Time to scrap land ceiling laws in Punjab?
The latest decision of the Charanjit Singh Channi government in Punjab, seeking information from the deputy commissioners regarding landowners having more than the permissible area, under the land ceiling laws, has stirred a new controversy. Although the contentious circular was withdrawn the very next day, it has brought into focus the content as well as administration of the surplus area laws that were once regarded as vanguard of socio-economic justice in the state.
Land reforms under the 1972 law
The Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 sought to reduce the land ceiling limit and also make the procedure for the determination of surplus area more expeditious, as compared with its previous Punjab and PEPSE cousins. The new law came into force retrospectively with effect from 24th of January, 1971 and placed a ceiling of 18 standard acres of first quality land in the hands of, not just the individual, but rather the family as a unit. No doubt, some small additional fractions of land were allowed to accommodate the adult sons, as on the appointed date but the overall land ceiling, even for unirrigated or semi-irrigated
land was 25 acres. Lacunae in the law
A number of surplus area cases were initiated. However, the actual surplus area that was finally utilised was exceedingly limited. This was on account of the following lacunae in the Act.
1. As per section 8 of the Act, the surplus area vested in the state only when the collector took over possession. Normally, in the appeal or revisional stage, stay orders were granted and given the normal time-frame for a final judicial adjudication right up to the apex court, the big landowners would have perhaps died and thus the surplus area re-determined, as on the date of death, afresh in the hands of the legal heirs.
2. The Act (section 7(4)) merely stated that transactions such as sale, gift decrees that operated to reduce the land in the hands of the big landowner were to be ignored in the determination of the surplus area. It did not explicitly state that these were null and void ab initio. Thus, alienation by sale etc. to third parties continued and they subsequently not only sought benefit as bonafide vendees but also became parties to the litigation.
3. The Act and the statutory scheme framed under it provided that before the surplus land was redistributed to landless persons belonging to the scheduled caste (SC) landless residing in the village, the rights of the sitting tenant had to be determined. Many big landowners set up collusive tenants and when the area was finally declared surplus, it ended up being allotted to their own, collusive tenant.
4. In rare cases, where the land was allotted to landless SC persons, the Act provided that they could not alienate for a period of 15 years, after the issuance of the conveyance deed. Usually, no such entry regarding bar on alienation was made in the revenue record, as a result of which most of these people ended up prematurely selling the allotted land, often to the nominees of the original landowner, at throw-away prices.
Impediment to development?
Decades later, when promoters began to assemble/purchase huge parcels of land for urban development or institutional purposes such as integrated townships and private universities, this ceiling law posed a major hindrance. Some of them incorporated separate legal entities to circumvent the provisions. The instructions regarding “change of land use” (CLU) provided that ownership had to vest in the applicant, before the application could be allowed, thus creating a Catch-22 situation.
In December 2017, this Act was retrospectively amended to provide for an exemption where land in excess of the permissible area had been or was to be accumulated by a single legal entity, for purposes other than agricultural, such as industrial, institutional or commercial. Thus, for all intents and purposes, agricultural land that was sought to be converted to non-agricultural use came out of the purview of the ceiling law.
Utilisation of surplus area
The utilisation of the surplus area, if any, finally declared is expected to be effected in accordance with the “Punjab Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme,1973.” This provides for the allotment of the land declared to be surplus to the existing sitting tenants and thereafter to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes. In many cases, the surplus land, although agricultural in nature, has huge commercial potential. The Punjab scheme does not permit utilisation of this land for any ”public purpose” by the State Government. It is felt that this Scheme should be amended to permit this, otherwise, such ultra-valuable land shall be frittered away to allottees, who will still technically claim to be “small/ marginal farmers.”
Time to give it a decent burial?
It does not seem politically correct for any political party to state that the land ceiling law needs to be scrapped. However I feel, it is merely a fig-leaf and it can potentially become an instrument of harassment in the hands of entrepreneurs who want to buy land in Punjab for bonafide non-agricultural purposes. It also does not deter people with deep pockets from incorporating different private limited companies and setting up different units, owning agricultural land.
Time has come for us to give this law a decent burial so that at least prospectively larger holdings can be created for efficient use of scarce agricultural land in Punjab.
THE LAND CEILING LAW IS MERELY A FIG-LEAF AND IT CAN POTENTIALLY BECOME AN INSTRUMENT OF HARASSMENT IN THE HANDS OF ENTREPRENEURS WHO WANT TO BUY LAND IN PUNJAB FOR BONAFIDE NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES