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.