2. By the aforesaid Government Order, the Government empowered the District Collector to grant permission to use the land assigned under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules for the purpose of starting industrial units, quarry, crusher etc. The petitioner's case is that, the Government had assigned land to the 5th respondent for agricultural purposes. Now an attempt is being made by the 5th respondent to use the land for mining disregarding the mandate under the Land Assignment Act and Rules. It is submitted that the mining operation being carried by the 5th respondent is in violation of the Land Assignment Act and Rules and same would be regularized through the District Collector.
3. The stand of the Government is that, in the light of Section 3 of the Land Assignment Act read with Rule 24 of the Rules, the Government is free to relax the condition on the original patta and to permit owner of the patta to utilise land for other purposes. It is further submitted that the Government, therefore, can permit mining in a land assigned for agricultural purposes.
4. The party respondent would contend that, the Government can pass such an administrative order in the absence of any statutory provisions. Further it is argued that, the grant of sub-soil rights would depend upon the conditions in the grant and sub-soil rights can be assigned by the Government.
5. The Government land is assigned for specified purposes under the Land Assignment Act. The patta holder, therefore, is entitled to use the surface of the land for the specified purposes, for which it was assigned. The pattadar has no ownership in the minerals below the surface of the land. In the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Shibu v. Thahsildar, [1993 (2) KLT 870] it was held as follows:
In the absence of an express covenant creating such an interest in the land, the Government's right to sole ownership of the minerals is not affected. The grant of sub-soil rights would depend upon the language used in the grant and that if there are no words in the grant from which the grant of the sub-soil rights could be properly inferred, the inam grant would only convey the surface rights to the grantee. The ryotwari pattadar has no ownership in the minerals below the surface of the land. The appellant's lessor and therefore the appellant cannot claim any right to the mineral on the ground that the lessor was a pattadar.
6. Section 3 of Land Assignment Act empowers the Government to assign land either absolutely or subject to restriction. The restriction may be in the nature of conditions as to the use of nature of the land. As per Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, the land can be assigned for the following purposes.
4. Purpose for which land may be assigned. Government lands may be assigned on registry for purposes of personal cultivation, house-sites and beneficial enjoyment of adjourning registered holdings. Section 4 of the Assignment Act and Rule 12 of the Assignment Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed for the assignment of land.
(1) When any Government land is proposed to be assigned by the prescribed authority, otherwise than by way of lease or licence, the Tahsildar of the taluk in which the land is situate or any officer empowered by the Government in this behalf shall notify in the prescribed manner that such land will, by public auction or otherwise, be assigned, and call upon those who have got any claim to such land to prefer to him their objections, if any, in writing, within a time which shall be specified in such notification.
(2) If any objection is preferred within the time specified in the notification, the Tahsildar or such other officer shall enquire into the same and pass an order in writing either accepting or rejecting the claim in full or in part and intimate in writing the fact of such disposal to the claimant.
(3) For the purpose of the enquiry under sub-section (2) the officer making the enquiry shall have all the powers conferred upon the Collectors and Tahsildars by the law for the time being in force regarding summoning of persons for disposal of matters connected with revenue administration. Rule 11 mandates preparation of list of assignable lands and publication of the list in each village.
8. As per the Rule 4, the assignment can be either for the purpose of cultivation, house-sites and beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holdings. No power is reserved with the Government for assigning the land for any other purpose in terms of the Rules. However a residuary power is given in terms of Rule 24 to assign the land for any purposes in public interest. It is appropriate to refer Rule 24 which reads as follows:
24. Powers of Government. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Government may, if they consider it necessary so to do in public interest, assign land dispensing with any of the provisions contained in these rules and subject to such conditions, if any, as they may impose.
9. Therefore, going by Rule 24, it is possible for the Government to assign the right to take minerals or subsoil rights or to relax conditions in the patta in public interest. The subsoil minerals vested with the Government certainly can be assigned by the Government in public interest.
11. The Government has no matter of right to delegate the power to take decision based on public interest to the District Collector to assign land for taking subsoil or for using it for any other purpose violating the conditions in the patta. The Government alone can take a decision in the matter. The public interest as contemplated under Rule 24 cannot be assessed by the District Collector, whose decision certainly would be related to individual needs of the holder of the land. The public interest referable under Rule 24 is in principle required to be commonly or uniformly evolved to protect the State interest as whole rather than leaving to the discretion of the District Collector to vary its form and content depend upon the requirement of particular individual.
The various provisions in the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules would unmistakably show that the Act and Rules are intended to protect landless people by assigning to them Government lands for cultivation and other purposes. The Act provides for assignment of Government land absolutely or subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed. The Rules provides for assignment of lands on registry for purposes of personal cultivation. The Rules also provides for granting assignment of small extents of land for constructing houses and for the beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holdings. The Rules contain provisions for extending priority to landless people, members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Ex-servicemen, persons disabled in active military service, persons who are dependants of those who are killed or disabled while in active military service, small holders whose family income is less than Rs. 10,000/-, certain category of kumkidars etc. The procedure for assignment is also provided in the Rules. Provision is made for preparing the lists of lands to be reserved for Government or public purposes and the lands to be set apart for assignment on registry. The lists are to be approved by the Government or an authorized authority. The authority to approve the list of lands available for lease or license shall be District Collector. Various authorities are also provided to whom the applications under the different categories are to be submitted. We are of view that the Act and Rules are not intended for enriching persons who hold extensive lands. Assignment on Registry of Government lands to such persons would defeat the very purpose of the Act and Rules. There is no vested right in any person to claim assignment on registry of Government land.
Eventhough the Government's power to assign the land is not traced to any provision of the Act and the Rules, R. 24 of the Rules in unmistakable terms confers power on the Government to assign the land. That rule begins with non-obstante clause; notwithstanding anything contained in the rules Government may assign land dispensing any of the provisions contained in the Rules and subject to such conditions as they may impose. The only restriction that is imposed on the Government in this regard is that the assignment should be in public interest. If the Government consider that it is necessary to assign the land in public interest, the order of the Government assigning the land is not open to challenge.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to destroy, remove or appropriate for himself earth, sand, metal, laterite, lime-shell or such other articles of value as may be notified by the Government from any land which is the property of Government, whether a pormaboke or not, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit issued by the Government or such officer of the Government as may be empowered in that behalf and on payment of compensation at the rate prescribed under sub-section (2).
(2) The Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Gazette, prescribe the rate at which compensation shall be payable for earth, sand, metal, laterite, lime-shell or other notified articles of value destroyed, removed or appropriated from land which is the property of Government.
(3) Whoever unathorisedly destroys, removes or appropriates for himself metal, laterite, lime-shell or other notified articles of value from any land which is the property of Government, whether a poramboke or not, shall be liable to pay such fine not exceeding fifty rupees as may be imposed by the Collector and shall also be liable to pay by way of damages an amount of equivalent to the compensation which would have been payable if sub-section (2) were applicable thereto.
16. There cannot be any doubt regarding the fact that the Government is entitled to authorise any officer to permit to use the Government land on a rate of compensation prescribed by the Government. It is to be noted that in this case there is no prescription of any such rate as contemplated under section 6(2). Going by the language of Section 6, it is discernible that such permission can be granted to the land which belongs to the Government to remove earth or laterite etc. by any person. This is essentially a land which otherwise considered as the land wherein the Government need to remove minerals and the said right is given to a third party as the Government may find it difficult to venture upon such exercise. The provision in the Land Conservancy Act has to be understood in the context of Land Assignment Act and Rules. The assignment of the land under the Land Assignment Act and Rules is to promote the agricultural activities and to promote the state interest and also for beneficial enjoyment of adjoining land owner. The assignment itself is in fact to secure such objectives. Therefore section 6 of the Land Conservancy Act would govern the land which is not used for any cultivation. In those lands the Government can permit third parties to remove minerals or metals etc. In this case it is to be noted that the decision of the Government in fact is not based on the Land Conservancy Act, but with reference to exercise of the power under the Land Assignment Act and Rules. Therefore, the Government Order delegating power to the District Collector cannot be justified. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that conferring the power on the District Collector has to be set side. It is made clear that the Government can take independent decision in this matter keeping the public interest as a paramount in individual cases. The assessment of public interest is a pre-requisite for taking such a decision. Before parting with this judgment a word of caution. The report of the 64th U.N General Assembly discussion reminds that by 2050, world need to double the food production to satisfy the need of the entire world population. The soaring heatwave on account of climatic variation is pointer to the erosion of agricultural landscapes from the State. The food security and afforestation programmes cannot be ignored while evolving policy on public interest for assignment of Government Land. The State must bear in mind that any measure or action of the State ignoring intergenerational equity is also against public interest. It is true demographic challenges poised on market needs and developmental quest pursued by the State sometimes compelled the State to respond to the demand raised in the market. However, the State shall not be merely guided by the market conditions to determine public interest. The kyoto protocol to the United Nations Frame Work Conventions on climate change reminds the nation to strive for the policies and measures to minimise adverse effects on climate change and to promote sustainable forms of agriculture in the light of climate change conditions. Therefore, the Government has to find whether any public interest would sub serve by allowing mining operation in agricultural land. This Court cannot determine what should be the policy, but the Court would be justified in reminding the Government about the constitutional obligations in the matter to protect the environment.
By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here.
Originally land revenue was a share of the grain heap on the threshing floor. Even before the Mughals, the Hindu Rajahs and Chieftains were accustomed to take a certain share of the produce of every cultivated acre, unless, as a special favour that share was remitted. The practice among the Aryan immigrants was quoted by the compiler of the law of Manu, who speaks of traders, cattle owners, and artificers contributing a share of their gains to the king. A share from land was one of the payments. Among the Dravidians a portion of the land was allotted to the king cultivated by serfs. Raja Todar Mal (1571 A.D. to 1581) made the first Land Revenue Settlement in kind in Bengal, but revised for cash payments. In Malabar the land lords maintained that the land ever belonged to the state. They never accepted the over lordships in the State. In 1800 Malabar was transferred from Bombay to Madras and its management was made over to Mayor Munro, the advocate of ryotwari, who introduced ryotwari system. The present paper is devoted to an analysis of land holdings and the likely effect of land reform on the distribution of income accruing from land. Since land is the most important asset held in agrarian economics, any changes in the distribution of land holdings must have significant effects on the distribution of income and consumption. An examination will be made of the inferences that can be drawn from the available information on land holdings in Kerala, the prevailing system of land tenures, and the changes made by land reform. Such an analysis may also have wider interest because Kerala happens to be the only State in India where political pressure based on mass organization and support has been a major factor forcing the pace of land reform and where such reform has consequently received sustained attention.
Introduction Land tenure systems had evolved differently in three areas under three separate regimes viz., the Princely states of Travancore and Cochin and the Malabar province forming part of British India over the preceding century and a half and consequently here were important differences between them when the areas were merged to form the State of Kerala. Land legislation passed since their merger in 1956 has the entire territory of the State, but it has had to take into account some of the differences arising from earlier evolution of land tenures in these areas, and so its impact has varied from area to area.
Traditionally, most of the land throughout the present territory of Kerala was in the hands of a numerically small class of landlords called Jenmies. There was no centralized monarchical administration as in other parts of India, and the rulers were mostly small chieftains interested in the preservation of feudal relationships in land. However, in contrast to the rights enjoyed by feudal lords in Europe, the Jenmies were customarily not regarded as possessing rights absolute ownership over land, but only superior ownership right in a relative sense.1 This meant in practice that those who secured land directly from the Jenmies (or what was called Kanapattam tenure) were in effect tenants with rights of permanent occupancy as long as they paid the customary dues to the Jenmies.
At the time of the formation of Kerala the tenurial system that existed in the State was very complex in nature, the main reason for this being the origin and nature of Jenmam tenure. The tenurial relations were governed by custom and usage and conflicts arose in the interpretation of customary rent. It became necessary for the State to regulate by law the tenurial relationships.2 The land reform laws thus developed in the Travancore, Cochin, Malabar areas differred materially in the emphasis and region of the principal elements that governed the tenurial right and obligations of the landlord, the intermediary and the cultivating tenant as the first unified legislation in the State, the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, was passed in 1960.3
The basic objective of any land reform measure should be the raising of agricultural productivity and the socio-economic status of cultivators. Ownership of land changes in such a way as to make the actual cultivator a landless labourer and to bring about a concentration of ownership in the hands of a few wealthy people.4 This process leads to a situation where the real tillers of the soil viz., the agricultural labourers neither own land nor command social respect. They along with the tenant farmers constitute the vital, but weak link in the rural economy. In a progressive economy, a complete break away from the twin evils of low productivity of land and exploitation of the peasantry is inevitable. These evils arise from the fact that the ownership of land is not vested in the actual tillers of the soil. Therefore, land reform measures generally aim at confirming a greater amount of security of tenure on the tenants.5
In the history of land reforms a new era began after the formation of Kerala State in 1956. In 1957 the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957, was passed with a view to provide for temporary protection to tenants, Kudikidappukars and persons cultivating the land on minor sub-tenures at the will of the proprietors. As per this Act, suits and other proceedings for eviction of a person from his holding or for the recovery of arrears of rent in respect of or for damages for use and occupation of the holdings accured due before 11th April 1957 were prohibited and all pending suits and other proceedings were stayed. A similar relief was granted to Kudikidappukar and Varamdar. The Holdings (Stay of Eviction Proceedings) Act, 1950 was repealed by this Act which was kept alive by amendments from time to time. The latest amendment to the Act is 21 of 1960 which extended its duration up to 11th April 1961.6
The Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act repealed the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1899 and the Travancore-Cochin compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1956. It made for tenants in the State of Kerala. It provided for compensation at the rate of 15 times the net annual yield of trees planted by them and actual value for permanent structures put up by them.7 The Jemikaram Payment Abolition Act 3 replaced the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act of 1071 and provided for the payment of compensation to Jenmies in lump sum instead of periodical payments made as per the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act of 1071.8
The most revolutionary piece of land reforms was introduced in 1960. As the first unified legislation in Kerala, the Kerala Agricultural Relations Act was passed in 1960 embodying the broad principles of land reforms as enunciated in the Five Year Plans. It provided for fixity of tenure to tenants and Kudikidappukar, resumption of land held by a tenant having fixity of tenure, determination of fair rent to be paid by tenants, mode of payment of rent discharge of arrears of rent, vesting in Government of landlords rights in land held by tenants and assignment of such rights to tenants, restriction upon ownership and possession of land in excess of ceiling area and disposal of excess lands. A novel feature of this Act was that it provided for the establishment of Land Board and Land Tribunals for the implementation of its provisions.9
This Act extended fixity of tenure to Varamdars10 of nilams11 for paddy cultivation. Odacharthudars12 and punam are kumari cultivators.13 Grounds of eviction like waste denial which existed as per the Malabar Tenancy Act and the Cochin Venempattamdars Act were no longer available under this Act.14 As per the Travancore-Cochin Prevention of Eviction of Kudikidappukars Act, 1955 (T.C Act 13 of 1955) permission for Kudikidappu15 was to be given by the owner of the land. But under the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act a person in lawful possession of the land could give permission. The Act gave fixity of tenure to Kudikidappukar.16
The enactment of the Kerala Land Reform Act, 1963 was an important landmark in the history of agrarian reform in the State. This Act repealed the Kerala Agrarian Relation Act 1960, the Malabar Tenancy Act VIII of III ME (1942-43 AD) the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payments of Fair Rent) Act, 1956 and the Travancore-Cochin Prevention of Eviction of Kudikidappukara Act, 1955 and enacted a single State governing the relationship between landlord and tenant throughout the State.17
The main objects of Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1969 were:- 1. To confer fixity of tenure on tenants 2. To fix the fair rent in respect of holding 3. To confer the right of purchase of the landlords rights, little land interest on the cultivating tenants. 4. To define the rights and liabilities of Kudikidappukars. 5. To place a ceiling on the ownership and possession of land and provide for the disposal of excess land.18
Besides, there were also some provisions of secondary importance. The Act came into force from early 1970. The negative of the provisions of this Act indicates that this State does not affect the land tenures not specially mentioned in it. This Act, as amended from time to time considerably helped the tenants to become owners of tenancy land. Many hutment dwellers could purchase their homelands with all the apparel tenants. The excess land above the ceiling area was also distributed. Thus another notable impact of these reforms was the reduction in the number of landless agricultural households and the abolition of absentee landlordism.19
As a result of the Kerala Land Act, full ownership in respect of the tenanted land was conformed on the cultivating tenants subject to the provisions on ceiling and the tenants were brought into direct relationship with the Government duly abolishing the landlords and intermediaries rights on such lands. Till the end of December 1976, a total number of 31.49 lakh applications had been filed for getting the assignment of right, title and interest of ownership of tenancy holdings compared to 20.19 lakhs applications at the end of December 1975. Of these, the cases disposed of till the end of December 1976 stood at 26.01 lakhs of allowed cases and 4.63 lakhs of rejected cases. The remaining disposals are cases of a repetitive having already been disposed off under any of the other categories of purchase issued to tenants numbered 12.82 lakhs till the end of December 1976.20
Apart from the implementation of the K.L.R. Act a number of other legislations relating to assignment and distribution of land have been enacted and are being implemented for promoting the welfare of landless and agricultural workers and other weaker sections of the community. These legislations include the Jenmikaram Payment (abolition) Act, Kanam Tenancy (abolition) Act, the Sreepadam Lands Enfranchisement Act, Tiruppuvaram Payment (abolition) Act, Edavagai Rights Abolition Act, the Pattazhi Devaswam Land Act, the Kannandevan Hills (Resumption of lands) Act, Government Land Assignment Act, Arable Forest Land Assignment Rules, assignment of land under the scheme for settlement of Agricultural Labourers and the Assignment of Forest Lands Act.
Under the Kerala Land Assignment Act, Government lands have been classified into two categories viz., land required to assignment is estimated to be 4.03 lakh acres, of which 3.51 lakh acres have been assigned upto 31st December 1976. Over 52,000 acres are available for further distribution. The beneficiaries of the Kerala Land Assignment Programme comprised 3.70 lakh families of which as many as seventy three thousand belonged to the scheduled castes and tribes.21
The extent of forest area available for assignment under the Arable Forest Land Assignment Rules is estimated to be 17,287 acres. Between January 1970 and December 1976 of the arable forest land that had been distributed amounted to ten thousand and eight hundred acres. The allotters of forest land comprised of 8434 persons of whom 3682 belonged to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. There were 4.85 private forests in the State have been taken over by the Government as per Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The extent of land available for assignment is estimated to be about 1.5 lakh acres Steps are under way for the assignment of these lands to indigent families.
The Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, 1974 envisages security of employment, fixation of working hours, payment of reasonable rates of wages, fair settlement of disputes of the agricultural worker and provident fund for agricultural workers. Accepting the provisions relating to Agricultural Workers Provident Fund Scheme the other provisions of the Act came into being with effect from 2nd October 1975. The registration of agricultural workers was started during the year 1975-86 upto the end of March 1976, a total number of 16.4 lakh agricultural workers were registered under the Act.22
Conciliation Officers (District Labour Officers and Deputy Labour Officers) were appointed with executive powers to conciliate in disputes and decide the prescribed wages in kind and recover the same from defaulting land owners by removing the harvested paddy at the threshing floor. Eleven Agricultural Tribunals One in each district have been constituted to hear appeals on any order passed by the conciliation officers under section 20 of this Act. At the State level, the enforcement of the Act is supervised by a Deputy Labour Commissioner under the direction and control of Labour Commissioner under Assistant Labour Officers for the purpose of enforcement the Act, particularly, in the maintenance of necessary register by the land owners. Between October 1975, and March 1976, three thousand six hundred and two inspections have been conducted. Action is being taken against defaulting land owners. The agrarian reforms in Kerala have benefited over 3.1 million persons till the end of December 1976. The beneficiaries include nearly 94,100 persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The Agricultural Workers Act would benefit 2 million agricultural labourers in the State.23 In consequence to this Act, the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 was introduced with one thrity two major sections and later on this was amended by amendment Act 35 of 1969. The Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 (act one of 1964) is an act to enact a comprehensive legislation relating to the land reform in Kerala.
Out of the 132 sections in the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1964, the most important section which is commonly used by the Land Tribunal (Quansy Judicial Authority) Section 72 which deals with vesting of landlords rights in the Government and vesting of landlord rights in the tenant.
On a date to be notified by the Government in this behalf in the Gazetteers; all right little land interest of the land owners) and intermediaries. (Madhaivarthi or Kanari) in respect of holding held of cultivating by tenants (including holders of Kudiyiruppukars of holders of Karaimai) entitled to fixity of tenure under section 13 shall subject to the provisions to this section, rest in the Government free from all encumbrances created by the land-owners, and intermediaries and subsisting their on the date.
The land tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the cultivating the tenant in form K under section 72 K and there upon the right K little land interests of the land-owner and the intermediary if any in respect of the holding or part thereof to which the certificate the relates shall vest in the cultivating tenant free from all encumbrances created by the land-owner of intermediaries if any. Section 72 A states that, when the State proceeds to settle the lands or tenants, it extract them took pay a fair amount of price for the land and puts the ceiling on the price that it shall never exceed the amount of compensation payable and respect of the land.
Section 72 BB deals with the right of landlord to apply for assignment and compensation any land-owner or intermediary little land interest in respect of any holding have vested or the Government may apply to the Land Tribunal for the assignment of the such right, little land interest to the cultivating tenant and for the payment of the compensation due to him under section 72 D deals with the purchase price the cultivate tenant shall be liable to pay purchase to the Government on the assignments to himself to the right little land interest of the land right owner and intermediaries of any the purchase price shall be aggregate of 16 times of the fairent (Marriadapattom) of the holding or part thereof, the right little and interest in respect of which have been assign to the cultivated land. The value structures and embankments of a permanent native which belonged to the land owner and intermediaries if any, at the time of vesting in the Government.
Section 72 C one half of the value of the timber trees which belonged to the land-owner and the intermediaries if any at the time of vesting in the Government.24 There have been persistent demands from various political parties in the State and the public in general for popular participation in the implementation of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963, especially the ceiling provisions. In the working of the Act has also revealed that popular participations is essential for the speedy and effective implementation of the Act. It has also become necessary to plug certain loopholes in certain provisions of the Act, which had come to native during its implementations village. Committees are proposed to be constituted for helping the implementation of the provisions of the Act regarding assignment of landlords and intermediaries right to the cultivating tenants. Taluk Land Boards have also been proposed for the purpose of decentralization of the functions of the ceiling provisions. Land Reforms Review Board is also sought to be constituted with power to give necessary guidelines to the various authorities and officers implementing the Act.
This Act help to the way of attaining land in their own provide facilities for developing their education knowledge and improve their standard of living also. At present based on this Act, only the Government has been made certain amendments in the land reforms. Therefore, this Act is inevitable source of not only the Government but also for the tenant of land reforms. So we can say, that it is a nut shell of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
CONCLUSION During the period of kingship in Kerala the ownership of land was with the King, who at his will assigned lands to individuals and they were to pay tax to the King. As long as the individuals paid tax due to the government they had the ownership of the land. In this way ownership of land called Jenmies, who were small landlords, emerged. Land reforms were introduced with the objective of making the tillers of the soil the absolute owner of the land and to reduce social inequalities. An analysis of the land tenure show that various types of land holding existed, especially some had ownership of land, whereas some had no ownership of land, but cultivate the land and gain the benefits after paying the tax. Temples also owned lands, which were exempted from paying tax to the government. Land Tenure Acts passed by the Government of Kerala made the tillers of the soil the actual owners of the land. Eviction of the land holders from their land became impossible.
References 1. E.M.S. Nambordiripad, The Natural Question in Kerala, Peoples Publishing House, 1952, p. 24. 2. S. Umadevi, Plantation Economics of the IIIrd World, Bombay, 1989, p. 60. 3. Land Reforms Survey in Kerala Report (1966-67), Bureau of Economics and Statistics, Thiruvanthapuram, 1968, p. 28. 4. Dhires Bhattacharya, Understanding Indian Economy, A Course of Analysis, 1978, p. 52. 5. Land Reforms Survey in Kerala 1966-67, Report Bureau of Economics and Statisics, Thiruvanthapuram, 1968, p. 13. 6. Bureau of Economic and Statistics Report, Government of Kerala, Land Reforms Survey in Kerala 1966-67, Thiruvanthapuram, 1960, p. 26. 7. Government of Kerala, The Act and Ordinance of Kerala, 1958, Thiruvanthapuram, pp. 117-120. 8. Ibid., p. 45. 9. Ibid. 10. Varamdars means a person who cultivates under a varam arrangement. 11. Nilam means a person who cultivates under a varam arrangement. 12. Odacharthu means an agreement for cutting bamboos in Malabar. 13. Punam or Kumari cultivator means a person who has raised crops by punam or kumari cultivatin in any year between 1958 and where there are successive cultivators in respect of the same land, the cultivator who raised crops last by such cultivation during the said period. 14. Government of Kerala, The Act and Ordinance of Kerala, 1962, Thiruvanthapuram, p. 45. 15. Kudikidappu menas the land and the homestead or the hut so permitted to be erected or occupied together with the casements attached thereto. 16. Government of Kerala, The Act and Ordinance of Kerala, 1962, Thiruvanthapuram, p. 45. 17. Government of Kerala, Land Reforms Survey in Kerala 1966-67, A Report, Bureau of Economics and Statistics, Thiruvanthapuram, 1968, pp. 28-32. 18. M. Vijayannuni, District Census of Hand Book, Census of India, Series 10, Kerala, 1981, p. 13. 19. M. Vijayannuni, Census of India, Kerala, 1981, p. 13. 20. Government of Kerala, Bureau of Economic Review, State Planning Board, Thiruvanthapuram, 1976, p. 39. 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24. Government of Kerala, Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1970, Thiruvanthapuram, pp. 1-225.Get in Touch with Mechanic