Ceiling Laws: Framework & Reality 

 

 

Ceiling laws were enacted and enforced actually in two phases. The earlier phase covering the period 1960-72 (before the National Guidelines were laid down) and the latter phase since 1972 after adoption of the National Guidelines. The legislative measures in the first phase were full of loopholes, which were taken advantage of by the bigger landed interests to circumvent the law. Several enactment relating to land reforms were successfully challenged in the Law Courts on the ground that they abridged the right to property guaranteed by article 19 (1) (7) of the Constitution or that they provided inadequate compensation and are, therefore, hit by Article 31 of the Constitution. In the Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, 1971, Article 31-C was inserted so as to enable the State Legislation to pass laws in the field of land reforms without payment of adequate compensation. Article 31-B was also inserted validating all previous legislations on land reforms if they were specified in the 9th Schedule. The Constitutional validity of a previous or a future Act can no longer be challenged. Besides, implementation of the laws was extremely unsatisfactory. Of the major loopholes that existed in the first phase of legislations, the following were more serious :

 

v      The ceiling limits fixed were quite high

v      Ceiling Act did not provide for prohibiting transfers retrospectively.(So the big land owners, in anticipation of ceiling laws had restored to partitions and fictitious transfers in benami names on a very large scale. Only Gujarat and West Bengal had given it retrospective effect. Other States had banned transfer only after enforcement of the ceiling laws or much later from the date of notification as in Mysore Act).   

v      The number of exemptions was so large that it provided a scope for evasion on a big scale through the device of change in classification or otherwise, thereby making the ceiling legislation ineffective.

v      The ceiling limits were fixed on the basis of individual holders as the unit and not on a family basis.  

 

 

 

 

 

The State Variations

 

Holding land in excess of the ceiling area is prohibited in all State laws. But holding in what capacity? As an owner or as a tenant or as both? The National Commission on Agriculture had suggested to apply the ceiling limit to both owned land and land taken on lease. All states have accepted this except Orissa, Utter Pradesh and West Bengal where ceiling limits applies only to owned land and not to tenanted land.

 

Maharastra and Gujrat ceiling laws provide that lands held by a person including his family members in any other State of India (whether this is constitutionally valid or not appears to be in doubt) shall be taken into account for determining ceiling area within the State but vesting will apply only to lands situated inside the State. Utter Pradesh law provides that when land held by different members of the family are aggregated for determination of ceiling area, the land left after vesting of the surplus area shall be deemed to be held jointly by them in proportion to the market value of the land respectively held by them before the declaration of surplus land. Similarly J & K law provides that the selection made by the head of the family for retention of the lands shall be proportionate to the area held by each member of the family, unless the wife and husband agree otherwise. No other State laws have similar provision.

 

All State laws provide that the surplus lands shall vest in the State government/ shall be deemed to be acquired by the State Governments from the date of declaration of the surplus area by the competent authority (Revenue Officer or the Tribunal, as the case may be), except Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, where the surplus land vests from the date of taking over possession. But Utter Pradesh laws further provides that the tenure-holder shall pay damage (as may be prescribed), to the State Government for use and occupation of surplus land for the period from the date of coming in to force of the revised ceiling laws under the Amendment Act of 1972 (from 1.7.1973) to the date of taking over possession by the Collector, whereas Maharastra and Karnatka laws provide that such damage shall be paid for the period from the date of declaration of surplus land to the date of taking over possession. No other State laws has similar provision for damage to be paid to Government for use and occupation of the surplus land during the intervening period.

 

All State laws provide that the choice of land within the ceiling area to be retained by the family lies with the ‘Karta’ of the family. But Utter Pradesh law provides further that where the land of the wife of the tenure-holder is aggregated with the land of the husband for purpose of determination of ceiling area, consent of the wife has to be filed agreeing to such choice. This provision does not appear in any other State laws.

 

All States laws provide for penal provisions for failure to furnish return for ceiling surplus lands in time and/ or furnish incorrect information therein or for violation of lawful order, or for obstruction of taking over possession of surplus lands, etc., and such penal provisions differ from State to State. Karnatka and Maharastra law provide for extreme penalty of forfeitures of the surplus land to theState Government if the person fails to comply with the order of the Tehsildar/ Collector when he issues a notice to him to submit the declaration within a specified time.

 

For quick disposal of Land Reforms and ceiling cases, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnatka, Gujarat and Maharastra have constituted Land Tribunals whereas other State Government laws left them to be dealt with by normal revenue hierarchy. The provisions provided for in State laws regarding Appeal/ Revisions/ Reviews, jurisdiction of civil court is barred in all such cases. Only Bihar law has provision for constitution of Land Reforms Tribunal under Article 323-B of the Constitution barring the writ jurisdiction of the High Court on Land Reforms matters. Maharastra, Gujrat and J & K have barred appearance of legal practitioners before any court or tribunal dealing with disposal of cases under the ceiling laws.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status of Ceiling Laws

 

Since inception till September 2001, the total quantum of land declared surplus in the entire country was 73.67 lakh acres, out of which about 64.95 lakh acres had been taken possession of and 53.79 lakh acres had been distributed among 55.84 lakh beneficiaries of whom 36 percent belonged to the Scheduled Castes and 15 percent to the Scheduled Tribes. A total of 9.09 lakh acres of land have been shown as being involved in various courts including the Revenue Courts, the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


During Revenue Ministers’ Conference held on 17th September, 1998 at New Delhi, it was resolved that large cases involved in litigation in the Revenue Courts may be disposed off on a priority basis and such lands should be distributed among the SCs, the STs and the landless poor.

 

It has also been resolved during the previous Conference of Revenue Ministers that the States, where the incidences of pending litigation is high, should constitute Land Tribunals under Article 323-B of the Constitution or set up Special Benches for hearing to expedite the disposal of such cases. The actions were to be completed expeditiously.

 

Under the 20- Point Programme of the Government of India, the Land Reforms Division, MoRD, GOI fixes the annual target for the actual distribution of the ceiling surplus land on the basis of its availability and non-encumbrance with the State/ Uts every year. But most of the States are not furnishing the actual land figures available for distribution, free from all encumbrances, to the GOI, in time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issues for consideration under the Land Ceiling Laws

 

           I.      During the last 30 years, large acres have been brought under irrigation at expense of the public exchequer. Hence, the nature of such lands has drastically been changed. Therefore, a re-classification of such lands should be undertaken on an immediate basis to bring it within the ambit of Ceiling.

       II.      There may be certain cases where an individual might be having land-holding at different places/ talukas/ districts and avoiding Ceiling norms. It is, therefore, essential to introduce Card Indexing System while doing the computerization of land records to locate such anomalies.

   III.      Vigorous steps have to be taken to identify the Benami and Clandestine transactions aimed at evading the provisions of the Ceiling laws. For this, active cooperation of the organizations of rural workers, panchyati raj institutions and voluntary organizations can be assigned the task which may provide concrete evidence as regards the violation of the provisions of Ceiling laws.

      IV.      Whether there is a need to discontinue the exemptions granted to the religious/ educational/ charitable and industrial institutions be brought in the ambit of land reforms laws, must be examined urgently.

          V.      States where incidences of pending litigations is higher, should constitute the Land Tribunals under Article 323-B of the Constitution or set up Special Benches for hearing to expedite disposal of such cases.

      VI.      In the States where large number of cases involved in litigation are pending with the revenue courts, such cases may be disposed off expeditiously.

  VII.      Whether ceiling laws can be relaxed in favour of industrial houses for developing degraded and wastelands should be examined.

VIII.      The available ceiling surplus land should be distributed among the SCs and the STs beneficiaries and other rural landless people. The States/ Uts may prepare Action Plans for the purpose.

     IX.      In a number of cases, the assessee or transferors forcefully evict the allottees. There is need to incorporate a provision in the Ceiling Act to do urgent legal actions and restore the land to the allottees. There is also necessary to debar the transferors or assessee for taking stay-order from courts against land allotments. 

         X.      The allottees names should be given sufficient publicity just after the allotment. This will act as deterrence to those who can try to dislodge the allottees out of their allotted land.

     XI.      Any unirrigated land becoming irrigated by private irrigation work completed after Ceiling laws in effect is not to be treated as irrigated for recommendations of ceiling area. Only land becoming irrigated by State irrigation work is to be treated as irrigated. This classification does not appear to be reasonable. So land covered under private irrigation work means a private irrigation work means a private tube well or a private lift irrigation work operated by diesel or electric power or many other source of energy for the supply of water from a perennial water source should be considered as irrigated by amending Ceiling laws.

 XII.      At present the system of implementation of the Ceiling Act is based either on the landlord himself declaring land held in excess of the ceiling limit or the revenue authorities at the grassroots level. The Lekhpal and kanoongo are supposed to be report the evasion of land ceiling provisions but the landlords with the connivance of these officials evade the land ceiling provisions. It is recommended that administrative and penal actions should be taken against such erring revenue officials.

XIII.      Levels of appeal and revision should be limited. Because it is found that landowners take full advantage of appeal and revision provisions to defeat the purpose of the act. It is observed that after fighting the case before the highest revenue courts i.e. Board of revenue, a party can file a civil suit against the order in lower courts and again they can allow the process of appeal and revision.

XIV.      Local self-government institutions like Gram Panchyats, Zilla Panchyats, Zilla Parishads and other Voluntary Organisations should be associated with the implementation and monitoring process at all stages. There should specific provisions that these bodies can be implemented into the proceedings.