[Dec 2007, Volume 4 Quarterly Issue] Pdf File size - The IIPM Think ...

TENANCY REFORMS
cent in kind or cash of the gross produce
of the land. A Report on An Enquiry
into the Working of Orissa Tenants’
Protection Act, 1948, and Orissa Tenants’
Relief Act, 1955 in Five Districts of
Orissa, 1970 by B. Mishra revealed that
payment of rent receipt was not received
by 80 percent of the tenants.
It is interesting to note that even as
the Report states that although the tenants
were fully aware of O.T.R. Act,
1955 only one tenant filed a case and the
case ultimately cost the tenant Rs.130/-
and the decision finally went against
him. Further the Orissa Land Reforms
Committee, 1980, brings to the limelight
the existence of a vast number of tenants
mostly unrecorded sharecroppers
who have neither taken any legal steps
through applying revenue officers to get
ryoti right nor the revenue officers empowered
to initiate actions at their own
level endeavoured to confer ownership
rights on tenants. The tenants also do
not dare to agitate in order to promote
their case because of the fear of retaliation
by the ryoti type of landlords. Thus
various legislation enacted and subsequently
modified from time to time in
the better interest of tenants could not
yield desired result so far. However generalisation
of findings of the Report on
the basis of observation in only three villages
would be improper and it is needless
to say that further detailed empirical
studies need to be undertaken for seeking
definitive and conclusive judgment
on this aspect.
With regard to working of O.L.R.
Act, 1960, also the experiences are not
so encouraging. To substantiate such a
stand in this regard two principal aspects
need to be emphasized. Firstly,
the response from the tenants to claim
occupancy rights, as stressed in O.L.R.
1960, was not satisfactory. Even though
under Section 36-B, the Revenue Officer
was empowered to take appropriate
action in case of any application not
received from tenants the result lagged
far behind expectation. Secondly, as
is evident from O.L.R. Act 1960, the
landlords have been doubly compensated
for their property right over land
once by the Government in the case of
abolition of estates and by fixing Rs 800
per standard acre for tenants to acquire
land vide amendment effected to 1965
Act, for the second time. As the tenants
were subjected to grinding poverty they
failed to acquire the land they cultivated
for want of funds required to pay the
compensation fee. Further, the apparent
inequity evident in the O.L.R. Act 1960,
relates to the payment of heavy premium
to the Government on one hand and receipt
of application from tenants by the
Revenue Officer with respect to getting
proprietary rights within a short period
of 90 days on the other.
Thus heavy compensation fee and premium
coupled with short period of time
to get proprietary rights reveal deliberate
and unjust attempts of legislators to
safeguard the interest of the landowning
class. As a result uptil now oral tenancy,
without any records whatsoever, along
with high rent and insecurity of tenure
do outline the prevailing tenancy system
in Orissa. Such an unfortunate trend has
crept in the agrarian structure of Orissa
not because the tenants lack awareness
of various tenancy legislation but
because the prevailing socio-economic
conditions do not possibly allow exercising
their rights in this regard.
With the provision of resumption of tenanted lands on the
grounds of so-called “personal cultivation” being not defined
clearly by many states, a lot of tenants were subjected
to eviction on a large-scale basis. Many tenants after
conferment of ownership rights either sold or mortgaged it
V. Conclusion
Thus to sum up, different tenancy legislation
and consequent regulations incorporated
in them failed to serve the
very purpose of bringing socio-economic
justice to the poor tenants and thereby
establishing an egalitarian society. With
an exception to few financially better-off
tenants who were in a position to vindicate
their cause, the hardships and sufferings
of tenants in general continued.
Several reasons may be cited in this regard
as to why these tenancy legislation
did not yield desired results.
To mention a few, firstly, there is a
THE INDIA ECONOMY REVIEW
187