chapi'er iv - shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/14311/8/08_chapter 4.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
CHAPI'ER IV
AGRARIAN RElATIONS AFTER 1950 : THE LAND REFORMS ERA
The 1950s heralded a new phase in the agrarian
history of Rajapura, which however, was in keeping with
the political development in the state and in the
country. The state, then known by the name of Mysore,
began to formulate and implement measures of tenurial
reforms, particularly the ~ land tenure and tenancy
reforms. Prior to 1947 too, the state had taken some
steps in this direction. These measures, however,
lacked a commitment to the regulation of relationship
between tenants and the landowners, and were mainly
oriented towards the i~ villages rather than the non
'-inam (revenue) villages)( Fur:the r, the earlier
measures were advantageous mainly to the inamdars and
other landowners rather than to the tenant cultivators. ' .
The ea~lier measures, like the Inam rules, or the
Land Revenue Code of 1888, (with subsequent amendments)
referred mainly !to the recovery of dues from the
tenants, without providing adequate security of tenancy
to the tenants. The interest of the tenants and
11 Inam tenure refers to such land, sometimes an entire village, which were exempt from the payment of land revenue either wholly or partially (sarvamanya and jodi respect·ively) • See Hayavadara Rao, 1929, for a discussion of different forms of land tenure.
137
sharecroppers of~ and revenueJand were, by and larg~,
not protected by these measures.
Evolution of Land Reform Legis,4a:t,ion in.K~.r:nat;aka
Land reforms measures after 1947 had an impact on
the tenurial conditions of Rajap~ra, mainly due to the
time gap between anouncing of land reform measures and
its implementation. Indeed, the lengthy period prior
to the implementation of land reforms brought about .... r- . .
much changes in the landownership pattern defeating ...... "'
the announced purpose of land reforms. Initially the
state government appointed a committee, -the Committee
for the Rev~sion of Land Revenue System in Mysore,
-in 1948 to examine the feasibility of simplifying
land tenure system by abolishing inam tenures in the
state. The committee in tu:r:n recommended abolition
of the in~ tenures among other things. Even before
any steps were taken to implement the recommendat'ions
of the commj:t-tet:,· there were large scale eviction of .. · ___ ....
tenants. ·and transfers of inam lands by the landowners.
Therefore, in order to prevent aviction of •• II-'
·'tenants and to reduce the rent for land, the Mysore
Aliena,ted Villages .(Protection of Tenants and
Miscel·laneous Provision) {Emergency) Act, 1949, was
passed. This act aimed at protecting the tenants of
139
Inam land who were cultivating thelan~ successively for
the previous five years from the commencement o£ ·the
Act. The class of landowners holding inam tenure were
permitted to continue until 1954. It"was only in 1954
that an.Act was passed abolishing the inam tenure. This
Act known as the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous)
Inam Abolition Act, 1954, aimed at abolishing all major
inams in My.sore excluding the village service inams
held by the village servants such as the Shanubhog,
Patel, and Thoti. The tenants of inam land under the
Act were permitted to buy the land by paying the land
revenue and a premium for ownership that.was equal to
20 times the land revenue.
Later, in the year 1955, a further enactment was
made to cover the ~ land,.:,)f religious and charitable
Inams Abolition Act, 1955. Under this Act, the
tenants of the devadaya and dharmadaya (religious
and charitable, respectively) inams were given protec
tion similar to that under the 1954 Act to.other
tenants. ·The persons rendering services in the
religious institutions were exempted from the Act, and
were allowed to enjoy the land. All the tenants
were to be treated as tenants holding governmen~
·revenue land. Provisions were also made for hereditary
occupancy rights for such lands provided the rent was
13 9
paid regularly, that they maintained and cultivated the
land without leavimg it fallow, and did not alienate
the land for non-agricultural purposes.
With respect to the non-inam tenure or the revenue
land,~he then government appointed a committee in 1957~
The Mysore Tenancy Agricultural Lana ~ws Committee,
with Mr. B.D.Jatti as the Chairman.~. The recommenda-
tions of the Jatti Committee was to become the basic
framework of the land refo~ measures of Mysore (later,
Karnataka) state in the years to come. The COmmittee
was asked to examine the feasibility of preparing a
common tenancy la.w in the nE?w state of Mysore, which
following the st;:ate reorgaQisa€te.Q_ in 1956 had
incorporated tenur-i_a,~ systems of di ver~~~.!nds in . . ~ .
different regions • .¥:.· The committee had, under its
scope; .. to examine and suggest tiniform measures for
fixity of rent, security of tenure, ·rig~t of .rE?sumption
of land.by.the landowners for personal cultivation,
right to purchase the land by tenants~ payment of
compensation to the landowners, ceiling on land hold.ings,
prohibition of landownership as a source of income for
£/This committee was popularly known as the Jatti Committee.
1/The new state included the former princely State of Mysore, and several Kannada speaking areas of Mabarashtra H¥tlie1Hl~~b:icil the forme,!;:.Madras Presidency and the state of Coorg. All these regions had different tenurial conditions having been under different administration in the past.
1?10
persons who are not cultivators or were absentee land
owners, and prevention of land alienation for non-agri
cul~ural purposes. It is often said that the
rec0mmendations of the Jatti Committee~v~ been the
"fountain head" {Rajan 1979, p.2) of the then Mysore
and the present Karnataka Land Reform Laws from time to
time. However, the enactment basing on Jatti Committee
findings could not be done t1ll .1961, when the Mysore
Land Reforms Act, 1961 was passed, and its implementa
tion till 1965.
The 1961 Act contained many liberal clauses under
which certain classes of landowners were not only
permitteq to lease their land on tenancy but also
resume land for personal cultivation. For example, thG
persons serving in the Defence Forces and in the
Merchant Navy, minors, un-married women,· widows,
persons suffering from physical or mental disability
and small land holders were all permitted to lease
their land. Provisions were also made for the resump
tion . personal cultivation, although with
certair· conditions attached to it. The Munsiff
Trib~als constituted for the purpose of dealing with
the a~?lications of resumption of land were not
equipped with ~d~quate personnel. One of the ~inisters
1.4-1
involved in the formulation of the 1961 Act himself later
wrote: .
••• as the requisite number of tribunals had not been appointed and as the Government did not issue certain notifications which were essential for implementing the Act, the progress of implementation was very tardy •••• (Further,taking advantage of the delay in the implementation of the Act).powerful landlords evicted their tenants, by force in some places. In some others, landlords, in connivance with unscrupulous village Accountants, got their names entered in the Revenue Records to create false evidences of their personal cultivation. (Kadidal Manjappa, 1984) (parentheses added).
As a result of the loop..;holes in the 1961 Act and the
procedural delay, the Act failed to. confer occupancy
and ownership rights on the tenants.
The 1974 Act, an a~endment of the 1961 Act, aimed
at a fundamental c~nge in the land relations. The new
A.ct withdrew the earlier concessio"tis given to the minors
and widows for leasing the land. Such an exemption
was now applicable o~ly to the soldiers and the seamen.
A·ll leased land stood v.e sted with the government. The
right to resume the land for personal cultivation w~s
also withdrawn. \11/"ith further c.:.Q.lmendments, the tenants
were subsequently permitted to sub~ttheir applications
for confirmation of occupancy righ~s with the land
tribunals, U.otil .tbe 30th June,l979. The new land tri-
bunals, formed in the place of the earlier Munsiff 0
tribunals, consisted ·of one ex-officio member, represented
14?
by the ~ssis~nt Commissioner as its Chairman, and four
non-official members include a member of either the
scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. One seat is
usually reserved for a Member of the Legislative
Assembly. The tribunal members examine the applications
of the tenants and pass their orders in accordance with
Land Reforms ..:"\ct, 1974, on considering the witness and
records as evidence. The quorum for the tribunal is
three members and passes orders on a majority vote. The
decisions of the tribunal are final: the agrieved
persons can seek redressal only through a writ petition
to the High Court under articles 226 or 227 of the
Con~titution.i{ The High Court in turn may pass orders
to the tribunal directing it to reconsider the procedure
of its arriving at the'judgernent.
Landowners and Tenant Relations in -Rajapura
By 1·95C?, .Rajapura had 'bqth -~.and ~~~ri tenure
of land ·in practice •. 'The ·three prevalent ~ tenures
can be classified under the following categories, viz.,
larfdswhich: were under individual control (personal in..sm),
under the control of.temples (devadaya) and service
~held by the hereditary village accountant and the
village servant (shanubhog and thoti, respectively). In
c;Lddi.tion to holding the ~ land,. the village accountant
~For a:...discussi~n -of the ·evolution of Land Reforms in the Post-Independence pe~iod in Karnataka, see, L -·
George (1970): . Rajan (1979); N.C.A. Report (1976) and.Manjappa (1984); Rang~nathan (n.d.).
14~
and many of his relatives owned other land in the village.
Table 6 shows the .extent of land held under inam tenure
under different categories of ~by 1950.
Besides the three temples situated within the village,
two other temples of Magadi town also owned about 15.00
acres in RaJapura •. The lands held by the local temples
were cultivat~~ by the officiating priests themselves • .. · .-.
Tenants cultivated the land of other two temples, and also
of the village accountant and the jodi inam land of
Ramapaly.a. Cultivation rights for the two Magadi temples'
land were auctioned once in five years known as 'panch
~· gu~tige system.
--~....-.-----------·· The ryotwari holdings of the resident farmers were
mainly under personal cultivation. As noted earlier,2/
the bulk of land in the village was owned by the absentee
landlordsi. who leased their land to the tenants through
their representatives ·living in the village. Leasing out
the land by the absentee landowners ·to the tenants through
such resident representatives did not mean sub-:letting;
as often the agreement was made between the tenants and
the landlords directly, while the representatives only
looked after the interests of the landlord. The
representatives, however, played a vital role in tenancy
~ See Chapter III.
TABLE 6. Inam Tenure in Rajapura (1950)
No. Inam Types Area in Acres
1 Temple (Devadqy~) Inam 44.43
2 Service Inam
(i) Village Accountant 1i) Villave Servant
3 Personal Inam
3.53 X 4.96 X 8
•48
(i) Raktha Kod~~ ~ 26.28 X 11) Ramapalya i£<?_1 inam 159.00 X185•28
Total 238.19
.source: .Index of Land
144
14'5
matters such as the renewal or termination of lease
contracts. Living at places like Magadi, Kudur,
Tayarekere (all in Magadi taluk) and Kunigal, thG
absentee landowners were engaged in government servi~e
or trade and commerce. In their absence the resident
representatives looked atter the interests of the land-
owners. The landowners visited the village once or
twice a year to supervise the cultivation of land, and
to collect their share of rent in kind or cash. It was
not ~ncommon for the tenants themselves, under the
supervision of the representatives, to deliver the rent
(in kind) at the very· door steps of the landowners•
residences.
The lease contracts were usually for.a period of
one year,. renewable at the end of the term. Continuation
of the same tenants for the same plot of l~nd depended
upon tenant • s personal relations not ,only w-~th the land-
owners but also with the representatives, if any. It
wa.s not uncommon for many aspirants to come forward to
pay a higher rent than paid by the presently occupying
tenant. With the availability of land for cultivation, '
the village had been steadily attracting many immigrants
who contributed . to such competitive offers for tenancy
l~nd. This phenomenonparticularly applies to the
Ramapalya land, where about forty tenants were fr.equently
146
replaced displaced from plot to plot. Tenants competed
wit~ each other, taking the help of the representatives
in occupying better plots of land, often resulting in
disputes among themselves.
Either .directly or indirectly,. the absentee land-
owners had a relation of dependence upon the village
leaders, mai~ly.of the Okkaliga caste. These leaders
usually had a decisive say in the village affairs.
They presided over the village council which examined
disputes of all nature. The absentee landowners
approached the local: leaders whenever faced with the
problems of irregular _pa~ent of rent,_ or non-p~yment
of loan or interest on loans1 and such otheD matters.
The .. leaders in turn, used their in:.. · .ence with the
local farmers to make them comply wLth their obligations
to the landowners. On the contrary, there were also
instances of t~e village leaders bringing pressure upon
the absentee landowners to prevent displacement or
eviction of tenants whom the village leadership favoured.
In many cases1 the leaders themselves had'recommended
some tenants to the landowners and thus had both the
tenants qnq landowners under an obligation. Further, the r • , 1
landoWners resp~cted the village leaders and their
suggestions, for, very often they were helpful in their •C
J::>uying the land. This position of influence enjoyed
147
bY: '.the. yill~ge leaders assumed great importance in the
years follow~ng the passing of land reforms legislations.
Impact of Early Legislations: A Few Case Studies
Th~ early 50s saw enactment of some important legis-
lation pertaining to~ land tenures, viz., the
Mysore Alienated Villages (P~otection to Tenants and
Misce;Llaneous Provisions) (Emergency) Act, 1949; the
Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inam Abolitions Act,
1955; and the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 196.1. These
acts and· their subsequent amendments brought about certain
changes in the agrarian system of Rajapura. We have
already noted§/ that nearly 500 acres out of 886 acres
of land in both Rajapura and Ramapalya were held by the
absentee landowners, that a~ost all such land was ..
cultivated by the tenant-farmers of Rajapura. These Acts
brought in an awareness among the farmers and the
absentee landowners of the impending changes within the
agrarian system. Many shrewd absen~ee landowners
started disposing off their land well before the axe
• fell. Many scholars have noted this phenomenonJ.
1Reform was in the air before the enactment of the laws; and this, combined \v-i th the long delays in passing a law, made i~ possible for the landlords to reduce the numbe,r.' of cMmants for rights in the land by evicting tenants or shifting them to the status of farmhands'· (Ladejensky,l9717.,p.378) (See also, Henchette,l972).
21 See Chapter III, Table 5.
qiyen the economic conditions of the_tenants not all the
tenants were i_n a position to buy lands that were being
~old by the landlords. Added to this, there were many
aspirants for these lands for _other rea~ons. Important
among _them were: those who had owned land adjacent to
the land that came for sale; because such lands were
near the village settlement, and for their kin who had
migrated into the viliage in the hope of buying land.
As a result, the land price began to soar, thus
rendering the land beyond the reach of the tenants. In
many case~, the tenants themselves were owners of small
holdings and we~e not interested in buying the land even
if it were offered to them for purchase. The tenant was
not always offered the land for buying. When a tenant
was interested in buying tl1e land, he had not only_ to , r
~eek-th~ _goodwill .of the landowner but also that of the
representatives aqq local le~ders~ The village leaders •'
played an .impor~ant role in ~ll such tra~sactions.
However, an ~n~lysis of a few cases reveals the role bf
local leaders as not having been consistent: while in
some cases they sided with the landowners in some others
they sided with the tenants and other local buyers. In
·some of the tenanted lands, the leaders themselves were
interested in buying them even though they had not been
tenants or it meant depriving the tenant of buying the
land.
l4t9
Coming to the tenancy arrangements for the land
owned by ~he resid~ landowners: they were, by and
large, unwritten, infoDmal, and on year-to-year basis.
co.nsequently none of these arrangements faced a threat
from the land reform laws. Wherever a formal arrange-
ment existed, by way of a written lease contract etc.,
the landowners resumed their land for 'personal'
cultivat~on by evicting the tenants. Eviction of
tenants was not a difficult task, as both the land
owners and the tenants were from within the village
and pressure from caste, kinship and political
dimensions were applied. Further, having let out a
portion of their land, tl)e local landowners usually
cultivated the remaining land QY themselves. This
enabled them to get their own names entered in the
pahani§/ register as c~ltivators. The village accountant,
himself an owner of land in the village and had been and
·leasing out the land to tenants/-generally protected
the interest of the landowners.
However, as a result of the passing of land reform
l~gislation, by the beginning of the 60s tenancy
cultivation of the land owned by the resident landowners
almost came to an end. Only a small number of cases
were an exception to this. In such cases, the
§/A register maintained by the village accountant to record the cultivator's name, owners name, crop raised source of water, etc. for all the land in the village.
1&:1
landowners took care to prevent any move by the tenants
to gain occupancy rights under the prevailing law: by
creat~ng records to show that the tenants were paid
labour£_..:; or that the land had been mortgaged to the
othe~ person cultivating it. Under the Karnataka Land
Reforms l\ct, 1974, mortgaged land does not come under
the tenancy reforms.
on .the contrary, the situation with respect to the
land owned by the absentee landlords was mixed in nature.
Almost all the absentee landowners were able to se~l
their land without any legal problems. This was
possible for them, not merely because of the foresight
on their part, _but also due to a lack. of tenants'
knowledge regarding rights under the law. · Lands were
sold to ~hoever offered the price demanded by the land
owners, although in a few cases the tenants were offered
th~ land for purchase. The absentee landowners with
smaller holdings, say·below 10 or 15 acres, or with
fragmented holding~ dispersed in different parts of the
~d l.l.aoe. n.nd thA lanc':lowne.r.s w.i.t-.h mininu1m numl:xn.- Ul:
tenants were able to sell their lands without much
resistance from their tenants. When such land came to
the market, the tenants either wanted to buy it or ~r~
not interested in-it. During the initial periods, such
displaced tenants tried to gain tenancy in other lands.
Further, the smaller landowners ~nvariably approached
the village leaders in all transactions, who in turn
were capable of pressurising the tenants in the inte-
rest of the landowners. Quite often the vil~age
leaders_helped such tenants who were interested in
buying the land for themselves, but usually a portion
of such land was also sold to other~ who were interested
in it. As already mentioned, not all tenants were in
an economic positiqn to buy the land. In any case, by
the early sixties almost all small holdings of the
absentee landowners were sold either to the tenants or . .
to others, or both. The tenants seel<ing protection get
under the law to avoid eviction or to/fixity of rent,
or in determining the p~ice of land, were by and large
avoided.
The absente~ landowners of larger holdings faced ,' . .
some resistance from their tenants when the former's
interests were neglected by the landowners. In contrast
tq _th~ .smaller l&ndowners, the bigger absentee
landowners had to deal with more number of tenants. Here . . .
again, the local leaders played an important role
which dete~ined the nature of transaction. A few cases
will illustrate the point:
1~
1. Kudur Landowneris case: This land transac-
tion, which took place in the mid-fifties, gave a new
turn to the village's factional politics. The Kudur
landowner, a Brahmin and a government servant, held
about 20 acres of land in the south and south-western
tract of the village's site in Rajapura. Five tenants
had been cultivating this land among themselves. All
but one among the tenants were evicted from land by
the year 1951-52. The lone tenant had gained the
confidence of the landowner~ and was promised by the
latter that the land shall be offered to him if and
when the landowner decided to sell it.
Around this time, one of the village leaders had
differences with the other leaders of the village
- 9/ headed by the then pa.tel and a de fa£!:2_ 'headman •-.
This dissident leader had shown an interest in buying
the Brahmin's land to help his immigrant brother-in
law (sister's husband) to settle down in Rajapura.
These two relatives had already posed a challange to
the 'headman' by trying to bring an additional
washerman and smith to function in the village
violating the traditional jajmani relations with the
21 While the patel was the official headman of the village, this 'headman' was a confidantoof the patel, and was advising the former on all matters concerning administration and other day-to-day affairs of the village. The grand-son of this • headman.' today enjoys the same position as enjoyed by his grandfather and later, by ffi:i:.s.'""l:father.
153
hereditary washerman and sm•ith of the village.. These
two relatives discretely approached the Brahmin land
owner in Kudur and came to an oral agreement to buy
the land. The landowner was informed that the lone
tenant was not in a position to buy the land. Besides,
the landowner was under an obligation to the two
relatives. The landowner had advanced a loan of Rs.200
to a fanmer who had not been paying either the interest
on the loan or ~howing any signs of repaying the loan.
As this borrower was from the former village o£ the
immigrant relative; the two were able to pressurise the
borrower to repay the loan with interest.
· Thus, under the impression that his tenant was not
interested in buying the land, and having been under an
obligation, the Brahmin landowner agreed to se~l the
land to the two relatives.
The tenant was a member of the headman's faction.
On ··learning of the pact between the two relatives, and
the landowner, the headman summoned the tenant. He i.vas
asked by the headman to offer to buy the lano, and that
all help shall be provided to him. The condition was
·that the tenant shall keep exactly that extent of land
which he needs and the remain~a~ to be sold to the head
man. If this was agreed to, the headman promised to
f~na~ce the tenant as well as help him in securing the
154
land despite the pact made between the landowner and
the two relatives.
The tenant met the landowner and offered to buy
the land at the prevailing market price, and having
earlier committed to sell the land to his tenant, the
landowner agreed to sell the land to him. Exactly
after one month of the land transfer, the headman got
half the land transferred to his name (that is 10.00
acres), which in due course, he sold to his other
followers.
The village leader only tried to make use of this
transaction to build his political base: the headman
procuring the land for his supporter, and buying the land
to sell later to his other followers. Had the tenant
been guided to seek the protection under the law, it
' may not h~ve been possible to have a share in the same
land for the headman, and to distribute favours to his
supporters.· Moreover, the -headman took interest in the
case mainly to score-off the dominance of his opponent
in the village.
2. Ramapalya Land•s case~ When in the mid-1950s,
the measures of Inam abolition was in the air, the
inamdar of Ramapalya sought to sell his lands to a
wealthy farmer from Mandya region. fPo_ly Hill reports
155
similar transfers of land by the Inarndars in the wake
of Inam abolition legislations (See, Hill 1982; p.260)
in another Taluk of Bangaiore District) On learning
this a few of his forty odd tenants requested the land
owner' to sell a portion of the land to his tenants.
The landowner,., on the other hand, \•Jas keen on selling
the land en: •block to the Mandya farmer, and \v3.s aware
that the farmers/tenants of Rajapura were unable to pay
a good price for the land. Only a few tenants were
bent upon buying the land while the majority passively
accepted the eventuality. The dissatisfied tenants
approached the village leaqers to intervene and persuade
·the landowner to sell the land to the former tenants
who were interested in buying the land. When the lane
owner refused to oblige the le~oers, the tenants were
advised to consult a lawyer in Bangalore city. The
tenants learnt that they were entitled for protection
from eviction and that they could register themselves
as bonafide tenants of the land for five successive
years. The tenants now approached the landowner with
a fresh request to sell the land to th~ failing which
they wo~ld seek legal protection.
By this time#, the landowner had sensed the.
hostility of the villagers, and consented to retrace
156
his steps to sell the land to outsiders. Records were
altered and prepared in such a manner as to show that
nearly one-fifth of the land was under personal culti-
vation of the landowner, thereby to enable him to
retain some land for himself and his family members.
The remaining lands v1ere sold to such tenants who were
keen on buying the land for themselveso These tenants
came mainly from Rajapura and the neighbouring village
Kuppe. The landowner refused to sell his land to
others who had not been tenants, particularly to the
people suggested by the leaders for they were responsi-
ble in making the tenants to seek legal help. rbwever,
the leaders qnd others who were interested in buying
the land bought the land through such tenants who did
not want to buy t~e land for themselves. Such tenants
bought th.~ land only to transfer it to others later ..
Table 7 shows the pattern of land transfer from the '
Ramapalya inam landmvner to the people of Rajapura o.nd
Kuppe. It must be noted that almost all the buyers
from Kuppe, sooner or later, sold the land to the
farmers of Rajapura.
In order to obtain the approval of the authorities,
the landowner gave the transaction a colour that the
buyers were all his former tenants and that they had
voluntarily .come forward to buy the land. For instanca,
157
Ti~BLE 7. Ramapalya Inam Land Transactions
No. First Buyers
1. Land retained by the inam holders
2. Kuppe's Muslim tenants
3. Kuppe Muslim tenants "who retained the land
4. Rajapura's tenants and "others chosen by the landowner·
Total*
;\rea Subsequent Buyers
17.71 (~11 sold to the farmers of Rajapura on the choice of landowners)
34.59 All sold to the far·mers of Rajapura immediately after the first sale.
Sold or Mortaged to 13.65 the farmers of Raja
pura over a period of time
Only about ten of the 89.74 twenty odd buyers \vere
tenants, some of
155.69
whom sold the land to· others in the village
*Excludes the waste land and area under a tank
Sourceg Index of Land for Ramapalya and information gathered from the people concerned.
158
the sale deeds read: 11 I, •••• (the landowner) ••• do hereby
sell this land to you, ••• (buyers' name) ••• since you
vol~tarily come forwarc to buy the land for which you
had been a tenant for ••• years ••• 11• All such transfers
were later ratified by the competent authorities under
the ~ settlement regulations. Such lands as were
retained by the landowner were eventually sold by him
and his sons to the people of Rajapura at competitive
rates.
It was noted that most of the buyers of Ramapalya
lands were immigrants who had come to settle in the
village through their relatives already living there.
It was also evident that they were able to buy land
through the good offices of the former tenants and some
others who could influence the landowner. With regard
to the role of the village leaders, it is evident that
they intervened with a fev.T motives. · The leaders were
opposed to any outsiders buying the land §n block. -
Perhaps because that would pose challange and threat to
their economic and therefore political dominance in the
region. The disregard shown by the landov1ner to the
suggestions made by the village leaders prompted the
latter to take legal aid in solving the tenant's problems.
3. The Lingayat Landowner's case: Both the tenants
and the village leaders had taken a sympathetic stand
l59
with regard to the case of the Lingayat landowner.
This landowner had inherited the land, ,an extent of
18 acres. The land was under tenancy cultivation.
The landowner was engaged in operating a few buses
and was at one time a prosperous business man. Around
1970, he met with heavy losses in his business, and
therefore began to show active interest in his land in
RajapuralQ( This land is locuted in the north-western
tip of the village settlement, and is the only single
largest consolidating holding in the village. It has
the added advantage of being a 'Ooru pakkada jame~,
the social and economic significance of which has been
discussed earlier.!l/
The landowner had maintained a fairly good relation
with his tenants until 1974, when certain major
amendments were being made to the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961, which considered all leasing of le.nd as
illegal (See, Rajan, 1979, p.l2). By this time he
had had al:;lout 12 tenants cultivating his lands. Although
he had taken enough care to protect his interests
with regard to the entries in the pahani records, he
lO/ The lands owned by the same landowner elsewhere had also been under tenancy cultivation. There tenants had established their occupancy claims over such lands.
11/ -- see Chapter, II, page.
160
nevertheless evicted all his tenants. Like many other
abse_ntee landowners of the past, he too had a resident
representative among his tenants, who aided the land-
owner in evicting other tenants.
Although the landowner had not, at this time,
contemplated upon selling his land12/ it was-generally
taken for certain that sooner or later he would sell
the land like many other absentee landovmers of the
50s and 60s. Having already suffered losses in his
business, he had wanted to save his landed interests.
Anti_cipating difficulty. in evicting the tenants, he
approached the headman for his help. The headman in
turn spoke to the tenants up give up the occupancy of
the land. It was pointed out to them that the land-
owner and his dependents will be left without a source
of income if the land was taken away from him. It was
also pointed out to the tenants that they would have
little chances of establishing their claimsclegally
as the pahani records had been maintained to suit the
landowner•s interests. The displaced tenants were
promised sharecropping opportunity on the land for
growing mulberry and sugarcane with the landowner. Even
12/During 1979-81 the landowner/his heirs sold portions of this land.
161
this arrangement was made only after the sharecroppers
signed papers stating that they were daily-wage
labourers working for the landmvner in his mulberry/
sugarcane fields.
While all the tenants agreed not to press their
claims under the provisions of the law4 two of them
~aled applications to the land tribunal for confirmation
of occupancy rights. Both these tenants own some land
adjacent to the tenanted land. However,. rece.ntly when
a relative of the headman {the present headman's sister's
husband) bought a portion of the land, these two
farmer tenants agreed not to press their claims and
promised to state suitably before the land tribunal. The
tenants, however,. did not have any records to prove
their claim, and it is doubtful if any one in the
village was willing to support their claim.
4. The case of a Muslim Landowner: This case
involved 25 acres with 10 tenants, and it found its way
to the tribunal for settlement. The landowner, a Muslim,
was an arrack contractor living at .~avarekere which is
about 25 kilometers from Magadi town. The land is
situated on the eastern side of the village settlement,
a portion of which has access to a fresh water stream
near the village Doddi.
164
For a long time the landowner had not been showing
much interest in his land nor had he cared to collect
the rent regularly from his tenants. During the year
1974-75, one of the tenants, an opponent ~~ the present
headm~n, wanted to buy a plot of land from the Muslim
landowner. This plot included a portion of which he
had been a tenant and another portion being cultivated·
by another tenant. The landowner was willing to sell
the land and received a sum of ~.5000 as an advance
p~yment. The other tenant, whom we shall call Kulla,
protested the possible eviction from the land. The
landowner now requested the headman to intervene, for
he feared such protests also from other tenants. The
headman, initially, offered to buy all the land for
himself, provided the landowner himself comes to a
settlement with all his tenants. He ~ad wanted the
political opponent in particular to be evicted.
Meanwhile the politically-opponent tenant had
advanced another sum of ~.5000, and got the landowner
to sign the papers as having mortgaged the land. This
turnea out to be an ill advised move on the part of
the tenant. When the tenant learnt that the headman
was planning to buy all the land, he consulted his
supporters from other villages and threatened to file
163
an applica.tion to the Land Tribunal for confirmation of
occupancy rights •. But he refrained from it on the
request by the landowner.
Presently Kulla was advised by the headman to file
an applicati'on to land tribunal when the other tenant
tried to occupy the mortgaged land. All the other
tenants followed suit and filed applications for the
confirmation of occupancy rights on the respective
tenanted land. The land tribunal gave its decision
confirming the claims of all the tenants except that of
the politicaliy opponent tenant. His claim was
rejected on the grounds that he was a mortgage holder,
and therefore not a tenant. Under the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act,·cultivation of mortgaged land by the
mortgagee does not amount to ~eing tenancy.
In the above settlement, except one, none of the
tenants who were awarded occupancy right·s were landless • .
Even the- lone tenant was only a landless by definition,
because he was a dependent· relative of a landown~r in
the village and continues to live with this relative
even now.
·since the former landowner/his heirs have not
repa.id the money to the politically opponent tenant,;·
he continues to hold the mortgage on the land.
164
The aboV.e mentioned case studies and our discussion ~ fo "~•
preceeding tq it, suggest certain conclusions regarding
the nature of implementation of land reforms in Rajapura.
First,, the local landown~rs were able to evict their
tenants and bypass the land reforms legislation. They
were successful mainly because of the lack of awareness
among the~r tenants of the law, and also the fact the
records had been maintained to ·suit the interests of the
landowners.
Second, the land reform measures, as applicable to
Rajapura was only 'tenancy reforms, ·for there was none who
owned land beyond the ce·iling limits.U/
Third, a majo.r:i.ty of the absenti:e _;Landowners were ···. ' . .. '
also. a_ble :to ·prevent their tenants :from •taking the ' .
matters t;Q· the authorities, which was done either through
selling the land ~o tenants themselves or through the . ., .
village leaders,· or both'.
' ·· .:W The ·Land R,eform Act, l974, reduced ·~the ceiling qn holdings from 216 acres to 54 acres per family for dry lands, and from eighteen acres to ten acres per family fo'r wet lands. In the state as a whole, 1, 2~., 583 acres of land was determined as surplus lands and about
'44,500 acr~s. (34~6.%) of land was redistributed. Further, out of the 800355 tenancy cases that came before the Land Tribunals under .the 1974 Ac~, 41.7 per cent had been dispo,sed off in favour of tenants involving 1289319 acres of land, by September, 1980 (See, Ranganathan n.d-) •
165
Fourth, the village leaders in many cases made use
of their position in the village and outside, to their
advantage: to favour their supporters, or to procure
the land for their relatives. Hot.vever, in most cases
they mad~ use of the knowledge they had of the law for
their own benefit and not in educating the tenants.
Incidentally, the members of the Land Tribunal14/ were
all affiliated to the same political party and faction
as that of the village leaders. The sense of political
solidarity between these members and the village
leaders, helped the former to gain a far more powerful
position in these matters. The landowners as well as
the tenants, who were aware of this, preferred to have
the leaders on their side rather than as opponents. As
a result many· instances of tenancy disputes, both in
Rajapura and many neighbouring villages were settled
outside the Land Tribunals.
Fifth, the cases that eventually went for settlement
under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reform Act, were
the ones which the local leaders either failed to bring
141 It is noreworthy that all the members of the Land Tribunal were large landowners. One among them, a farmer M.L.A. had nearly 35 tenants who had applied for confirmation of ownership/occupancy rights. Incidentally, the same member's large estate of 350 acres had been transferred in the names of his brother, sist~rs, brother's-in-law etc~~ as early as in 1961 so as to evade ceiling in future •. All these "holdings" continue to constitute the estateas it had been in the past personally managed by him.
166
about a settlement with the .landowners and tenants, or
those in which the landowners themselves suggested the
tenants to take legal measures. The latter was
resort~d to very often, so as to save the cost of
registration and to ratify certain land transfers which
went against the land transfer regulations. We may
illustrate this. Under the.law it is illegal to
fragment land below an extent of three acres. But
many a farmer have bought land that are less than this
in ext~nt, and in order to ratify sucp a sale deed, the
buyer was asked to apply to the tribunal claiming
occupancy rights. When the tribunal examines the case,
the landowner selling such land would admit before the
officials that he~had let out the land on tenancy and
the claimant was indeea a tenant. Thus a land transfer
gets the legal sanction, although prohibited otherwise.
FUrther, the settlement under the tribunal does not
involve any stamp duty, whereas a sale deed does.
Therefore, in order to save the costs of registration
and stamps for registration, the buyer and the landowner
selling the land agree to establish a tenant-landowner
relation.
Why Were the Tenants PassiVJ,e'?
With the backdrop of the case studies discussed
above, we shall now examine the factors responsible for
167
the passive acceptance of the outcome by tenants and
sharecroppers. As elsewhere in Independent India,
the evolution of agrarian reforms legislation in
Karnataka also was gradual, beginning with ~
abolition and appointment of various committees to
study and suggest measures of tenancy and land reforms
in the state. The policy formulation and their
enforcement took a long time, thereby giving adequate
opportunity to the landowners to evade any possible
legal action. Much of the other aspects of land
reforms, like the ceiling on land holdings, were, by
and large, not applicable (with ·the exception of
Ramapalya Land) • Ramapalya land came under the inam
' tenure, and even that had been disposed off before the
law could be implemented. Transactions that had taken
place much earlier were now given a colour of the
tenants buying the land voluntarily. With reference
to non-inam land, the law. had enough loop-holes that
protected the interests of the landowners rather than
those of the tenants. The 1961 Act had stipulated
that the tenant should have been a cultivator of given
land for six consecutive years before lOth September
1957. In almost all cases the tenants had been
changing their landowners or the land of the same land-
·owner from year to year. Further., the -_~pahani records
168
were invariably entered showing the landowner, and not
the tenant, as the actual cultivator15< Very often,
the tenants themselves, many of them i~igrants, were
on the lookout for buying lands, and when they were
able to buy some, they had·voluntarily surrendered their
tenaQ.cy. Displacement of tenants was-. a.lso a common
feature as there had been a constant demand and competi-
tion among prospective tenants for land under tenancy
cultivation. ~andowners took on whoever came forward
with higher rent or cropshare, thereby replacing the
occupant tenant• The net result of all these was that
there was hardly any tenant who had successively cultivated
a giyen land for more than a year or two, so as to be
eligible to claim legal protection from the authorities.
Aomo~e important fact ·is that the tenants• aware
ness of the law and of various measures of protection
available to them was almost lacking. Under the 1974 Act
neither the eanants nor the landowners were permitted
to employ a legal expert (lawyer) to plead the cases.
The presence of advocates, it is agreed, would delay the
proceedings. This was especially so during the early
lS/ In the state of Bihar, in 1949, the Zamindars had controiled not only 90 per cent of land, but also had all the records under their control. The state had very little knowledge of who owned the land and who were the tenants (See, Sinha, 1978) •
169
phase,_ i.e., 1950s and early 1960s. A few tenants in
the case of Ramapalya land had been advised to consult
a lawyer in Bangalore City, and having done this they
opted for a settlement outside the sphere of law. One
former revenue official in the Magadi Taluk Office
informed us that there had not been many tenants in
Magadi Taluk coming forward to seek protection against
eviction, and that none had been from Rajap·ura. A
former _tenant of Ramapalya land \v'ho could not buy a
portion of it, summed up the sentiments governing the
' relationship between the landowners and the tenantsg
'It was ·the landowner who had given us the land when we had wanted to cultivate and grow our food. Now, if the government wants to take away his lands, let it. But. we do not want the lan'd to be taken like that. God .will never forgive us for taking away land from another; afterall we are all cultivators".
Many other tenants had remained passive then, if not for
the above mentioned kind of sentiments, but for their
lack of knowledge regarding the legal provisions. Many
such displaced ·and evicted t:enants now think with their
present awareness of the laW'g ,;d:f it had been now, we
would not nave meekly budged to the pressures of the
landowner or others 11 • However; having observed the
local 'power politics 'l.ve doubt whether this statement
was made with a firm con.ri.i:tion of being successful•
170
Villagers who were aware of the legal provisions
made use of their knowledge to suit their own needs.
Thus, ~hen a political opponent of the headman wanted
to buy a plot of land which the headman himseif had
not succeeded in buying, the former showed the legal
path to his henchmen-tenants of the landowner. On
the contrary, when a few tenants in another plot of
land wanted to take uo legal action to prevent their
eviction, the village leaders spoke of humanitarian
considerations and pointed out the legal difficulties
involved in successfully establishing their claims
w~th evidences. Indeed, if the leaders wished it, it
was not difficult for them to bring the members of land
tribunal for a "spot insepction11 and provide evidence
from the other cultivators to the effect that the
tenants actually cultivated the land. An Assistant
Commissioner, who was the ex-officio ch~irman of the )
tribunal, informed us that the favourable evidence
obtained during a 'spot-inspection' was enough to hold
a decision in favour of the tenant even if land records
were to the contrary.
In recording the pahani details the former here-
ditary shanUbhogs were, by and large, sympathetic to
the landowners than to the tenants. Wherever necessary,
they even tampered with the records to suit the legal
1:!1 requirements. The shanubhog of Rajapura had himself
leased out his lands on tenancy to a few. When the
hereditary offices were abolished in Karnataka, new
village accountants were appointed, who were mostly
from far-off regions. They had no sense of involve
ment with the villages assigned to them. Working for
a meagre salary of ~.100 to 250, and assigned to
villages which were socially and economically alien to
them, the new village accountants were eager to get
back to their 'regions' or hometowns. The village
leadership with their links with the regional political
netwoDc was successful in 'punishing' or 'rewarding'
officials ranging from village ·accountants to the
Special Tahsildar fur land reforms. The village lead~rs
were also kept informed of the applications filed
before the land tribunal, thanks to their rapport with
bureaucracy. Pressures were brought, through foul or
fait means, on such applicants to withdravJ the applica
tions. Having once filed an application, officially
it becomes an irreversible record, but it was not an
impossible task for those interested ta get it back.
On failing to get back, a promise invoking the health
of tenant's children was obtained in a temple. The
promise will be that the applicant will deny his claim
as being a tenant before the members of the land
tribunal. We observed many such settlement sessions
held in temples and in other places attended by
172
landowner and tenants, village leaders, and in some
cases revoenue . .All\d p6lt.ca .. Q:f£l.cioa.ls·;.: :.:.
The tenants were shy of legal processes not merely
because of their ignorance of legai provisions or
~ecau~e of the sentiments governing their relations
with the landowner.s, but also because it would take
their time away from their Wdrk; involve expenditure
and they lacked support .;rom among the villagers. I
Beginnin~ with the fil~g of an application, till the
final decision was given, the tenants had to go to
Magadi tOwn every daYJ wa±t till their names ar~ called
out and present the it ·E!Vi-dEmce ~ .Marly a time their ' ' ,, ',• '
n~mes would not be caii~d out for lack of time; o'r n , ~ •
because the .members of~t.tiburlai ITiay·have gone for a • • . c
' . II spot inspection rt I 0 r also 16ec~U$e the tribunal do.e s
: ,.
not meet on a day for laek of ~Udr~. on all such visit~
to the town, the tenarit h~s ~ci take his witnesses;· j .
usually his villagers, and ~~et the expenses of ail
such men accompanying him. We also came across
instances where the tenant had to pay a sum of Rs.lO
every time to the accompanying witnesses as their fee. ·,
Therefore, from a cost-benefit point. of view a settle-
ment outside the land tribunal was preferrable.
On the contrary, the land tribunal was made use of
for the purpose of saving the cost of registration or
173
to regularise a land transfer that violated an existing
regulation for land transfers.
Why did the local leaders play the kipd of role they
played in the matter of land reforms? In answering
this, let us first present the explanations given by the
leaders themselves; although these explanations appear
to be inconsistent with their actions in the past and
present. The former patel, who for sometime served as
village accountant in a far away taluk, in turn,
questioned the verypurpose of land reforms as was
implemented by the government. We refer to this here
mainly to point out the attitude towards land reforms,
shared by many others in the. village.
The pate! asked us: "what is wrong in a landowner
leasing out his land to tenants? Like any other person
he too wants to get returns from his ownership of the
property. If the government wants to distribute land to
the landless or poor. people, let it give on their own,
but not by taking it away from some others 11• He then
pointed out that 11 even when the land-to-the-tiller
programme was carried Dut, the beneficiaries werE7 mainly
the people who did own land 11• From the 2atel's point
of view, iand reforms had been merely transferring
one's land to another. This comment by the pate!
174
holds good, at least in Rajapura where almost all the
tenants who were successful in obtaining the occupancy
rights, ~nd those who bought the lands from their former
landowners in the wake of land reforms 1 were themselves
landowners.
The inconsistency in patel's attitude and actions
becomes evident when we note that he too is an unsuccess-
ful applicant for confirmation of occupancy rights
for a plot of land exclusively for himself which·. ::.bis
undiv:ided fa!l1ily enjoyed. This land is the ~ for
the local .Ma.gamma temple of which his family members are
the priests. When asked about this application, the
patel gave an evasive reply saying that·he had applied
because he did not want to take chances with the
unpredictability of future legislation for such temple
~ lands•
The 'headman' of Rajapura, on the other hand~ did I
not have much to complain regarding the aims of and
n€ed for land reforms. He rationalised the role played·
by him and his followers as having been guided by the
merits of individual cases. Referring to the case of
the Muslim landowner's land16( he stated that he had
wanted "as far as possible~ the tenants to be given an
opportunity to buy the land without having to go to
l§/ See Case No.4.
175
the tribunal or court. But, if the landowner wanted to
displace the tenants or wanted to sell the land to
others--specially when the :.ten ants wanted to buy the
land for themselves--we had to suggest the legal course
of action to the tenants11• H::: also pointed out some
·instances among the former tenants of the Muslim land-
owner who even now sent or gave some quantity of grains
(in lieu of rent) even after the settlement was made
through_the land tribunal.11/ With reference to the
case of the Lingayat landowner,~/ he justified the
role of leaders stating that it was an exceptional case
where the landowners was resuming land for personal
cultivation. "If the lanqowner was trying to sell the
land to non-tenants or to outsiders by evicting the
tenants, our stand would have been different in the
case" he said,.
These two leaders seem -to subscr,ibe to the views
that the landowners should give an option to. the tenant
to buy the land beforelooking for other ~uy~~s, and
la/ This was confirmed by a few former tenants of the landowner, who sa~d that they gave the gr~ins to the landowner not only because the former landowners were now poor, but also because "ev·ery landowner has a strong attachment to his land and likes to have some grains grown on that -land". Many other fo.r;mer tenants who had bought land from their landowners even now make gifts of grains and vegetables grown on such land, once or twice a year to their former iandowners.
w See Case No.3
176
that the landowner is welcome to resume land for personal
cultivation. Hqwever, by looking at the transactions
in most qther cases, it becomes evident that the "merits
of the case" which guided the local leaders were based
on the consi~eration of their personal relations with
the landowner, tenants and others involved. One finds
a pattern in the personal.relations of the leaders with
the individ~al.tenants who were able to buy the land,
or with those who went to the tribunal to settle the
matters, or with those who were able to buy the land,
or wfth those who were able to buy ths land withoub
having been tenants. The leaders usually took a
favourable attitude towards the tenants or the-buyers,
or even the landowners, if they met the approval of ·~
the leaders. 'Approval' depended upon many ot~er
considerations: who were the p~ople in terms of caste
and kinship, whether or not they were political
supporters of the leaders, and so on. This can be
seen in the case of the Muslim landowner discus~ed
earlier. There is a keen competition in Rajapura to buy
or control land between the two factions headed on the
one side by the headman and the forme~ patel4 and on
the other by the opponent involved in the Muslim land
owner's case. Both the patel and the headman had
initially wanted to buy the Muslim's land, mainly to
prevent their opponent from buying it. When they did
177
not succeed in buying it, they suggested the tenants to
seek legal aid. In the process one former tenant, a
sympathiser of the opposition faction, also gained.
But as far as the leaders were concerned, their target
was the opponent and not his sympathisers. What is
to be noted here is that the leaders did not suggest
the legal course of action to the tenants when they
themselves were contemplating upon buying the land.
Similarly, in the case of the Lingayat landowner's
land, it was no accident that the leaders took a
sympathetic attitude tnwards the landowner. It was the
only single largest plot of land in recent years by
Rajapura's standards. It had the added advantage of
being on the north-western tract and being adjacent to
the village settlemen~. Almost all the bigger land
owners had a secretly cherished desire to buy this land.
A few,. including the patel, his brothers, the headman
and his brother-in-law, and the political opponent
of the headman were the ones who could afford to buy
the land. But they all.wanted the land to come to
the market on the landowner's initiative so that they
could buy the land on their own terms. They were
also aware that if the tenants succeeded in claiming
their share of the land, the fragmented land loses its
value, and then it would be difficult to buy from many
rather than a single landowner. The aspirant
178 landowners were cert~in that it was a question of time
before the Lingayat landowner sold the land. Adding
to sucp speculation, the landowner himself had admitted
that he may have to sell the land to meet the marriage
expenses of his three growing daughters.
It was no accident that none of the tenants had
such relationship with the leaders that warranted a
suggestion and help in taking legal aid to press their
claims for land and to gain protection against eviction.
When one tenant made an application for confirmation of
occupancy rights, mqre so because of the pressure from
the other faction, a counter application was filed by
another tenant·for the same plot of land to make the
legal process complicated. However, neither had any
documents to support "his "claim.
-As it turned out during the years 1979-81, the
land came into market. The young headman was approached
by the landowner to buy the land. Having got married
a few months earlier and contested an election the
year before, the headman was not in a posi·tion to raise
the money to buy. A portion of the land has now been
bought by the headman's brother-in-law, who is an
engineer in the Karnataka Public Works Department. The
cultivation of this land is being supervised by the
headman. It is now being speculated in the village that
the ·Femaining portion of the,land will be bought by
179
either the headman or his brother-in-law, and by ~he
patel's younger brother. The two former tenants who
had applied for confirmation of occupancy rights had
agreed not to press their claims.
It thus becomes evident that the role played by
the village leaders was determined, above all, by their
personal and'kin interest or that of their faction.
It was, not tenancy reforms or tenants per~ who
. determined the merits of the cases, ·but who the tenants
or buyers were, and whether or not the. leaders them
selves were interested in buying the land. When this
was pointed out in a lighter vein to the two leaders
themselves, they commented that:· "·this is how it has
turned out to be in the f~l .analysis".
Going through the di~cussibn above, one may ask
why this special emphasi~ upon the role of the leaders?
.The answer to this also brings us to the consideration
of another question: How were the leaders able to play
their role?
Earlier, we referred to the relation of the
leaders with the officials and politicians at the taluk
and district level, which explains in part their
ability to manipulate events at the village level.
Secondly, the villagers, whether tenants or guyers of
land, were invariably dependent upon the leaders for
186
counselling in all matters concerning not only land but
also money, loan, market and matrimony. In the cas·e of
tenancy claims, during the course of obtaining and
filling up an application form, submitting it in time,
obtaining extracts of phani records and other documents
from the office of the vil~geaccountant at Doddi, and
the like, the tenants always needed the help of the
leaders of either faction. To pursue a course of action
without the guidance and support of the leaders meant
readiness to face all consequences on their own. The
leaders had a greater experience· in these matters, and
knew where to get certain kinds of information, Whom to
approach for certain kinds of favours, how to get things
donefaster in the revenue or other offices, and also how
much money to be pai~ as 'reward' (bribe) to the
officials1Q~ Further, it was not. uncommon for the
officials themselves to enquire with the people if,they
went on their own for their work~ 11Where is your gowda I
headman? 11 or 11what do your leaders think of this?".
In some more cases, the leaders request the officials
to adopt delay tactics or· to misguide the people so as
l2f It is said in the village and also in the Taluk, that the officials were usually satisfied with min~um sum of money as 'reward' (or bribe) when approached through the leaders.of the headman's faction that when approached through the leaders of the other faction or by themselves.
181
to manipulate the legal process for their own benefit or
to help their supporters. We were present when such.
officials reported many a time of these matters to the
leaders.
Added to the difficulties involved in gaining access
to proper documentary evidences, and the lack of adequate
legal counselling, there was also an important notion
p revalent among most of the tenants. One of the four
non-official members on the land tribunal was a regionally
dominant politicians, of whom the local leaders were
strong supporters·. The other members of the tribunal
were also members of the same political party supported
by the headman's faction. The tenants feared that if
they went to the land tribunal without the approval of
the leaders they may not succeed, because of the political
links with the headman and the members of the tribtinal.
However, officially it is claimed that it·i:s not
possible to effect individual biases by the members of
the tribunal. One top official claims that since the
tribunal consisted of four members and one ex-officio
member, it was not possible for the members to be biased.l2/
20/ . -- Based on Personal Interview with Sri M.A.S.Rajan,
the then Special Adviser, Land Reforms. See also (Rajan, 1979, p.l9) in which he 'states that the statistical probability of a member indulging in a biased decision is· 50 per cent, and that the likelihood of a four-man tribunal taking an unanimous prejudicted decision is one-sixth or 16.7 per cent.
182
However, it is possible ·for one member to influence the
other members. specially because they all belong to the
same political party or are protegees of the same poli-
tician appointing/nominating them. A few members of the
tribunal and a few officials of the land reforms cell
at the taluk level admitted the possibility of yielding
to prejudices and pressure. It was a common thing in
the villages from where the members of the tribunal
came to see tfieir houses being crowded by people-leaders
from other villages, tenants, and landowners-seeking
help from members 21( In complicated cases, the tribunal
members go for an 'on-the-spot' inspection in which the
biases of the members and of the local leaders play an
important role in twisting the case as per personal
prejudices.
As a result of all these reasons, a few tenants
who had contemplated upon taking to legal course of
action, even in the absence of support and counselling
from Rajapura leaders, had dropped the idea. The
leaders; therefore, become vital in all matters of
tenancy reforms who acted, as they admit, upon the
"merits of the case".
21( The position of membership in the land tribunal became an important one-socially, economically and pol~~ically. The members are said to have amassed wealth by virtue of their being members of the tribunal. see, for example, Manjappa (1984): Lalitha Nataraj ( 1980) •
183
Beneficiaris of Land Reforms
One of the slogans employed with regard to land
reforms has been "the land to the tillers", according
to which the beneficiaris should h3.ve been tenants
and the labourers. Many studies, however, point to
the contrary. (Joshi, 1979; Her.ring, 1980). Let us
examine who were the beneficiaries of land reforms in
Rajapura. Speaking in terms of definition, the
beneficiaries ought to be the tanants, who having been
tenant-cultivators obtain the occupancy rights and
subsequently by paying the premium and land revenue,
will become owners of the land. It implies, then,
that the 'beneficiqries• are the ones who obtained the
occupancy rights or ownership rights.through the legal
process under the 'Land Refonn Act. In Rajapura,· we
·have to distinguish between those who first arrived at
a settlement and later formalised their settlement
underthe Land Reforms Act, and those who had the
settlement only through the legal process. We may
group almost aln the buyers of Ramapalya land and the
land belonging to the absentee owners in Rajapura in
the former category, whether or not all the buyers
were genuine tenants of the land.
The initial settlement of Ramapalya tenanted land
was done with regard to 16 buyers from Rajapura,
184
involving 89.74 acres of land; nine buyers were Muslims
·from the neighbouring village Kuppe involving 48.24
acres of land; and the remaining 17.71 acres of land
was retained by the landowner and his family members.
Among the buyers of the land from Rajapura, 56 per cent
were recent immigrants, who among themselves bought
about 46 acres. Further, among the immigrants who
bought the land, 56 per cent were already owners of land
in Rajapura, while 44 per cent were landless. Some of
these landless immigrants had come to settle in the
village unde,r the practice of manevalthana, in which ,• ,-·
the son-~n-law begins to manage his father-in-law's
household. Ultimately the daughter inherits the property. ~
Thus ma·hy such landless had 'landed interests • in this
manner. .Many among the landless immigrants were in fact
former landowners who had sold their lands and were
waiting for investment in new land.
Similarly,, in the more recent cases of Muslim land'
own.er• s tenanted land, the beneficiaries we're by and
large owners of land. A few of the beneficiaries owned
more than ten acres of land; one of them owned as many
as 22 acres. It can, thus, be seen that most of the
beneficiaries were landowners themselves (See, Herring,
1980, for a similar finding in Kerala).
185
Land Transactions in the Wake of Land Reforms
Given the nature of implementation of land reforms,
what is its impact upon agrarian relations in Rajapura?
rlS one can foresee, there may result a contraction or
disappearance of tenant-landowner relationship, in which
the tenant is either evicted or is able to obtain the
occupancy rights over the land and perhaps, the ownership
rights. Consequently, the evicted landless tenant may
become a landless labourer, or if he had held any land
of his own, will remain a mere landowner after eviction.
A successful tenant after the reforms becomes a land-
owner or a bigger landowner than before (See, rFig.: 1).
In o~der to examine the impact of land reforms in : ·,: . ,,
Rajap~a, we have identified such land transactions
taking plqce betwe9n 1950 and 1978, invo1ving tenancy
cultivation; eviction of tenants, or tenants buying the
land or gaining occupancy rights through the land
reform legislation. This data has been gathered from the
residents of the village, and in a few cases, from
absentee landowners who sold the land, now living in
Magadi town, Bangalore City and other places. The data
presented in Table 8 has been quantified by adjusting
t0e incidence of partition of family, involving the
division of family property. Thus, for example, if a
EVICTED
LANDLESS LABOURER
~LAND REFORMS~ .
LAND LESS . LAND OWNING TENANTS TENANTS
I / I
BOUGHT LAND BOUGHT LAND OR C
/~ LAND
OWNER BIGGER
LAN.O OWNER
I EVICTED
LAND OWNER
+o.R.C Occupancy Rights Confirmed~ under section 48 (a), Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1974.
FIG-I. OUTCOME OF LAND REFORMS.
TABLE 8. Land Reforms and Land Transactions (1950-1978)
Cultivator's St·3.tus
-Landless te-nants
Lando~irig , tenants
Total
N
Evicted %
66.7(10)
37.2 (16)
44.8
(26)
Bought for self %
13.3(2)
9.3(4)
10.3
(6)
Bought to sell %
4 0 6 (2)
3.4
(2)
Bought partly self/ selling
6.6(1)
11.6 (5)
10.3
(6)
187
O.R.C/ Total Pending -----
No.To-tal
13.3(2) 15 100
37.2(16)43 100
31.0
(18)
58 100
respondent's father (or grandfather, as the case may be)
had, say, two children who were our respondenns, such
cases have been treated as one case and not more.·
Further, the landowning or landless status of the res-..
pondents has been recorded here as at the time of
transaction. In some cases, the ten~nt w~s' evicted
by one landlord, but the S3.me ten:mt vias able to buy
or claim occupancy rights with anothEr landowner. In
such cases, the latter has been taken into account,
i.e., as having 'bought the land' or 'obt~ined the
confirmation of occupancy rights, as the case may be.
Finally, cases referred to as "evicted" pertain mainly
to the eviction by absentee landowners, although there
are a few evicted tenants of the local landowners, whom
we could identify as having been tenants for more than
3-4 years.
Tables 8 and 9 together give us an ·indication of
the impact of land reforms upon the two agrarian
categories~ the landless and landowners. We find
that a majority of tenants (74.1 per cent) were
landowning tenants, \1-lhile the landless were a small
minority (25.9 per cEnt) (Table 8). This is in keeping
with the fact th3.t landowners generally seek tenants
from among the landowning cultivators who not only have
a skill but also capital, cattle, manure and agricultu-
ral tools to cultivate the land efficiently.
189
Table-9 BUyers Of Land In The Wake Of Land Reforms
Non-tenant
buyers
A. Immigrants
i) Landless I>
ii) Landowners
B. Residents
i) Landless
ii) Landowners
(1950-1978)
(In Percentage)
Bought for self
94.7
100.0
33.3
Bought for self Total and partly to sell No %
5.3 19 100.0
1 100.0
66.7 9 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------~
Total 75.9
(n) ( 22)
24.1 29 (100.0)
(7)
190
In the ''evicted tenants' category (Table 8), more
than 60 per cent of the 26 evicted ten~nts were land
owners, while the proportion of 'landless tenants'
evicted is smaller. This may be explained as under:
A good number of landowning tenants, particularly the
residents or the ones who had settled in the village
for a long time, had leased in land for reasons other
than merely_ a need for cultivating more land or to
produce more. Some of them had leased in simply
because there was plenty of land available, or to
obtain some land for their immigrant relative, while
in some other cases, for sub-letting. However, many
of them v1ere not keen. in buying the Jand of which they
were tenants. O.n the other hand, a majority of the
evicted tenw.nts were recent immigrants., or were of non
-Okkaliga castes like Lamba.ni, Odda., Holeya and Madiga.
Some of them had left the village during 1957-58 and
again 1962-1964, when there had been a crop failure.
Nevertheless, eQ"il:;!tion of landowning tenants did occur
in a few cases where the landowner was keen on buying
the land but could not afford to compete with others.
We have observed earlier that the general pattern
was that more than the 'tenants' the others were able
to buy the land in the wake of land reforms. Many sue~
people as well as those who had made use of the land
tribunals to"regularise the transactions also are
included under the c~tegory 'D.R.C.' in Table a.
Further, if we exclude those who bought lands in
order to sell them either in part or fully to
others, Q0.3 and 3.4 per cent respectively), the
above state.ment appe:1rs to be true. Many such
tenants bought land, even if to sell partly to
others, by depriving other tenants of their right
191
to cultivate it or an opportunity to buy it. Finally,
the proportion of ten:1nts buying the land is higher
among the landowning tenants than the landless
tenants. Similarly, the proportion of tenants who
resorted to legal course of action is·higher among
the landowning tenants than the landless tenants.
The last two observations have to be viewed in the
light of the fact that it is dependent on the very
access tenants have for tenancy cultivation, capital
to buy land and above all the support of local leaders.
Finally; we shall examine the instance of non
tenants buying land which had been under tenancy culti
vation, therefore causing eviction of tenants. Table 9
presents 29 such cases, in which the buyers of the land
were not tenants themselves. The land belonged mainly
to the absentee landowners, and all these had been
sold in order to evade Land Reforms Legislation or
because the landowner could not continue to lease
because of the Act.
192
In Table 9, a distinction bet\veen 'immigrants' and
1 residents 1 has .been made to show the~ to which
the availability of land attracted people from outside
the village to settle in Rajapura, and also the extent
to which the local tenants had to face displacement on
account of such immigrants buying the land. There are
instances in which a buyer had caused eviction of more
than four tenants. In some other cases, the buyer had
fabricated the records to obtain the confirmation of
occupancy or to ratify the purchase, through the land
reforms legislation23(
More than two-thirds (69 per cent) of the buyers
9f land were immigrants. ·With the exception of one
buyer, all of them were landless at the time of buying
the land. i~ong them only one had bought land to partly
sell to others. Further, it may be noted that no land-
less resident bought the land. In contrast to the
'immigrant l~ndless 1 buyers, only a third of the resident
landowning buyers bought the land exclusively for them-
selves, while the remaining bought it to sell it to
some others.,. ...... mainly to their relatives and sponsors.
~/ See Case 2 pertaining to Ramapalya lands.
193
The impact of -land refqrms in Rajapura becomes
clearer if we note the observations from Tables 8 and
9 keeping in mind the pattern presented in Figure-r.
While a few landless tenants were evicted. a still
larger number of landless immigrants were transformed
into 'lando~nera• as a result of the transactions that
took place in the wake of land reforms. As we shall . 23/
have an occasion to note late~ the 'landless-tenant•
turned .'landless agricultural labourer' began to have
opportunities of becoming a sharecropper or tenant in
the coming years. We may. however. note for the present
that the change in the status of 'landless tenant' into
'landless labourer' was. for him, reverse a mobility
process: From 'landless labourer• to being a 1 landless
tentant' was. an indication of upward mouility. But
now following his eviction, he returned to being a
'landless labourer', which is downward mobility.
Further. as we noted earlier. such landless tenants
or members of their family were also working as
agricultural labourers even though they were tenant
cultivators. There were instances where one or two
See chapter V.
194
sons had been attached as bonded labourers, and the
female members working as wage labourers during the
seasons of weeding, planting and harvest, if not
round the year. Hence, neither their becoming tenants,
nor later downward mobility had any significant
impact upon their social and economic status.
Eviction of landowning tenants, on the other hand,
did not alter their social status significantly, in
which the change was from being landowning tenants to
now being merely landowners. As noted earlier, the need
for tenancy was mainly to procure land for their
immigrant relatives or other sponsored tenants, rather
than for the income to be derived from tenancy cultiva
tion by themselves. However,. in some cases, the displaced
landowning tenant had now "-ith him •. surplus labour, or
had to seek wage labour in order to supplement the
household income.
When a landless tenant bought the land, or more
recently, obtained the occupancy rights, a change
occured= he now became a landowner. One of the
results, of his transformation was that he need not
give a portion of his produce as rent to the landowner,
and therefore has a higher income for himself. Among
the three landless tenants who acquired land by buying
or "through reforms only one of them (Case 1., above)
195
had a marked change in his life style; he had adequate
income from land to support the education of one of
his sons. As such the family had no history o~ having
worked as labourers before or after buying the land,
but they did cultivate land as tenants of another land-
owner for sometime, a portion of which also they later
bought. Initially the family had to raise a loan in
order to buy theland, which was advanced by the head-
man in return for the favour of selling part of the land
to him. Another landless tenant, an Odda by caste, had
at one time been a bonded labourer24( However, even
af.ter buying the land the three of them continued to be
tenants of other landowners, until they bought some
more lands. Although in an indirect. way the coming
of land reforms helped these three landless tenants,
there had been a greater number of tenants displaced
and reduced to being agricultural labourers •.
For the landowning tenants, the impact was that
when they bought the land, they now came to own bigger
holdings. Nearly 60 per cent of the landowning \
tenants were benefitted in this manner. The implica-
tions are that, first, those among such landowners who
were occasionally working as agricultural labourers
£!/ This person informs us that he worked as bonded labourer for about three years so as to save money and be able to buy some land in the end. After having .bonded, he secured tenancy with the Ramapalya land, but was soon evicted. Later having been a tenant of another plot of land, he was successful in buying it.
196
could now afford to engage in merely supervising the
work of agricultural labourers or employ bonded
labourers to meet the increased work on fields, or
rely upon exchange labour. Secondly, the transers
of land, by and large, strengthened the hands of the
already well-to-do farmers than the so called weaker
sections of the society.
Coming to the incidence of people buying land
thereby causing the eviction of other tenants, (see,
Table 9) it may be said that _the landless immigrants
who bought the land not only became landowning immi-
grants,; but also gave a market for the local labour
supply. In some cases, the evicted landless tenants
themselves had entered bonded service with such land-
owners. ·Further, .. the .coming of immigrant lan_downers
and transformation of some landless tenants into land-. . owners also gave a new lease of life for the traditiona·l
jajma..!!.:!:_ relations, concerning both the ritual a:nd
secular services. For exampleg the services of smith
and barber for all the new landowners, the thot~
(village servant) to be present at all the proceedings
of the village council and settligg disputes, etc.
197
Continuities of Traditional Agraria.n Relations
It is true that as a result of the absentee land
owners.selliing away their land in Rajapura, or loosing
their land through.the land reform legislation, there
was a contraction of tenant-landowner relations in
Rajapura. But, the tenant-landmmer relations having
thus minimised for a while, began to reappear gradually.
In some cases, their reappearance may be attributed to
the very coming of land reforms~
Dur~ng the years 1975-76, there were some instances
of ~tenants' applying to the land tribunal for confirma
tion of tenancy/occupancy right~s.. There was one parti
cular case i'nvolving the land belonging to the temP'les .in
the village. There are two temples with L:i;.ngayats offi-·
qiating as the priests. Each of the two temples has some
kodige (inam) land, which was enjoyed by the officiating
priests. The offices of the priests are not heredital~~
for no Lingayat· household has lived for more than 20 years
in the village owing to, among other reasons_, the Okkaliga
dominance. In 1975, one of the priests made an applicati~n
for confirmation of occupancy rights for the land of the
temple of which he was the priest. It is also said that
the priest was a sympathiser with the faction. opposed to
198
the headman and the patel, and that he was induced by
the other faction to apply for rights over the land~/.
Thanks to the information network that the headman
maintained with the bureaucracy, he was informed of the
applicat_ion! Apart from the village leaders, the
whole viLlage was alarmed at this development, for they
have a strong attachment to the temple. The headman
and his faction were successful in getting the applica-
tion wit(ldrawn.
Following this incident it was decided that priests
were not to be ent:r:u·sted ·with 1 temple lands. The
priest in the mea.1t.J.mc 1.:.:ft the village in cognito.
It is alleged that he took away valuables belonging to
the temple and emptied the granary of the temple.
Following this incident, in 1976, the village leaders
decided to allow the priests to cultivate only a portion
of the temple lands.
Thus out of about 12 acres of land belonging to the
temple. under question, only 5 acres; and from the other
temples 7.50 and ; about 2.50 acres were earmarked for
the two priests respectively. The remaining lands were
£2/ The leader of this other faction is a Lingayat living in the neighbouring village Doddi.
199
to be auctioned for a term of one year. The twelve
acres of land was divided into about five smaller
plots ·and the bidder offering the highest rent in cash
v1as given the right to cultivate the land for one year.
Thus the 'fear of land reforms' now gave room to a
kind of institutionalised land leasing. We may also
mention here~ that the tenants of the land have not been
regular in paying the rent, while the leaders of the
opposition faction accuse the village leadership of
embe_zzling the money. The newer tenants in the subsequent
years refused to pay the rent until they were shown the
accounts of income from the leasing out of temple lands
in previous years. Now that the collection of rent has
not been regular, auction in the previous two years
witpessed severe competition. Big landowners were found
to be bidding huge and impossible sums for the rights
of cultivation of· temple lands. · One landless Madiga
remarked: "Because they know that they do not have "Go
pay the rent, ·they are bidding sky high rents. If
only they had arranged to lease out the land to th~
landless like us, we,would have been benefited. They
will not dp so, for if they do,who will come to thej,r
houses to work and 'split the ragi ball'". 261
~/ "Avara Mane Hittu Muriyoke ~aru bartarey?" implying .that who will be bonded labourers in th~ir houses a9d 'eat the ragi balls they give us'.
I
200
We may note another important manner in which.tenancy
and sharecropping persists in the village. Many people
owning property in the undivided family from the village
now live in other places like Bangalore city, TUmkur,
Ramanagaram~ etc., with their salaried occupations.
Often their earning is also invested in buying the land
in Rajapura. Such land may have been cultivated by the
members of the undivided family. However, when the
family property is divided among the brothers, such
non-resident brothers invariably demand a share in the
landed property. It is rare that a brother, who comes
out of the joint family, remains on cordial terms with
his.other brothers. As a result, the land has to be
.entrusted to members outside the family for tenancy l .
cult~vation or sharecropping. There are more than ten
such cases in Rajapura today, while a few others share
crpp with their brothers. Proper care is taken to
ensure'that the tenant does not make a claim for rights
over ~he ·land, by checking personally with the village
accountant, and by cqanging the tenants as often as
possibl~.
However,, a major reason for the revival and conti-
nuity of sharecropping and tenancy is the introduction
of a new crop~ mulberry, and of sericulture in the
village. Its technology requires intensive cultivation
201
for better returns, and a greater need for labour. In
the fo"llowing chapter, we shall examine the nature of
changes that occured as a result of sericulture and
note how there is continuity in some other aspects of
agrarian relations.