[Dec 2007, Volume 4 Quarterly Issue] Pdf File size - The IIPM Think ...
[Dec 2007, Volume 4 Quarterly Issue] Pdf File size - The IIPM Think ...
[Dec 2007, Volume 4 Quarterly Issue] Pdf File size - The IIPM Think ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
THE 'OTHER' INDIA<br />
that person.<br />
i) a share of the produce of such<br />
land or<br />
ii) the estimated value of a portion of<br />
the crop raised on the land or<br />
iii) a fixed quantity of produce irrespective<br />
of the yield from the land, or<br />
iv) produce or its estimated value partly<br />
in any one of the ways described above<br />
and partly in another, Das (1989).<br />
<strong>The</strong> law provided that notwithstanding<br />
anything in Law, contract or usage or<br />
in any decree or order of any Court but<br />
subject to the provisions of this Acta)<br />
No tenant with permanent and heritable<br />
rights over holdings in terms of<br />
produce rent was liable to pay more<br />
than 2/3 rd of the rate of rent payable<br />
or to express it in a different way rent<br />
payable was not to exceed 1/6 th of the<br />
produce or value thereof.<br />
b) No landlord was entitled to recover<br />
any cess, rates or other dues payable<br />
or deliverable in relation to the land<br />
by a tenant holding on produce rent.<br />
c) When rent was deliverable in kind it<br />
was to be delivered at the landlords’<br />
granary in the village in which the<br />
land was situated or at such other<br />
granary, within 3 miles of the village,<br />
as may be provided on that behalf by<br />
the landlord.<br />
Further as per the Act, a temporary<br />
tenant was not bound to pay more than<br />
25 percent in kind or cash of the gross<br />
produce of the land. Further it was added<br />
that no tenant having permanent or<br />
hereditary right in land was bound to<br />
pay more than 16 percent of the gross<br />
produce of the land. However to nullify<br />
the very purpose of the Act, the landowners<br />
were obtaining written undertakings<br />
from the tenants to pay 50 percent<br />
of the gross produce after harvest and<br />
that too without any rent receipt.<br />
c. Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960<br />
<strong>The</strong> Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 and<br />
its subsequent amendments exhibited a<br />
certain degree of qualitative shift from<br />
the earlier tenancy legislation as discussed<br />
above. <strong>The</strong> basic thrust was given<br />
on land to the tiller. One of the notable<br />
features of O.L.R. Act 1960 relates to<br />
conferment of permanent, heritable and<br />
transferable rights on all raiyats over<br />
their land.<br />
Besides, the agricultural labourers<br />
To nullify the very purpose of the <strong>The</strong> Orissa Tenants’ Relief<br />
Act, 1955, the landowners were obtaining written undertakings<br />
from the tenants to pay 50 percent of the gross produce<br />
after harvest and that too without any rent receipt<br />
and the village artisans were granted<br />
property rights in respect of their dwelling<br />
houses constructed on the lands of<br />
the superior landlords. Amendment in<br />
O.L.R. Act (Act 17 of 1972) also enabled<br />
the tenants to become ryots in<br />
whole of the land under their occupation<br />
under section 36-A, subject to receipt<br />
of application by the tenant within two<br />
years from October 2 nd , 1973. But the<br />
response from the tenants to claim occupancy<br />
rights was not satisfactory. Hence<br />
under section 36-B the Revenue Officer<br />
was empowered to take appropriate action<br />
where no application was received<br />
from a tenant. Besides, the amount of<br />
rent was retained at 25 percent of the<br />
gross produce of the land or the value<br />
thereof or the value of 25 percent of the<br />
estimated produce of the land.<br />
IV. Evaluation Of Tenancy Reforms<br />
Act In Orissa<br />
After having gone through a brief account<br />
of some of the important tenancy<br />
legislation it would be wise to ascertain<br />
as to what extent these legislation have<br />
yielded results as were supposed to be<br />
during the time of their inception. With<br />
regard to the operation of the Orissa<br />
Tenants’ Protection Act of 1948 it experienced<br />
varied results in different areas<br />
and in most of the cases the tenants did<br />
not claim their dues. For instance Puri<br />
District alone accounted for more than<br />
2/3rd of the cases filed (in the years between<br />
1955-56 and 1956-57) and about<br />
70 percent of the cases filed settled<br />
without any claim on behalf of tenants,<br />
Dash (1989). Moreover, allowing landlord<br />
owning less than 33 acres of land<br />
to evict tenant also questions the very<br />
purpose of the Act. <strong>The</strong> limit of 33 acres<br />
of land was too high in the land holding<br />
context of Orissa where the majority of<br />
farmers do belong to the categories of<br />
landless labourers or marginal or small<br />
farmer categories (Jena, 1968).<br />
Similarly a Report on the working of<br />
tenancy laws prepared by B. Mishra and<br />
B. Jena (1958) 2 also confirmed that in<br />
three villages of Balasore District, namely<br />
Kalei, Mahadevpur and Balarampur,<br />
out of 105 cultivating families 45 families<br />
reported to have cultivated land on payment<br />
of the share of 50 percent of the<br />
gross produce which strictly violates the<br />
O.T.R. Act, 1955 recommending strongly<br />
a tenant not to pay more than 25 per-<br />
186 THE <strong>IIPM</strong> THINK TANK