LAND TENURE IN ORISSA

3.1. INTRODUCTION :

The state of Orissa was formed on 1.4.1936. Prior to 1936 the district
of Cuttack, Puri, Balasore, Sambalpur and Angul formed the “Orissa
Division of the Province of Bihar and Orissa”. Taking into
consideration the common cultural, social, historical and language
factors into consideration the “Division” acquired the status of a
“Province” where Ganjam, Koraput and a part of Phulbani Districts
from Madras Presidency, Khariar and Madhab Palli Station from
Central Province (Present Madhya Pradesh) were transferred to the
newly formed state.

When 25 number of princely states merged in the state on 1.1.1948,

and finally with the merger of Mayurbhanj on 1.1.1949 and transfer
of Shareikala and Kharsuan to Bihar, the state achieved its present
geographical shape.

In the newly formed province of Orissa, there were as many as 32

administrative systems relating to land ownership rights. Orissa’s
economy is basically an agrarian economy. Agriculture and allied
activities contribute around 40 per cent of Net State Domestic
Products (NSDP). Since this sector contributes the highest
percentage of NSDP and more than 70 per cent of the State
population depend on this sector for their livelihood, it is improtant
to reform and reorient this sector against inequality and exploitation
and to introduce those measures of reforms which would ensure
production efficiency and social justice. Realising this the
government of Orissa have enacted several Acts or land laws relating
to various aspects of land reforms with a view brining about a
through change in the tenurial arrangements. So far the system of
household tenure in Orissa is concerned , it consists of cultivation of
land by owners themselves, cultivation of land by tenants and also
mortgaging of land as a collateral for personal and unproductive
loans and for some other such liabilities. The forthcoming sections
analyses in detail the history of land tenurial conditions, several land
laws implemented in Orissa over time.

3.2 : HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF LAND TENURE

Before the Muslim invasion in India, as per Hindu System of revenue

administration, the “Raja” had direct relationship with his “Prajas”.
So the head of the administration was not only the supreme
heriditary ruler but also supreme dispenser of justice, legislator,
executive and commander of the Army. In this role the king or Raja
not only perpetuated the principles of revenue administration but
also improved the system so required from time to time. Of Course,
the possibility of maladministration in the hands of a despot was
always there. A benevolent despot was directly in touch with the
common people with regard to the imposition and collection of land
revenue. The actions taken for improvement of the conditions of the
common people with the help of the kings cabinet bore distrinct
stamp of personal authority and knowledge. For this purpose, the
kings guide was the instructions enshrined in scriptures and special
treaties that already exists or prepared from time to time. Thus,
there was virtually no intermediary class of proprietors in between
the state and the cultivator. The cultivators were given the
permanent land ownership and the king’s officials used to collect
land revenue. The system of revenue administration gradually
changed in the last decade of 12th century and 13th century because
of Muslim invasion. Since they are foreigners by birth, language and
religion, they did not understand the intricacies of revenue
administration. Moreover, the muslim rulers were always busy in
either expansion of empire or in protecting their territory. The kings
officials engaged in collecting land revenue and in looking after the
welfare of the cultivators were without any engagement and
ostensible means of livelihood. Therefore, the alien rulers
immediately found a solution to their problem and engaged the
officials of defeated Hindu kings as intermediaries for collection of
land revenue. The requirement of cash was heavy for purchase of
arms, communication, and wages for the salaried army. So instead of
payment of cash to these revenue collectors, they were given the
landed property and the right to appropriate a part of the revenue
collected from their areas. These ex-executives were also happy to
be put on the new garb of proprietorship though conditional under
the Muslim rulers. Thus, the Muslim rule in India gave birth to the
intermediaries system of land tenure. The system continued till the
British came to India. The Britishers wanted to have a disciplined
adminsitration in Indian dominion. But they also did not want
sincerely the well being and development of Indian people. So they
adopted the prevailing intermediary system of land tenure for
appropriation of exorbitant land revenue. As a result, the
intermediaries in various names as were prevailing continued in India
between the government and the tenant till their final abolition. The
East-India company had to associate themselves with revenue
administration by the grant of Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa by
Emperor Saba Alam in 1765. The Dewani relating to Orissa only
included a small portion of the present state. Major portion of the
state as it now stands came under British rule during 19 th Century. It
is thus clear that the system of revenue administration changed a lot
from its form in the Hindu emperor to the British left agrarian
economy and the end result was not in favour of the farmers.

Thus, the historical background of land tenure in the country and the
states amply suggest a reform for a better reorganisation of agrarian
economy.

3.3. LAND TENURE IN ORISSA :

In Orissa, various types of the system of land tenure are
found in the villages. The choice of one or more forms of land
tenure by a definite area is basically the outcome of time-honoured
convention. There are broadly three types of tenancy found in
Orissa. These types exclude the system of land mortgaging which
may be loosely accepted as a form of tenurial practices. The three
broad types of tenurial contract consist of crop sharing tenancy,
cost sharing tenancy and fixed rent tenancy. As per the system of
crop sharing tenancy the gross produce of the land is devided
between landlords and tenants in the ratio 1:1. In some part of
Orissa, particularly in the western Orissa, the output to be shared
between landlords and tenants is computed less of the cost of
cultivation which includes the expenditure of fertilisers, pesticides
and water borne by the tenants. In other parts of Oriss, the gross
output is shared between landlords and tenants as per convention.
The share is normally fifty-fifty with little variations. But in case
of HYV type of seeds, the shares in total produce are determined
less of cost of cultivation including all types of cost like labour
cost and others.
Under the system of cost sharing tenancy, the cost of
cultivation is partly borne by the landlords and partly by the
tenants. After bearing the cost of cultivation as per contract, the
gross produce is shared between them in the ratio 1:1. In case of
fixed rent tenancy, the tenants pay a fixed rent for one agricultural
year as decided or contracted between the landlords and the
tenants. Sometimes such contracts are extended and spread over
more than one agricultural year.
Apart from these three usual forms of tenancy in Orissa the
system of land mortgaging was also in practice. Since land is the
only asset in the rural Orissa people used to mortgage their land
and take loan for personal and other unproductive conventional
purposes. Under this system of land tenure land is kept as
collateral for securing personal loans from the' landlords. In this
case the owner of the land which is mortgaged becomes a tenant
and pays the rent to the landlord till the loan is paid fuly. Land is
considered as the most desired form of collateral security.
Accordingly tenants used to mortgage their land to get loans. In
case of failure to repay the loan, the land will be under the
cultivation and ownership of the landlords.
The land tenure system is basically the outcome of British
land policy in India. The British land policy was guided by two
important objectives. First, the British were mainly concerned with
securing the highest possible land revenue. They were no way
concerned for any improvement of the welfare of the peasantry.
Second, in order to achieve this they created legally recognised
land owners like Zamindars, Talukdars and Proprietors who would
collect revenue from the peasants. Moreover they wanted to create
a fudalistic class to consolidate supportive strength for their
political stability. So it is deduced that Orissa, being part of India
was under this motive of the British land policy.
The land tenure system of British Orissa shows that the
main proprietary tenure was held by the Zamindars. Under the
Zamindars, large number of persons, such as Mukuddums,
Sarbarakars and Padhans aquired sub-proprietary title over lands
and paid revenue through the Zamindars. All these persons held
legally recognised rights over land in different degrees during the
British regime. This made them too powerful and prosperous in
the agrarian socio-economic set-up (Mishra - 1990). In other way
also these intermediaries became more powerful. So the
concentration of power on these people and the excercise there of
brought about severe inequality in the agrarian socio-economic
set up. The very land tenure system has the outcome of British
conquest of Orissa made the actual cultivators into landless
Agricultural proletariet.
Under the Zamindary settlement the peasants lost their
secured rights. The Zamidar was granted unrestricted power to
dispose of the land and to extract rent to Whatsoever amount he
was able to extract. Thus his status was transformed from rent
receiver with certain obligation towards the community to that of
an absolute owner of land without any duty to the ryots (Myrdal -
1968). The proprietary status of the Zamindars resulted in
absentee landlordism and hence degradation of peasantry. So
the peasants lost security of tenure without which permanent
agricultural progress was stumbled down.
Under the Zamindary system of land tenure in Orissa, the
estates were very often possessed by a number of joint
shareholders and subordinate proprietors with conflicting
interests. They were only interest in extorting from the peasants
and they did not have any interest to improve the productivity of
land. Besides, the important element in the tenutial-arrangement
in Orissa is the exorbitant rent and other types of tips in honour
of the landlords which left the ryot no surplus to invest in land
except a mere subsistence. Similarly, the intermediary pattern of
land system, estates were held for capital gains in future in the
form of rising rent and cesses. So this became a speculative
financial investment and no plan for the benefit and wellbeing of
the peasants. Moreover, the proprietor of an estate di never care
for the efficient management of the land or introducing any
advanced agricultural technique.
In Orissan land tenure system between 1803 and 1951, the
revenue free land owners or the privileged tenure-holders
consisting of individuals and socio-religious institutions occupied
a prominent place. Vast are of revenue free lands was accounted
for the cration of a privileged class and vested interests in the
society. It resulted in social evils as in most cases the proceeds of
such lands were rarely devoted to the purpose for which they were
originally granted (Mishra - 1990). Most of such rent free land
owners are monasteries, temples and other institutions which
acquired a very comfortable living at the cost of poor peasants
and these religious and charitable institutions became the center
of communal indulgence. Thus the revenue free land owners and
their activities created adverse consequences in the agrarian
structure since the cultivators of these revenue-free lands could
not acquire ownership rights over such lands. Last but not least,
it can be concluded that the land tenurial conditions made the
cultivators nothing else than the bonded slave of the agrarian
system of pre-independent Orissa.
3.4. LAND REFORMS IN ORISSA : Land reform as a concept
has been interpreted in defferent ways. In the United Nations
resolutions and reports, land reform is treated as a reform in
institutional arrangements in the existing agrarian structure.
Economists like Adam Smith, Mill and Marshall gave emphasis
on tenurial arrangement as an agrarian Institution. There has
been some modifications in the definition of institutional
arrangements over time. As per the modification, land reforms
have been brought to include reforms in tenurial arrangements,
ceiling on land holdings, distribution of. ceiling surplus land and
consolidation of land holdings. Thus, the most appropriate form
of land reform programme is to be conceived as an -integrated
programme of action.
With a view to providing protection and safeguard to the
tenants, the State Govt, immediately after independence passed
the Orissa Tenants Protection Act in 1948. The main focus of the
Act was on (1) Providing securities to tenants and (2) Fixation of
fair rent to be paid by the tenants. The provisions of this Act were
found to be of little help to the tenants because of prevalence of
ex-intermediary system. It skipped over so many cardinal
requirements that the Government of Orissa thought to replace it
by a more exhaustive one. Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 came
into existance and the age-old barrier between the State and
tenants / ryots started crumbling down. In 1955, the Orissa
Tenancy Relief Act came into existence for the purpose of
ameliorating the conditions of the tenants. These two Acts were
in a way intermediary measures, awaiting enactment of a fullfledged
and comprehensive legislation.
A broad shape to land reforms policy in the State of Orissa
was given on the basis of the guidelines of the Second Five Year