055 NA 167631 2744 NA NA NA NA NA ?A

2. Assam 359767 400818 107529 38461 112 34459 109 4002 3 NA NA

3. B~har 101617 84941 NA NA 1837 NA NA NA NA NA NA

*
4. Gujarat 4127 25778 78780 42293 638 4611 189 31740 430 5942 29

5. Haryana 16675 58196 5347 4638 258 1453 152 2303 82 882 24

6. Himachal Pradesh 2018 3195 NA 8072 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA

7. Jammu & Kashrmr 450000 450000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

8. Kamataka 12121 44925 145066 124232 1571 22281 211 101917 1358 '34 2

9. Kerala 89971 34878 NA 25316 1020 NA NA NA NA NA

10. Madhya Pradesh 24663 64021 NA 79475 1154 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11. Maharashtra 65293 698904 94702 29180 535 11921 146 16385 369 874 20

12. Manipur 1090 1457 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

8

13. Onssa 40318 41563 21693 11342 230 7466 153 3771 75 105 2

14. Punjab 17230 60009 118898 16641 809 7827 481 6641 248 2273 80

15 Rajasthan 40638 268282 148699 78866 970 55797 766 20695 192 2374 12

16. Tamil Nadu 80075 113333 19280 8872 180 4017 105 4160 68 895 7

17. Tripura 809 933 NA 99 8 NA NA NA NA NA NA

18. Uttar Pradesh 92535 75856 107675 43777 2242 5017 361 37315 1823 1445 58

19. West Bengal 1169910 396348 315043 188887 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

20. D&N Haveli 2 3 NA. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

21. Delhl 159 117 NA 183 13 NA NA NA NA NA NA

22. Pond~cherry 606 430 NA 1026 43 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2797348 2714042 1162632 848951 14369 154849 2673 228829 4638 14624 234