Land reforms in Andhra Pradesh

Land reforms in Andhra Pradesh



C.H. Hanumantha Rao






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of the 104 recommendations made by the Land Committee headed by Koneru Ranga Rao, the government has accepted 90. Quite a few of these will have far-reaching consequences if implemented effectively.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Land for the landless — for cultivation as well as housing — is again high on the political agenda of Andhra Pradesh. The Rajasekhara Reddy government, soon after coming to power in 2004, constituted a Land Committee under the chairmanship of Koneru Ranga Rao, a Minister, “to assess the overall implementation of land distribution programmes of the government and suggest measures for more effective implementation.” Out of the 104 recommendations m ade by the Committee, the government has accepted 90. Quite a few of these will have far-reaching consequences if implemented effectively.

The current land movement arose and gathered momentum basically on the demand for house sites for the landless poor in the urban and semi-urban areas. This was not a major issue before the Committee. Ironically, the rising demand for urban land is traceable, in a significant measure, to the massive programme for irrigation development called ‘Jalayagnam,’ which is expected to ease pressure on land by raising agricultural productivity.

Much before the water started flowing into the fields, apparently, a good part of the money injected into the system for irrigation projects experienced a reverse flow into the urban land market through the contractors and real estate dealers, raising the demand for land. Also, there has been a massive allotment of land in the outskirts of Hyderabad and around other towns for the development projects.

The tremendous rise in the demand for urban land led to the skyrocketing of its prices, making land out of reach for the urban poor and the middle classes. Many of the poor farmers in the outskirts of the city suddenly found themselves ‘dispossessed’ through the allurement of money which turned out to be a pittance when compared to the prices at which their lands were ultimately sold by the dealers. This generated a great sense of insecurity among the poor — those losing land as well as those in need of land for housing — in and around the urban areas.

Admittedly, the Andhra Pradesh government has been in the forefront of building houses for the poor. But this can not alleviate the misery of the poor if there is a policy failure to contain the prices of urban land. Had the State government acted in time to acquire a sizeable chunk of land for expanding the on-going programme of constructing houses for the poor as well as for direct allotment of house sites to them, the situation would not have turned so adverse.

The Left parties clearly saw the rapidly emerging scarcity of urban land and its adverse consequences for the poor. Already, their movement for house sites for the poor appears to have had a sobering impact on land prices as it has sent the right signals to the land market. The welfare impact of containing land prices would indeed be enormous for the poor and the less affluent in the urban areas. Moreover, with growing urbanisation and migration of the rural poor to the urban areas, the need for house sites for the poor will increase. While ‘land to the tiller’ is still a live issue, ‘land to the dweller’ is going to assume increasing importance, especially in urban areas.

The significance of the Land Committee Report should be seen in the light of the growing scarcity of land and the rising land value. The Committee’s recommendations are, on the whole, quite moderate and not ‘radical.’ They basically centre round the more effective implementation of quite a few of the existing laws. If they sound ‘radical’ on occasions, especially on tribal land issues, it is because the Committee was constrained to recommend strict implementation of some of the existing laws dating back to 1917.

The three major concerns addressed by the Committee are: augmenting the ‘surplus’ land over the existing ceiling on land holdings as well as from government sources for distribution to the landless poor; encouraging investments by tenants for raising productivity and incomes; and restoring to the tribals lands appropriated by non-tribals.

A major recommendation of the Committee for the restoration of the ‘assigned’ land to the original assignees or, where it is not possible, its resumption by the government for making fresh assignment to the landless poor, has received wide support. However the government while accepting this, rejected the related recommendation to include the sarpanch and president and secretary of the Village Organisations of poor women in the Assignment Committee. Such an involvement is necessary for releasing a good chunk of land for the poor, on this account, without making the implementation process harsh and cumbersome, particularly because a piece of land would have changed a number of hands over the decades, the present occupants themselves being poor in many cases.

The government has accepted the recommendations on ceiling surplus land and tenancy — the two major concerns in non-tribal areas. It has agreed to “reopen cases of Land Ceilings, wherever the cases have been decided basing on fraud and misrepresentation of facts”. The number of such cases and the extent of ‘surplus’ land likely to be available are not known. But the indications are that, if effectively implemented, this measure could well unearth a sizeable area. Of much greater potential, perhaps, is the acceptance of another recommendation by the government to reassess the ‘surplus’ land consequent on the construction of irrigation projects, which have resulted in a significant increase in irrigated area over the last few decades.

In regard to the distribution of government as well as ceiling surplus land, the government has not accepted the Committee’s recommendation that “the maximum extent of land which may be allotted to a single individual be limited to 1 acre of wet land or 2 acres of dry land,” as against the existing provision of 2.5 acres of wet land and 5 acres of dry land. This recommendation appears reasonable considering the significant rise in productivity and value of land as well as in the number of landless poor in need of land.

The Committee has noted that the provisions in the existing Tenancy Acts “have given rise to informal tenancy — almost 100 per cent of tenancy that exists is informal,” and 55-60 per cent of the lands surveyed in the Delta region are under lease. Therefore, taking a realistic view, the Committee recommended that “a loan eligibility card should be issued to the tenants to enable them to access institutional loans so as to garner better gains from cultivation of lands, and the landlords on the other hand are not paranoid about losing their lands if the tenancy is recorded”. Since the government has accepted this recommendation, one can expect a rise in investment, productivity and incomes of the tenants.


Land alienation in tribal areas


Land alienation in tribal areas is remarkably high in Andhra Pradesh. According to the Committee, in tribal areas “non-tribal population holds as much as 48 per cent of the lands. Every year, more and more lands are passing into the hands of non-tribals and if it is not checked with a strong executive action, very soon the tribals may not have lands at all”.

The Committee has made a series of recommendations for restoring land to the tribals and for checking further alienation of their land. The government has accepted important recommendations such as reopening and re-examining of orders in favour of non-tribals, and review of a large number of cases of illegal occupation by non-tribals in some districts. However, a pre-requisite for effective implementation, according to the Committee, is the improvement in tribal land administration by putting in place field machinery with adequate staff, especially in Agency areas, and effective monitoring and review.

But, mere administrative capability is not sufficient unless the requisite political will is forthcoming. This is amply demonstrated by the massive failures in the implementation of Land Ceiling and Tenancy Acts in the non-tribal areas where administrative capability is not a bottleneck. The pulls and pressures from the vested interests can render even the most progressive land laws infructuous. This experience has prompted the Left parties to demand the constitution of an independent commission for implementing these recommendations.

But the government has not agreed to this demand presumably in the belief that in a democratic polity with an elected government, a parallel authority on land issues may not be workable. Instead, it has appointed a Commissioner in the revenue department for implementing the recommendations. Clearly, however, there is need for transparency and public accountability on this issue of vital importance.

The least that the government could still do, to ensure effective implementation, is to constitute a high level committee, consisting of important stakeholders, to continuously monitor the implementation with powers to receive representations and bring up specific cases. This would be quite in line with the recommendation made by the Land Committee to institute such a mechanism for tribal areas — already accepted by the government — in addition to the measures being taken for awareness-building among the affected people.