Abstract
The stated objective of land policy in India has shifted from redistribution through land reform to ownership through land acquisition in the period between 1950 and 2014. Sub-national governments that dealt with land policy had the option to exercise a mix of redistribution and acquisition based on historical factors, social demands and political convictions. This paper makes two related arguments by tracing the path of land reforms in the states of India. The first is that there are four types of property regimes that emerged out of India at the sub-national level. The second is that the nature of property regime has been predominantly the result of the nature of structural features of political regime at the sub-national level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
The land policy objective centering on land redistribution was a product of two events: The Karachi Resolution of 1931 and 1936 during the Indian freedom struggle and the recommendations of the JC Kumarappa Committee that looked into agrarian relations in 1949.
- 2.
- 3.
Initially, the right to property was a fundamental right in the Indian constitution under article 31. Many sub-national governments faced contentious litigation from large land owners while they tried to appropriate land for redistribution because of this clause. Eventually, this right was transferred to article 396 as a mere legal right but not fundamental right, i.e., the violation of this right could not be justiciable in a court of law.
- 4.
This bill introduced in 2010 by the Congress majority Union government was the first attempt to amend the 1894 land acquisition law. This law exempted five categories including industries to seek consent while acquiring farm land. Many controversial clauses in the bill made it impossible for it to sail through the Parliament.
- 5.
In their draft discussion paper, the argument put forth by the authors is that the same instruments like land legislations and policies have been increasingly used as instruments to reverse tenancy in Kerala. The relation between absence of adequate agrarian reforms and subsequent problems with land reform is discussed in Kuriakose and Iyer (2012).
- 6.
Inam lands were given in the British revenue system to the priestly classes.
- 7.
Bangalore was one of the first Indian cities to have implemented TDRs. But the scheme landed in controversy when the Office of the Vigilance Cell in BBMP found a scam involving nearly 9 lakh sq km land in the city.
References
Açemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA (2001) The colonial origins of comparative development: an empirical investigation. Am Econ Rev 91(5):1369–1401
Appu PS (1975) Tenancy reform in India. Econ Polit Wkly 10(33/35):1339–1375
Banerjee A, Iyer L (2005) History, institutions and economic performance: the legacy of colonial land tenure systems in India. Am Econ Rev 95(4):1190–1213
Banerjee A, Iyer L (2008) Colonial land tenure, electoral competition and public goods in India. Harvard University Working Paper 08-062
Bromley D (1989) Property relations and economic development: the other land reform. World Dev 17(6):867–877
Engerman SL, Sokoloff KL (2005) Colonialism, Inequality and the Long-run Paths to Development. NBER working paper no. 11057
Kohli A (2009) Democracy and development in India: from socialism to pro business. Oxford India Paperbacks, New Delhi
Kumar BM (2005) Land use in Kerala: changing scenarios and shifting paradigms. J. Trop Agric 42(1–2):1–12
Kuriakose F, Iyer DK (2012) Land use policy and agrarian relations in India. In: Mandal RK (ed) Management and policy issues. Discovery Publishing House, New Delhi
Kuriakose F, Iyer DK (2015) The promised land: analysing land distribution policy through the typology of political regimes. Paper presented at the 1st south asian regional conference of international academic association on planning, law, and property rights, National Law School of India University, Bangalore, 1 Sept 2015
LaPorta R, de Silanes FL, Shleifer A, Vishny R (1998) Law and finance. J Polit Econ 106(6):1113–1155
Maine H (1861) Ancient law. Crayon 8(4):77–80
Merrill TW, Smith HE (2000) Optimal standardization in the law of property: the numerus clausus principle. Yale Law J 110(1):1–70
Pani N (1983) Reforms to pre-empt change: land reform in Karnataka. Concept Publishing House, New Delhi
Pellissery S (2016) Land alienation infused poverty in India. In: Wright GC, Braathen E, Julian M, Ulriksen M (eds) Poverty and inequality in middle income countries: policy achievements and political objectives. Zed books, London
Rose CM (2002) Common property, regulatory property, and environmental protection: comparing community-based management to tradable environmental allowances. Drama Commons 233:250–253
Sharma HR (1994) Distribution of landholdings in rural India, 1953–54 to 1981–82: implications for land reforms. Econ Polit Wkly 29(13):A12–A25
Sud N (2007) From land to the tiller to land liberalisation: the political economy of Gujarat’s shifting land policy. Mod Asian Stud 41(03):603–637
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Iyer, D.K. (2017). Property Regimes in India: A Study of Political Determinants of Structural Factors. In: Pellissery, S., Davy, B., Jacobs, H. (eds) Land Policies in India. India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4208-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4208-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4207-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4208-9
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)