THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY September, i8 , 1954

Travancore - Cochin Land Tenure Reform Thomas Shea

TH E six land tenure bills tabled by the Praja-Socialist Gov­

ernment in Travancore-Cochin have variously been described as confis­catory, well-thought-out, half-heart­ed, unsocialistic, and retrogressive. They have received the approval of the Congress Party and the Central Government, but are regarded as inadequate by the left opposition. The bills fall into two broad classes; four of them seek to unify legisla­tion throughout the slate by extending the application of acts passed before the integration in one or the other of the two states to the merged state as a whole, the other two introduce entirely new legislation. A l l the bills have been circulated for the purpose of elicit­ing popular opinion, and w i l l be hi ought before the Assembly in October for discussion. The Reve­nue Minister, introducing the bills, quoted wi th approval the fol lowing statement from the Report of the Congress - sponsored Travancore-Cochin Land Policy Committee set up in 1950, the recommenda­tions of which the PSP - Govern­ment has generally followed:

" A policy for land may be considered adequate in the mea­sure in which now and in com­ing years, it reduces disparities in wealth and income, eliminates exploitation, provides security for tenant and worker, and finally, promises equality of status and opportunity to different sections of the rural population."

The PSP election manifesto pro­mised legislation to provide for security of tenure and fixity of rent, and assured voters that steps would be taken to make land ownership as equitable as possible. As it: d id not go beyond these rather general statements, it is necessary to turn to the more complete statement of policy adopted by the PSP in its Allahabad conference of January 1954. Then ' it advocated a policy that Would put a stop to a l l eject-ments of tenants and would pro­vide that by the end of a 5-year period of Praja-Socialist rule, the maximum holding in any state w o u l d be three times the uni t of land that a family could cultivate wi thout using hired labour or mechanization. A l l land thus made available for re-distribution wou ld be allotted to landless labourers

w i t h the object of providing evert agricultural family wi th a plot . (See Statement of Policy, published by PSP, Bombay, 1954,, p 7.)

UPHILL TASK

The task of achieving this aim w i l l not be easy. Travancore-Cochin, more than any other state in India , suffers f rom excessive sub­division and fragmentation of hold­ings, , from the pressure of large numbers of non-productive inter­mediaries, and from 'a bewildering mul t ip l ic i ty of tenures. This may, in part, be traced to the widespread survival of feudal tenures, and in part , to problems arising from the unusually severe pressure of popu­lation on the land and the absence of alternative avenues of invest­ment for capital or employment for labour. The task of disentangling the intricate1 tenure relationships as a preliminary to realising the party's goal has not yet begun: in fact, the Travancore - Cochin Government intimated to the Centre recently that a census of land holdings and cult ivat ion was not essential. This is surprising, for- the statistics now used by Government spokesmen to describe the present tenure set-up in the stale are more misleading than helpful and their uncritical accept­ance in the formulation of land legislation may lead that legislation wide of its mark. When the Reve­nue Minister, for example, cited figures from his own department to show that concentration of holdings in the hands of a few landlords was not typical of Travancore-Cochin. lie weakened his own argument for caution by suggesting that the: prob­lem was simple enough to be com­pressed w i th in the confines of a simple frequency distribution table (shown below).

PATTADAR IS NOT ALWAYS OWNER 'The term " pattadar " which is

used in the above table and in many reputed works on tenure problems in the South as synony­mous wi th " o w n e r " has in prac­tice little to do wi th ownership. ' ' Patta " originally meant " r e n t " ; the term has since acquired the more restricted meaning of an obli­gation to pay land revenue. A pattadar or patta-holder is a per­son, under the ryotwari system in Madras and its counterpart in T r a -vancore-Cochin, who is held respon­sible by the government for meeting land assessments. He maw as in most of the T a m i l districts of M a d ­ias, be the owner. It was the intention of the devisers of that system that he should he. Today, on the West Coast, however, the actual holder of a patta is more often a superior tenant. Tie is held responsible for the payment of land revenue although the assessment is often paid out of the landlord's share, and the title to the land continues to remain with the land­lord, or " jenini". No court, either in Madras or Travancore-Corhin, wi l l admit, a patta certificate as evi­dence of ownership. Issuance of pattas is based upon village records, one patta being" issued to each land­holder in a village for all of his holdings therein. 'Those holding land in more than one village wi l l possess pattas corresponding in number to the number of villages in which they hold land. Holdings of many large West Coast landlords are typically scattered in small par­cels throughout as many as hun­dred villages. Often they have given the pattas individually or in groups to tenants under them. Since the patta refers neither to a

September 18, 1954 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY un i t of ownership, nor to a u n i t of cul t ivat ion, i t is in fact tedudess as a concept expressing tenure rela­tionships. Yet it is the only un i t in which land tenure statistics in , the state are maintained. As no record of rights has ever been prepared, and as the Travancore-Cochin Gov­ernment is not anxious to undertake a census of holdings, our knowledge of tenancy problems is confined

almost entirely to a few sample sur­veys, severely restricted in scope, and to literature w i t h a legal rather than a statistical emphasis. T h e fol lowing example, which is a simpli­fied outline of actual tenure condi­tions widely prevailing in the West Coast area, w i l l illustrate the agon­izing complexity of the task facing legislators who desire to implement the slogan of " land to the t i l ler V.

the state, where the system does not prevail , similar tenure conditions persist to nearly the same degree.

INFINITE COMPLEXITY—AN EXAMPLE

A landlord, or jenmi , G, pos­sesses i o o acres of land, w h i c h he has leased out to 5 tenants' T e n -ants A, B, and C hold 4 acres each from h i m under indiv idual pattas. Tenant D holds 44 acres of a land under 4 separate pattas, and tenant E holds 44 acres under 11 pattas of 4 acres each.

Tenant A is also a j enmi own­ing 20 acres, which he leases out to two. tenants, each of w h o m holds single pattas for 10 acres. One of them cultivates the land himself, the other sublets 5 acres each to two cul t ivat ing tenants. A's 4-acre holding as a tenant under G is sub­divided in to 3 plots, each of which is let out to a cul t ivat ing tenant.

Tenant B is also a jenmi ho ld­ing 8 acres leased out to 2 tenants, each of whom holds a single patta for 4 acres. He is also a tenant under 3 jenmis: G, f rom whom he holds a patta for 4 acres, subdivid­ed in to 2 plots, both of which he has leased out to cult ivat ing ten­ants; H, from whom he holds a patta f o r . 4 acres, which he cul t i ­vates himself; and I , f rom whom he holds 2 pattas of 5 acres each, subdivided into two plots, which he cultivates himself.

Tenant C holds 4 acres under jenmi G, which -he cultivates h i m ­self, along w i t h 5 acres held as a sub-tenant under tenant B.

Tenant D has 44 acres all under jenmi G and holds no jenmom land. His land, held under 4 pattas of 11 acres each is sublet to 22 ten­ants, each of whom holds 2 acres fragmented into ½-acre plots each, and sublet to cul t ivat ing tenants.

Tenant E has 44 acres in 11 four-acre pattas under jenmi G and 10 acres under one patta under ten­ant A in his capacity as a j enmi . H a l f of his 44 acres are leased out to 2 tenants, each of w h o m cu l t i ­vates 11 acres.

According to the revenue depart­ment's classification scheme, the 100 acres actually owned by one landlord would thus appear to be held by 18 small proprietors. Whereas 88 per cent of the land in this example is held in two equal portions by two tenant-pattadars, the revenue department's classification scheme would show 56 per cent of the land to be in the hands of 14 pattadars w i t h less than 4 acres

1042

September 18, 1954 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY

these lands, governed by a combi­nation of custom and court deci­sions, are exceedingly diverse; but in most cases, tenants' rights are less well defined than elsewhere, in the state and opportunities for abuse of privilege by landowners greater.

Legislators desiring to implement the Socialist Party's avowed pro­gramme in Travancore-Gochin must (1) introduce a uniform tenancy pattern throughout the state and (2) eliminate non-cultivating land­lords and intermediaries without impoverishing those who have no other means of livelihood and at the same time without saddling the state (and the peasants, who u l t i ­mately must pay) w i th a harden of compensation so great as to dis­courage initiative among the cul t i ­vating classes. Many intermediaries in Travancore-Cochin derive most of their income from non-agricul­tural sources and have been in the habit of investing their surplus in­come in land w i t h the same motives a shareholder has when he buys stock. Al though a large proportion of them are small tenants, to treat them in an identical manner w i th a small tenant whose sole source of income is from land and award them full compensation would be unfair to those upon whom the burden of compensation ultimately falls. It is therefore necessary that some means be devised for distin­guishing between those right-holders whose income would be seriously depleted by being deprived of their holdings and those upon whom the effects would rest l ightly, in addi­tion to devising a. sliding scale of compensation for the different land­ed capital and income brackets. Four of the bills have the first ob­jective in mind.

KANAM TENANCY The. Kanam Tenancy Bill seeks

to apply the povisions of the T r a -vanoore Jejuni and K u d i y a n ^Amendment) Regulation ( X I I of 1933) to Cochin. The entire act is an almost verbatim draft of the above regulation and unamended portions of an earlier Jenmi and K u d i y a n Regulation (V of 1896) w i t h two exceptions. To under­stand its provisions, it is necessary to know the nature of Kanam tenure. A Kanamdar is a tenant who holds land for a period of 12 years f rom a jejuni ( landlord) on payment of a lump sum, called Kanartham (viewed in different areas variously as a mortgage

amount and as a security deposit)

together w i t h an annual rent f rom which interest due to the Kanamdar on the Kanar tham is deducted. T h e tenure is renewable every 12 years upon payment of a renewal fee fixed in Travancore by the Jenrni and Kudiyan Regulation of 1896 at 271 per cent of t h e Kanar­tham. As defined in this and sub­sequent legislation, it amounts to a fu l l occupancy right, the j e n m i being left solely w i t h the r ight to receive rent and dues. The b i l l proposes to reduce the renewal fee to the equivalent of one year's rent, and to make it payable in 12 annual instalments along wi th the rent (sect 2, definitions 1 and 13; sect 3 ) . These provisions have been adopted from the Cochin Tenancy Act XV of 1938. which, however, was in other respects less '' progres­sive " than the Travancore Act, in that its applicability was l imited to kanam tenancies created in or before 1905. The other modifica­t ion (section 10) specifies that the kanam rent shall not be liable to alteration or revision " at any time ".

PREVENTION OF EVICTION

The Prevention of Eviction of Kudikidappukars Bill is an almost verbatim reproduction of the T r a ­vancore Prevention of Eviction Act of 1950, which provides that al l tenants shall have permanent r ight of occupancy of house sites (kudi-ki dap pus) rented from landlords. However, the bi l l as well as the earlier act specifies nine: conditions under which the tenant is liable to eviction.

The Verumpattamdars Bill ap­plies to a set of tenants who t radi­tionally held lands on simple pay­ment of rent and who form by far the largest class of tenants in the state. The word in Malayalam means simple or ordinary tenure. Prior to the r e c e n t legisla­t ion in Gochin, this class of tenure-holders was treated as tenants-at-w i l l . The: b i l l is based upon the provisions of the Gochin Verumpat-tamdars' Act of 1943, but contains several modifications. Fixi ty of tenure1 is conferred upon al l verum-pattamdars subject to the fol lowing circumstances under which eviction is permitted (section 7 ) : (1) w i l ­fu l denial of the landlord's title by the tenant, (2) w i l fu l commission of acts of waste, (3) permission for encroachment on the holding by a stranger, (4) in event " that at the end of an agricultural year the j enmi needs the land or part there­of bona fide for his own cult ivation

or. for that of any member of his family . " .", (5) in event that the " jenmi needs the holding or par t thereof bona fide for the purpose of construction of a bui lding for his own residence or for that of any member of his f a m i l y " , and ((5) in event that the owner, a trustee of a temple, mosque, or church, needs the holding for extension of the above buildings, subject to the Dis­tr ict Collector's approval.

The provisions for eviction for self-cultivation and bui lding were absent from the Gochin Act . Their inclusion in this b i l l is cer­tain to provoke opposition f rom the leitist members of the Assembly. PSP members of the Madras Assem­bly fought hard last January to have1 similar clauses removed from the? Malabar Tenancy Act of 1930, upon which this important section 7 of the Travaruore-Cochin bil l has been based. This b i l l also fixes an unalterable schedule of fair rent for verumpattant tenants as follows (section 10) : for wet lands, ¼ of the gross produce, for dry lands M the net produce, and for coconut groves ¼ of the gross produce. In all cases, if the existing contract rent is lower, it is to remain un­changed. Verumpattamdars mav buy the rights of intermediaries by paying 81/3 times the intermediaries' profits (section 18) and are given fust option of purchasing lands leased to them (section 19).

IMPROVEMENTS TO BE COMPENSATED

The Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Bill is an almost ver­batim reproduction of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Im­provements Act (Madras Act I of 1901). It provides for payment of compensation to tenants for im­provements made by them on lands they hold in case of eviction. Com­pensation is to be computed at the present value at 6 per cent of an annuity of the money value for the number of years during which im­provements' effects are to continue. This act in a somewhat modified version formed Chapter 2 of the Gochin Tenancy Act of 1938.

RESTRICTIONS ON OWNERSHIP

The remaining two bills are entirely new pieces of legislation and are aimed at el iminating or restricting land ownership.

The Special Rights in Lands-Abo­lition Bill abolishes, on payment of compensation, the rights of the Shri Padmanabhaswamy Temple, the Sreepadam Palace, and the

1044

THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY September 18, 1954

four hereditary Edavagai Chiefs. Compensation, fixed at 162/3 times the present rent of tenants holding directly under the special tenure holders, is to be paid directly by the government as follows: ¼ in cash to be paid as soon as the b i l l becomes law and § to be paid in 4 per cent bonds redeemable after 6 years. The total amount is to be recovered by the government from the tenants in 17 annual instal­

ments. At the end of the ,17-year period, the tenant-owners w i l l be required to pay only the basic land tax. The total area affected by this b i l l is only 1,65,000 acres. Compensation is expected to amount to roughly Rs 55,00,000. Rent now paid by tenants is estimated at Rs 3,50,000 and basic land tax to be realized s u b s e q u e n t l y at Rs 2,50.000. 'The ini t ia l outlay of

the aggregate compensation w i l l

be roughly 18,00,000 or about i per cent of this year's budget. It is' wor thy of note that Kandukr ishi lands, or home farms of the Raj -pramukh, as well as several other categories of inams and special tenures are not included in this b i l l . ' '

The Restriction on Possession and Ownership of Land Bill applies, however, to all categories of land wi th only a few exceptions. the

September 18, 1954 T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y

most important of w h i c h are Co­operative fa rming societies, religious institutions, plantation, and. hold­ings of public companies, It is divided into two parts. The first limits the area of lame which may be held by a person of his family; the second places a l i m i t on the amount of land he can acquire for ownership in the future. If a per­son has in his personal or family possession more than the ceiling, he is obliged to sell, lease, or other­wise dispose of the excess wi th in six months of the commencement of the act. In event he fails to do so, the government may lease, the excess land on his behalf. The rent on land so leased, it is speci­fied, shall be the fair rent as laid down in the Verumpattamdars' Bi l l and shall he paid by the gov­ernment to the possessor of the lands in question.

The section l imi t ing future acqui­sition of ownership states that any­one who. after the commencement of the act, acquires land which separately or together wi th land already owned is in excess of that laid down in the schedule shall be obliged to transfer ownership of the. excess by sale or otherwise w i t h i n six months of the date of acquisi­tion. The limits both on present possession and future ownership are

For the purpose of calculating the aggregate of land coming under more than one category, one acre of double-crop wet land on coconut land is taken to equal 1½ acres of single-crop wet land or 2 acres of drv land. Special allowances are made for families of more than 5 members up to a max imum of 1662/3 per cent of the basic schedule. Thus, the most a family of 10 or more members could acquire, inclu-sive of land already in their posses-

would be, say, 25 acres of land, 50 acres of dry land,

or a combination of both as speci­fied in tin- formula. In event that the ownce to comply wi th the provisions -p--: lied, rights over the excess land required w i l l be trans­ferred to the government and the government wi l l p.ev to the owner 16 2/3 times the last t payable under the Verumpat inadars ' Act as compensation. Provisionis made for a Land Tr ibuna l composed of

senior government officials of ex-officials of a district oft higher level which will be made responsible for the implementation of the set. .

NO LIMIT ON PRESENT HOLDING

' I t must be stresed that th is b i l l in no way restricts this amount of land a person, or a family may own, provided he or they owned it before the b i l l becomes law. It in effect crystallizes ownership pat­terns in roughly their present form. If A, for example, owning before the passing of the b i l l 300 acres of land, acquires by purchase 10 acres of double crop wet land, the pur­chase, according to the b i l l , w i l l be nu l l and void ; if he acquires the land by any means other than pur­chase, such as gift, he w i l l be oblig­ed to transfer ownership of the excess land outside his immediate family wi th in 6 months of the date of acquisition or notify the govern­ment of the particulars of the t ran­saction, whereupon the government w i l l assume, on payment of the specified compensation, ownership of the 10 acres. If B, owning 10 acres of double-crop wet land, acquires 10 acres mote of the same type of land, fie w i l l be obliged to dispose of 5 of the aggregate 20 acres of land wi th in 6 months. If he fails to do this, he must notify the government, whereupon he may choose1 the particular 15 acres which he wishes to retain from the aggregate and transfer ownership of the residue to the govermne':' on payment of com-p a r a t i o n . In this way, too, a per­son owning 5 acres of wet land and 10 acres of dry land who is desirous of expanding his wet land acreage might purchase 10 acres of wet land and transfer ownership of the dry land. If C owns 100 acres of coconut lands, of which 30 are under direct cult ivation by h i m , he wi l l be obliged to lease out 15 acres directly cultivated, but his owner­ship of the 100 acres w i l l not be disturbed.

COMPARISON WITH MALABAR TENANCY ACT

An appreciation of the similarity or difference between legislation sponsored by the PSP and that of the Congress may best be obtained by comparing the Travancore-Cochin bills w i t h the Malabar Ten­ancy Act of 10,30 ( w i t h its various amendments, the latest of which was passed in 1954). Tenures in Malabar, although not identical w i th those prevailing in Travan-core-Cochin, are sufficiently similar

to make such a comparision mean-ingfa l . T h e M a l a b a r A c t , a s i t stands today, has conferred upon the kanamdar f u l l occupancy rights. His position in terms of security of tenure is identical w i t h that of the tenant i n the K a n a m Tenancy B i l l . In addit ion, renewals have ' been abolished and the kanamdar is thus not obliged to pay renewal fees. The jenini , although defined in the Malabar Act as the " absolute pro­prietor of the. soil ," has similar, a l ­though not identical, rights and obligations where his tenants arc kanamdars to the j enmi in the K a n a m Tenancy Bi l l . The Verurn-pattamdars' Bil l gives that class of tenant fixity of tenure subject to six instances in which he may be evicted, but restricts the applicabi­l i ty of the " bona fide self-cultiva­tion " clause (see above) to veruin-pattam tenants who have held their lands for a period of less than 12 years. The Malabar Tenancy Act as amended in 1954 includes an additional ground of evict ion: non­payment of rent. This act goes further than the b i l l , however, in that tenants in continuous possession of their lands for 6 years or more arc exempted from the " bona fide self-cult ivat ion" clause. As the provisions of the Madias Tenants and Ryots Protection Act of 1947, periodically renewed, had in effect stayed the eviction of all tenants lor a 7-year period, unt i l its lapse at the l ime of the passing of the 1954 Act, the " bona fide self-culti­vation " clause is inoperative. In cases of eviction, provision for com­pensation included in both pieces of legislation are identical, as the Compensation for Tenants' I m ­provements Bi l l has been adopted verbatim from the earlier Madras Act of 1901.

FAIR RENT

Schedules of fair rent occupy an entire chapter of sixteen sections in the Malabar Tenancy Act , and arc hence far more elaborate than the two-section provision in the Ve rum­pattamdars' Bi l l . U n l i k e the Veruinpattamdars' B i l l , the M a l a ­bar Act provides one or more spe­cial rent courts to determine and enforce fair rent provisions—a less costly procedure- to the applicant. The Malabar Ac t follows roughly the fol lowing schedule:

wet lands ½ net gardens (coconut) 1/8- to 1/3 gross dry lands 1/5 net

Net produce in tho case of paddy is defined as gross produce less cost

1046

THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY September 18, 1954

of cult ivat ion, which is f i x e d by the Act at 25 paras ( roughly 316 lbs) of paddy. Where yields are much higher than costs, the rate of fair rent w i l l be proport ion­ately higher in Malabar than in Travancore-Cochin, u n l e s s rent courts in Malabar utilize the powers they have under the act to vary the cost of cult ivat ion. If a piece of land, for example, yields 100 paras of paddy and cost of cultiva­t ion is 25 paras, rent in Malabar would be 37½ paras and in Travan­core-Cochin only 25. If the yield is 60 paras, rents in Malabar would be 17.½ paras, as compared w i t h 25 in Travancore-Cochin.

The Verumpattamdars , Bi l l pro­vides that where there are interme­diary verumpattamdars at the com­mencement of the act, their rents shall he reduced proportionately to any reduction made in the rents ol cult ivating verumpattamdars as a result of the determination of fair rents. The Malabar Tenancv Act contains a similar provision cover­ing all intermediaries.

'The Malabar Tenancy Act pro­vides, further, that fair rent rates may be lowered upon application, if in the opinion of the rent courts, there i.s sufficient (arise for i t , but no enhancements may be made dur­ing the first 12 years of the applica­tion of the Act (IE unt i l 1966) Enhancements, thereafter, arc1 l imi t ­ed to a maximum of two times the original lair rent. The Verumpat-tamdars' Bill provides that no changes are to be made at any time.

In the Malabar Act, the jenmi , and in the Verumpattamdars ' Bi l l , the cult ivating tenant is made liable for payment of land revenue and local cesses. The Malabar Act, however, unlike the Verumpat tam­dars' Bi l l , contains no provisions lor purchase by the cultivator nt inter­mediaries' rights, or the first right to opt for purchase of bis jemmi's land in case of sale. The Malabar Act, moreover, limits neither present possession nor future ownership.

The provisions of the bills have followed several recommendations of the Congress-sponsored Travan-core-Cochin Land Policy Commit ­tee's 1950 report. Both specify upper limits to future acquisition of holdings, but the limits provided for in the b i l l are much lower than the 150 acres envisaged by the Com­mittee. L imi t a t i on on present pos­session was not mentioned in the Land Policy Committee's report. Both provide for pre-emptive r ight of purchase for cul t ivat ing tenants

in the event of the landowner selling his holdings. Both recommend l imited fixity of tenure for verurn-pat tamqbrs ' and fu l l occupancy rights for kanamdars. But, while the Committee recommended that provisiofi for limited resumption of land be given to landlords of verum­pattamdars Holding"'' for a 12-year period and over, it placed no l imi t on the area resin liable in the case of landlords of verumpattamdars wi th tenure of 12 years or less. The Kanain Tenancy Bill .supports the recommendation that renewal ices of kanamdars be reduced to one year's rent. The Verumpattamdars' Bill rejects, however. the recom­mendation that new tenancies be granted for 5,-year periods only.

NOTHING AGAINST FRAGMENTATION

No steps have yet been taken in Travancore-Cochin to solve the most serious problem besetting agri­culture in the State subdivision and fragmentation of holdings. The only provisions in the six bills which may have some influence in this direction are the clause in the. Verumpattamdars ' Bill permit t ing purchase of intermediaries' rights and the Special Rights in Lands Abol i t ion Bi l l , which vests owner­ship of these lands in the govern­ment. The section of the Restric­tion on Possession and Ownership Bill obliging those possessing more than a given acreage to lease the excess out wi l l worsen the incidence of sub-infeudation, at least, init ially.

The absence of a record of rights .and the reluctance of the govern-ment to institute a land census will 'make the tasks of the Land T r i b u ­nals appointed ' to implement the provisions of the Restriction' on Possession and Ownership Bill veiv difficult. It is unlikely that a person w i l l cultivate land directly m more than two OR three adjoining villages. But in the many cases where plots of a single owner arc scattered ovei two or more talukas or even dis­tricts, it w i l l be almost impossible to enforce the provisions of the hill dealing wi th future acquisition.

NO CEILING ON HOLDINGS YET Concerning the adequacy of the

measures taken to l imi t huge hold­ings, the Revenue Ministers desire to wait unt i l the constitutional .future of compensation is decided before introducing bills to l imi t actual hold­ings is justifiable. Not so easily understandahle is his citation of de­fective statistics as evidence for his conferation that huge holdings are not an important feature of the Travancore-Cochin la ad picture. Least tenable of all is his lurther ob­servation that, since the number of large holdings is small, the incidence of concentration is not great. His own figures, which show 40 per cent ol the total cultivated acreage in the state to be in the hands of less than 2 per cent of tin total num­ber of patta-holders, are the best refutation available of the very con­clusions they were cited to support.

1047