The World’s Largest Open Access Agricultural & Applied Economics Digital Library

This document is discoverable and free to researchers across the

globe due to the work of AgEcon Search.

Help ensure our sustainability.

Give to AgEcon Search

AgEcon Search
h p://ageconsearch.umn.edu
aesearch@umn.edu

Papers downloaded from AgEcon Search may be used for non-commercial purposes and personal study only.
No other use, including pos ng to another Internet site, is permi ed without permission from the copyright
owner (not AgEcon Search), or as allowed under the provisions of Fair Use, U.S. Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C.

No endorsement of AgEcon Search or its fundraising ac vi es by the author(s) of the following work or their
employer(s) is intended or implied.
tt
ti
ti
ti
tt
 Background Paper XIV

LAND REFORM IN BANGLADISH*

M. A. Jabbar

The concept of land reform has two different aspects, land tenure reform and land
operation, or use, reform. Land tenure reform refers to a change in the pattern of
ownership of land; distribution from large to smaller owners is only one aspect of this
type of change. Land use reform refers to changes in the pattern of cultivation, or terms
of holding and scale of operations, and reform in this area may be independent of, or only
indirectly related to, land tenure reform (Tuma 1956,pp.8-14).
In the geographical area now comprising Bangladesh, there have been only two
major land reform measures undertaken during the last two hundred years. One of which
formalized feudalist production relations and the other abolished them. Full scale
feudalist production relations were instituted in India by the colonial government via the
Permanent Settlement Act of 1793. The major objective of the 1793 Act was to create a
class of loyal landed aristocrats (Zamindars), and this decentralized the system of revenue
collection which had become costly to the colonial government in terms of manpower,
money and time. Although the 1973 Act was later subjected to various amendments
which curtailed the rights and interests of Zamindars, created more intermediaries under
them and gave more rights to cultivators, the system yet enabled the colonial government
to realize the twin objectives for more than 150 years. During this long period many
peasant movements and revolts erupted throughout Bengal but they were unorganized
and sporadic, centering on specific issues in specific areas. These movements became
substantially organized only in the thirties and forties of this century, but even then their
efforts were aimed at reforming some of the exploitative and torturous elements and not
at the total overthrow of the Zamindari system. Only once during this long period was
there an attempt to change the system with popular support. This was in 1937, when the
election to the Bengal Legislative Assembly was fought by the Krishak Praja Party, led
by A.K. Fazlul Hoque, with a promise to abolish the Zamindari system and to free the
farmers from debts to the Zamindars. The party failed to get a majority in the election, so
had to form a coalition Government with the Muslim League which represented the
interests of the Zamindars. The Praja Party ultimately had to abandon the idea of
abolishing the Zamindari system although one promise was fulfilled, and by the
institution of Debt Settlement Boards throughout Bengal millions of debtor farmers were
freed from the clutches of inherited debts to Zamindars.
_________________
In: Agrarian Structure and Rural Change. Report prepared for the First FAO World Conference on
Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, by the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh,
Ministry of Agriculture, Dhaka. Chapter 14, pp.134-148.

1
 The unsatisfactory tenurial situation also led to the inclusion, in the terms of
reference of the commission of enquiry on agrarian conditions after the Bengal famine, of
the issue of tenure. This, the Floud Commission, recommended in 1946 the abolition of
the Zamindari system in Bengal and its replacement by direct settlement between the
state and the cultivator. The British had already left India before this was carried out.
Within three years of independence the Zamindari system was abolished as a result of the
East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act passed by the East Bengal Legislative
Assembly on February 16, 1950. This was done by the Muslim League Government
which, as part of the 1937 coalition government, had earlier opposed abolition of the
Zamindari system and ruthlessly suppressed peasant movements aimed at reforming the
system between 1946 and 1949.
How it was possible for this government to take such a revolutionary step and
carry it through almost without opposition needs thorough investigation, but the most
important factor appears to be the objective situation created by the partition from India.
Prior to 1947, the majority of Zamindars in East Bengal were Hindus, while the majority
of cultivators were Muslims.1 After partition, when most of those who left the area were
Hindu Zamindars, and opportunity was created for Muslim cultivators and surplus
farmers to dominate rural society. This situation, coupled with the inherent political
philosophy of the Muslim League to protect Muslim rights, provided sufficient impetus
to sponsor the 1950 Act even though its execution partly affected the Muslim Zamindars
of the time.
The 1950 Act had two major objectives: (a) to abolish all intermediate rent
receiving interests on all land (both agricultural and non-agricultural), (b) to put a ceiling
on cultivable land holdings at 33.3 acres per family or 3.3 acres per member of the family
whichever was the larger, and to put a ceiling on homestead land of 3.3 acres per family.
Land in excess of these ceilings was to be acquired by the state and redistributed amongst
bona fide cultivators holding less than 3 acres.
As a result of this Act, there was an enhancement of government revenue which
increased from Tk. 1.74 crore in 1947-48 to 6.75 crore in 1957-58 and to 13.05 crore in
1958-59, eventually stabilizing between 13 and 15 crore Takas during the 1960s.
However, the rent payers felt little relief under the changed circumstances because the
Government revenue collectors were little better in their practice and frequently the same
revenue collectors as under the former Zamindar (Abdullah, 1976, p.86).
The redistributive impact of the 1950 Act was very limited. The Act was later
amended in 1962 by the then military regime which raised the ceiling to 125 acres per
family. As a result, some of the land acquired earlier had to be restored to the previous
owners. Many rent receivers also managed to retain some land having recorded it in the
names of relatives. A very vague definition of the family as including up to ten members

1
A Survey in Bengal in 1946 revealed that 5% of the caste Hindus were landholders and supervisory
farmers, 37% were self-sufficient cultivators, artisans and traders and 58% were labourers, sharecroppers
and service holders. The corresponding figures for the Muslims were 3%, 44% and 53% respectively.
Another source suggested that out of 2237 largest land holders in Bengal, only 358 were Muslims. (Quoted
in Abdullah, 1976, p.88). Out of 330 individuals whose rent receiving interests were acquired by the
government in 1952-53, 283 were Hindus, 44 Muslims and 3 Europeans (Abdullah, 1976, p.87).

2
provided opportunity for evasion of the ceiling. Altogether only 163,741 acres (less than
1% of the cultivable land area at the time) was acquired from 439 (a different source
mentions 529) families. Not much is known about the recipients of this land, but landless
families were unlikely to have benefited because originally land was envisaged to be
distributed amongst bona fide cultivators owning less than 3 acres. In 1957 a priority
listing was drawn up maintaining the 3 acre limit giving priority to:
1. Tenants of diluviated land
2. Ex-military men with meritorious service
3. Any tenant not employing hired labor
4. Refugees
5. Ex-rent receivers with no retainable Khas lands.
The ordering of priority was again altered in 1960 and 1962 and for the third time
following the Hussain report (1963). The landless and the ‘borga’ sharecroppers were
never identified as priority groups.
The sharecroppers (bargadars) did not benefit from the East Pakistan Tenancy
Act, even though the Act was intended to abolish all intermediate rent receiving interests,
and also to forbid subletting. Sharecropping was not recognized by the Act as subletting.
In fact, the position of the sharecropper was legally worsened under the provisions of the
East Pakistan Tenancy Act, because the provisions of the 1885 Bengal Tenancy Act
which allowed for the recognition of sharecropping interest in land, after they had
cultivated that land for a period of 10 years, were replaced (Januzzi and Peach, 1977).
The most important amendments to the East Pakistan Act were effected through
Presidential Orders 96 and 98 of 1972: the former exempting land revenue for families
holding up to 8.33 acres (25 bighas) and the latter putting a ceiling on family holdings at
33.3 acres (100 highas). As a result of P.O.96, the Government also lost revenue of
approximately Tk. 7.54 crore per year without any significant reduction in the costs of
collection. The holdings exempted from payment of revenue were still liable to pay other
taxes (development tax, redevelopment tax, education cess, etc.) which are calculated on
the basis of land revenue paid. The land revenue therefore had to be assessed in all cases
and there was no economizing on the collection. P.O.96 was further amended in 1976
with the imposition of a new land tax of Tk. 3 per acre with a limit of Tk.90 per family
for holdings below 8.25 acres and Tk. 15 per acre for families above 8.25 acres.
As a result of P.O. 98, only 5,371 families surrendered 76,712 acres of land. The
figures are surprisingly small, even allowing for population growth and the working of
the Muslim law of inheritance. Both P.O.96 and 98 provided fresh scope for avoidance
through the redefinition of the family. Previously the family was defined as consisting of
up to ten members of whatever relations, but under the new orders it was defined to
include “husband, wife, son, unmarried daughter”. This redefinition allows a joint family
to be considered as several distinct families and thus to avoid the provisions for
redistribution under both P.O.96 and P.O. 98.
If the land acquired under the redistribution provisions is any indication of the
results that would follow on further legislative measures for redistribution, then it is
unlikely that this type of redistributive reform would go very far to solve any of the

3
problems of land hunger amongst the landless and small farmers who constitute the great
majority of the rural population.
The discussion above relates to land tenure reform measures which only indirectly
affected the pattern of land use. No direct measures have been taken to affect land use
directly and de facto there is no land use law in Bangladesh. The 1950 East Pakistan
Tenancy Act posited that all raiyats, later to be called maliks or proprietors, will have
permanent, heritable and transferable rights to their land and would be entitled to use
their land in any way whatsoever. The land ceiling fixed by the Act was also relaxed in
the case of large scale farming by use of power driven mechanical appliances, large scale
dairy farming, and tea estates. There was a further relaxation in 1964 when the
provisions of the Act were extended to allow for large scale cooperative farming,
provided the ownership of land is transferred unconditionally by the individual members
(Kabir, 1972,p. 442). P.O. 98 also includes similar exemptions. There is however no
mechanized large scale farms excepting the tea estates, or large scale commercial dairy
farms outside the state sector or cooperative farms in Bangladesh. It is however quite
possible that these exemptions would provide an opportunity for many families to evade
the redistribution provisions of the Act if it were so desired.
There are provisions in the case of the resettlement of Khas lands which allow for:
a) when compact blocks of more than 50 acres of land are available for settlement to
be made on the condition that settlement holders will form cooperative societies;
b) when compact blocks of 500 acres or more are available that attempts will be
made to establish clustered villages for cultivation of the block on cooperative
basis (Abdullah, 1976, p. 94).
The First Five Year Plan also suggested that “the cooperative laws/Acts should be
modified and the regulatory functions (audit, registration, etc.) should be strengthened
and made more effective in a positive sense so that acts and regulations help in the
healthy growth of cooperatives.” It was also suggested in the plan that “land reform
programmes should be closely related to development of cooperative organization. The
programme of redistribution of land to landless cultivators should also be implemented
by organizing the beneficiaries into cooperatives” (Bangladesh, 1973, p.159). So far no
such settlements have been made. From the personal knowledge of the author a few
attempts were made by groups of landless labourers to get block settlements in
Mymensingh district, but these were unsuccessful mainly because of the complications
and contradictions in the existing tenure laws. The Ministry of Land Administration
under the existing rules can settle land only with a registered cooperative society; but
under existing cooperative laws the society to be registered has to have members owning
land.
In early 1975 there were proposals to change the cooperative laws to provide for
compulsory cooperative societies in which the land owners would still retain their legal
rights to the land but cultivation would be practiced jointly, but these ideas were not
developed in great detail. The proposals lapsed with the assassination of the president and
the collapse of the BAKSAL regime in August 1975.

4
 REFERENCES

Abdullah, A. “Land Reform and Agrarian Change in Bangladesh.” Bangladesh

Development Studies. Vol. 4(1) (January 1976), pp. 67-114.
Bangladesh, Government of. The Bangladesh Land Holding (Limitation) Order, 1972.
The Bangladesh Gazette, Extraordinary, Part IIIA, Dacca: August 15, 1972.
Bangladesh, Government of. The State Acquisition and Tenance (Third Amendment)
Order, 1972. The Bangladesh Gazette, Extraordinary, Part IIIA, Dacca: August
15, 1972.
Bangladesh, Government of. The First Five Year Plan 1973-78. Dacca: planning
Commission, 1973.
Bangladesh, Government of. The Land Development Tax Ordinance, 1976. Ordinance
No. XLII of 1976; The Bangladesh Gazette, Extraordinary, Dacca: June 26,
1976.
Bangladesh, Government of, the Land Development Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976.
The Bangladesh Gazette, Dacca: December 13, 1976.
Government of East Pakistan. The East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
(as modified up to 31 May 1964). Dacca: East Pakistan Government press, 1965.
Kabir, L. The Rights and Liabilities of the Raiyats Under the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885
and State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (with amendments). Dacca: Law
House Publication, 1972.
Siddiqui, K. “The Political Economy of Land Reforms in Bangladesh.” Dacca: BIDS,
1978 (unpublished draft).
Tuma, E.H. Twenty-Six Centuries of Agrarian Reforms: A Comparative Analysis.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965.
Warriner, D. Land Reform in Principle and Practice. Oxford: Claredon Press, 1969.