JAGRAN LAKECITY UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW

INTERNAL ASSESSMENT – II

LAND LAWS

Constitutional perspective relating to land revenue

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Ms. Yash Tiwari, Sakshi Meena

Assistant Professor, Sachin Pandey
SOL, JLU Siddharth Jalori
Srishti Singh
B.B.A.LL.B. (IX SEM)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. Particulars Page No.

No.
1 Introduction 2
2 History 4
3 Constitutional Procedure 7
4 Judicial Determination 9
5 Conclusion 11
6 Bibliography 12
I. INTRODUCTION

The Fundamental Right to Property in India has come full circle. It started as a legal right
against arbitrary State action insofar as it limited the colonial State’s power to take away an
individual’s property except when this was done pursuant to a valid law, for a public purpose
and for just compensation. This right was enshrined in a series of colonial legislation starting
with the Bengal Regulation I 1824 and culminating in the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

The right was later elevated to the status of an ‘entrenched’ or ‘constitutional’ right by
section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935. When the Constitution was adopted in
1950, the right to property was elevated to the status of a ‘fundamental right’, which ensured
that the State could not legislatively remove the limitations imposed upon its power to
acquire property and made the right judicially reviewable.

However, through a series of constitutional amendments, exceptions were carved out of the
fundamental right to property as a result of which some of the limitations on the State’s
power to acquire property, specifically the requirement to pay market value compensation did
not apply in particular cases. The Forty Fourth constitutional amendment in 1978 deprived
the right to property of its ‘fundamental’ right status, thereby making the limitations on the
State’s power to acquire property non justiciable.

The Right to Property became a Constitutional Right after the Forty-Forth Constitution
(Amendment) Act 1978. This amendment removed Article 31 and replaced it under Article
300A. The Constitution assures that “No person shall be deprived of his property saved by
the authority of law”1

In Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala2it was held that there is no implied limitation on
the powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution, it held that no amendment can do
violence to its basic structure (the “Basic Structure Doctrine”). It upheld the Land Reform
Acts and the Amendment Acts that had been challenged. The only provision that was struck
down was that portion of the Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, which denied the
possibility of judicial review. Therefore, it established the Supreme Court’s right of review
and, therefore, established its supremacy on constitutional matters.

1
Article 300A, the Constitution of India.
2
(1973) 4 SCC 225, [405], [407], [409]-[412] (Sikri CJ), [588] (Shelat and Grover JJ), [1165] (Reddy J), [690][697] (
Hegde and Mukherjea JJ).
No Deprivation of Property Except By Authority Of Law

1. Article 31(1) provided that no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority
of law meaning thereby state has authority to take away the property of an individual but
it could do only so by authority of law
2. P.L Shamdassni v Central Bank3
The protection of article 31(1) extended to citizens as well as aliens but Article 31(1) was not
attracted where a person can be deprived of his property by action of another private person
and this same position is seen in Article 300-A.
Right to Own Property- Article 21
1. State of Maharastra v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan4
Supreme court held that the article 21 essentially deals with personal liberty and has little to
do with the right to own property as such. The land ceiling laws, law providing for
acquisition of land for providing housing accommodation and laws imposing ceiling on urban
property etc cannot be stuck down by invoking Article 21 of constitution.

2. Narmada BachaoAndolan v State of M. P5

Held that acquisition of land does not violate any constitutional/fundamental Right of the
displaced persons but they are entitled to rehabilitation and resettlement as per the policy
framed for the ouster of the concerned project.

3
AIR 1962 SC 59.

5
AIR 2011 SC 1989.
II. HISTORY

Land revenue is tax or revenue levied on agricultural production on land. It is either collected
as a percentage of the share of total crop or a monetary value is fixed on the land to be paid
by the farmer. It has been the major source of revenue for empires.

LAND REVENUE SYSTEM UNDER MUGHALS

Before the Britishers, the land revenue system in major parts of India was based on Mughal
land revenue system. The land revenue system under Mughals can be divided into following
three categories
1. GhallaBakshi (crop sharing) also known as Batai and Bhaoli. Abu Fazal in his Ain-i-
Akbari has described three methods of crops sharing, they are:

a. Khet Batai: In this method, the standing crop was divided by dividing the field between
the share of the ruler and the farmer.
b. Lang Batai: In this system, the harvested crops were divided without the separation of
grains from it.

c. Division of grains at the threshing floor after the grain from the crop has been obtained.
The division was on the basis of an agreement. The crops sharing method was expensive
as the state had to employ a large number of employees for the division of the crops.
However, it was referred as the best method of revenue assessment system and
Collection.
2. Dambandi: The word Dam means grain and Bandi means fixing anything. In this method,
the field was measured and then, per bigha productivity of good, middle and bad land was
determined by an estimation. The revenue demand was based on this estimation.
3. Zabti or Dhasala system: This land revenue system was initially started by Sher Shah Suri
and later adopted and modified by Akbar. In this system, the land was divided into four
types as per the continuity and discontinuity of cultivation.

a) Polaj: The land which was annually cultivated without any discontinuity of cultivation.

b) Parudi: The land which was left uncultivated for some time to regain fertility.

c) Chachar: These lands were left uncultivated for three to four years.

d) Bankar: These lands were left uncultivated for more than five years or even longer.
 LAND REVENUE SYSTEM UNDER BRITISH

1. British got Diwani rights of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa in 1765. The major aim of British
East India Company was to increase their land revenue collection. So its policies were
aimed at getting maximum income from land without caring about its consequences on
cultivators and peasants.
2. They introduced the policy of revenue collection by abandoning the age-old system of
revenue administration. The entire burden of Company s profits, cost of its administration
and expenses on wars and conquests were mainly borne by the peasants.

PERMANENT SETTLEMENT SYSTEM

1. Also known as Jagirdari, Malguzari or Bizwedari, it was introduced in the 19% of total area
under British rule. This was implemented in states of Bihar, Bengal, Orissa, Northern
Carnatic and Banaras divisions after the failure of revenue farming system in Bengal in which
the right to collect revenue was given to the highest bidder which was introduced by Lord
Warren Hastings.
2. In 1790 under Lord Cornwallis, a 10-year revenue settlement was made with the Zamindars
and they were recognized as the owners of the land who could mortgage or sell the land, from
being just the agent of the government for revenue collection. In 1793, this was converted
into a permanent settlement and zamindari system was made hereditary and the land was
made transferable.The tenants were now at the mercy of zamindars and their customary rights
were sacrificed. The zamindars had to pay 10/11th of rent taken from the peasant to the
company and keep only 1/11th of revenue for themselves. This resulted in illegal extortions
from peasants by the zamindars. One may note here that the state's share of revenue was fixed
and no limit was kept on revenue collected by zamindar from the cultivator.
3. Mahalwari System:This system was introduced by William Bentick in Agra and Oudh. And
later on it extended to Madhya Pradesh and Punjab. Under this system, the whole village was
treated as one unit as far as payment of land revenue is concerned and it was the
responsibility of the village headman for collecting the land revenue. It implies that in certain
areas where the landlords did not have chunk of land, whole village was treated as one unit
and for each village revenue was required to be paid.
4. Ryotwari system: This system was not much into practice and was prevailing in very few
parts of the country. Initially it was introduced in Tamil Nadu and later it was extended to
Maharashtra, Barar, East Punjab, Assam, and Coorg. Here the responsibility of paying the
land revenue was of the cultivator himself who was having the land and was required to pay
to the Britishers. There were no intermediaries here between him and the state. The riot was
free to sublet his land and had full rights regarding sale, transfer and leasing of land and
enjoyed permanent settlement that is he could not be evicted from the land as long as he paid
the land revenue. Such kinds of rights were not given to the cultivators under the Zamindari
system.
OBJECTIVES OF LAND REFORMS
1. Land reforms in the post-independence period was basically introduced to restrict the
exploiting measures taken by the intermediaries and to transfer the ownership of land to
the cultivators. It also aims at providing security of Tenure, fixation of rents etc. Land
Reform measures are aimed at alleviating rural poverty in the following manner:
a. By taking possession of surplus land from the large land holders and distributing among
the landless.
b. By protecting the interests of tribal and preventing non- tribal to encroach upon tribal
land.
c. By facilitating them with the security of tenure and ownership rights to tenants and
sharecroppers.
III. CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE

1. Land is a subject which is there in the State List of the Constitution of India, 1950. It is
Entry 18 in the State List of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India.Thus this means
that as provided under Article 246 of the Constitution of India. Clause (3) of Art. 246
confers an exclusive power on the States to make laws with respect to the matters
enumerated in the State List (List II of the Seventh Schedule). These are matters which
admit to local variations and, from an administrative point of view, are best handled at the
state level and, therefore, the Centre is debarred from legislating with respect to these
matters.
2. Thus, if a particular matter falls within the exclusive competence of the states, i.e. List II,
that represents the prohibited field for the Centre. This entry is the source of the
legislative power of the States for extensive agrarian reform legislation which has been
undertaken in independent India. The words 'collection of rent' empowers the State
legislature to impose any limitation on the power of landlords to collect rents, that is to
say, with respect to the remission of rents. Thus, taking all this view it can be very well
interpreted that there is not a possibility of a legislation made at the centre on 'land' as it is
a subject-matter of the State List.
3. But if we see it from the other end the Constitution itself provides for a solution to such a
problem. Clause (1) of Art. 252 of the Constitution provides for delegation of powers by
two or more States to Parliament so as to enable it to legislate with respect to a matter in
the State List in relation to such states.
4. If it appears to two or more State Legislatures to be desirable that any matter in the State
List should be regulated in such States by Parliament by law, and if resolutions to that
effect are passed by the Houses of those State Legislatures, Parliament can then pass an
Act for regulating that matter so far as those states are concerned.It is a condition
precedent. It is as if such matter is lifted out of List II and placed in List I of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution.
5. This provision has been used a few times. In the R.M.D.C.6 case, in order to have a
uniform law for the control and regulation of prize competitions, several States passed
resolutions authorizing parliament to enact the requisite legislation. The need for a central
law was felt in the instant case because these competitions were run by out-of-state

6
M/s R.M.D.C (Mysore) v. State of Mysore, (AIR 1962 SC 594)
 journals which a State law could not effectively control. Parliament then enacted the Prize
Competitions Act, 1955. Hence if two or more states want to make a Uniform Land
Revenue System in India all they would have to do is pass a resolution in the same regard
and then the Constitution would be empowered to make legislation in this regard.
6. These words will often haunt every person who endeavours to look into the dismal state
of affairs that the property rights under our Constitution have been through since its
inception. The right to property is often derided as the “least defensible” right in a
socialist democracy and it happened in our country as well. It is very absorbing to note
that Right to Property has induced themost number of amendments to our Constitution
and also has formed the core from which some commendable and historic decisions
emerged out of our judiciary.
IV. JUDICIAL DETERMINATION

1. JilubhaiNanabhaiKhachar v. State of Gujarat7

It has been held that the right to property guaranteed by article 300-A is not a basic feature of
constitution it is only a constitutional right.

2. Tukaram kana joshi v Midc8

Article 300-A is a constitutional right which has been given a status of a basic human right
the word law means a validity enacted law which is just, fair and reasonable.

3. Maneka Gandhi case9

It was said that the validity of law passed under the new article 300A for depriving a citizen
of his private property can be challenged on the ground that it does not provide for payment
of compensation and is not for public purpose also principle of just fair and reasonable
otherwise will be declared as unconstitutional.

Eminent Domain:

1. Charanjit Lal v Union of India 10

Every government has inherent right to take and appropriate the private property belonging to
individual citizens for public use and this power is known as the eminent domain. This right
rests upon the famous maxim – Salus populiestsuperemalex- welfare of the people and also
on maxim Necessita Public major estquam – public necessity is greater than private.

2. State of Bihar v Kameshwar singh 11

The exercise of powers i.e. compulsory acquisition by state has been recognised in the
jurisprudence of all civilised power subject to restriction provided in the constitution, but in
America there are limitations on the power of eminent domain meaning thereby, there must
be law authorising the taking of property and secondly property must be taken for public
purposes lastly the compensation should be paid.

7
AIR 1995 SC 142
8
AIR 2013 SC 565
9
AIR 1985 SC 597
10
AIR 1951 SC 41
11
AIR 1952 SCC 252
In India Article 31 imposed similar limitations on the power of eminent domain the new
article 300A imposes only one limitation on the power of eminent domain i.e. authority of
law.

3. K.T. Plantation v state of Karnataka12

The supreme court held that requirement of public purpose is invariably the rule when a
person is deprived of his property. Principle of eminent domain requiring compensation is not
seen incorporated in Article 300 A as it was seen in Article 13(1A)

12
AIR 2011 SC 3430
V. CONCLUSION

There are various aspects of law governing land and land revenue. Though major statutes
prevailing is diversified as per requirements of each and every State. In case of Madhya
Pradesh, state land revenue code is governed by Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959
covering whole region of state including Vidhya Pradesh, Madhya Bharat, Mahakaushal,
Sironj and Bhopal. The code in itself provides details about the division of land, functioning
of Board and mechanism behind calculation of land and its revenue. It further the procedure
for land revenue in cases of arrears and advances made by Bhumiswami.

However,the genesis of such land revenue doesn’t come directly from State Laws, it found its
validity under Entry 18 of State List of Constitution of India which empowers State
machinery to make rules, regulations and laws on land revenue.

Even judiciary had a pro-active approach in protecting Right to Property which was
previously fundament right under Article 31A which after various judicial interpretation now
is governed under Article 300A as Right to Property after a tussle between Parliament and
Judiciary regarding position of land revenue of India.

Land revenue being a major part of State Fund is balance between citizen’s right and
government management for funds as well as welfare of people of that particular State which
is dependent upon the chain of functioning if State machinery in calculating and collecting
revenue in just and fair manner depending upon region in which land is situated, income
capacity of land owner and ceiling limit of land hold by any person including State’s official
themselves. The balance between the same is guru mantra of success of land revenue system.
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Referred
1. Bare Act – Madhya Pradesh LAND REVENUE CODE, 1959.
2. Shrivastava S.D., Madhya Pradesh BhooRajaswaSahita
3. NazmiMhd. ,Madhya Pradesh BhooRajaswaSahita
4. Basu D.D., (2017) Introduction to Constitution of India, Lexis Nexis
5. J.N pandey Constitutional law of India.

Websites referred
1. jstor.org
2. Neostencil.com
3. www.landrecords.mp.gov.in
4. www.manupatra.com
5. www.ssrn.com