Proposed Assam Land Bill: Analysis and Concerns

Recently, the Office of the Secretary, Land Governance Commission of the Government of Assam, issued a public notice inviting opinions and suggestions on matters related to land governance. The notification states that, in light of evolving land governance in Assam, the Government of Assam has constituted a Land Governance Committee under the chairmanship of Hon’ble (Retd.) Justice Prashanta Kumar Deka to prepare a draft of a new Land Bill.

The notice asserts that a new Bill is imperative due to proposed changes in several key areas:

Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!

1. Land Rights: This includes changes related to proprietary rights, the absence of the Talukdari estate, and the introduction of special periodic patta.
2. Modern Survey Technology: The bill envisions the use of modern technology for land surveys.
3. Land Governance Services: This covers services like mutation and partition, the incorporation of auto-mutation/partition, provisions for appeal and revision, and land revenue collection (e-Khazana) through digital platforms.
4. Conclusive Title Regime: The introduction of a proposed conclusive title regime is envisioned.
5. Enactment of New Acts: Several acts have been enacted since the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, making consolidation necessary.

The committee has been constituted with the following objectives for the draft Land Bill:

• To repeal or amend the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, and other non-dynamic land governance acts.
• To consolidate all land governance laws into a unified, comprehensive framework.
• To update definitions and legal concepts to reflect current land tenure realities.
• To legally mandate the adoption of digital land survey and conclusive titling using modern digital platforms.
• To integrate provisions of the Forest Rights Act and recognize customary and community land rights.
• To enable interoperability between forest and revenue departments for tribal and forest land governance.
• To support participatory land governance, including environmental and social impact assessments for exemptions.
• To provide for urban land governance aligned with master plans and spatial land use planning.
• To introduce simplified, transparent, and digital procedures for mutation, partition, and revenue services.
• To restructure revenue administration based on current governance systems.
• To establish legal aid mechanisms and District Land Tribunals with domain expertise for speedy redressal of land disputes.
• To provide legal certainty through a single-owner conclusive title system, ensuring investment and ownership security.

Since the government has sought suggestions from citizens, experts, lawyers, and experienced individuals in land governance, I, as an ordinary citizen, wish to share a few observations publicly.

Concerns Regarding the Bill Drafting Process and Clarity

Firstly, when a government intends to formulate a new bill, the standard procedure involves preparing a draft and making it public, inviting citizens to express their opinions. In the past, several such draft bills have been made public, allowing ordinary citizens to provide feedback. The Assam government’s current approach, directly inviting opinions without a published draft, appears to be a clear violation of established norms for enacting a law. Therefore, the government ought to create a draft bill that allows both experts and regular citizens to submit their opinions.

Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!

Secondly, the objectives mentioned in the notification, which will guide the draft bill’s preparation, are not written in simple language easily understandable to the general public (in both Assamese and English). Consequently, ordinary citizens may face difficulties in providing meaningful suggestions. Therefore, the government must clearly explain the intended meaning behind these objectives and extend the timeline for submitting suggestions by at least six months. Towards the end of this piece, I will highlight a few objectives that I, myself, could not fully comprehend.

Examining the Objectives and Past Land Reforms

Let’s begin by addressing the first objective: the repeal or amendment of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and other outdated land laws. This raises a crucial question. After independence, several progressive laws were enacted to provide land rights to the people of Assam, grant land pattas to the landless, and free tenants from exploitation by landlords. Yet, these laws were deliberately rendered ineffective by successive governments, systematically stalling legal processes meant to benefit poor, landless farmers and tenants.

Two key factors influenced land policy in Assam during the post-independence period: the reports of the 1938 Land Revenue Commission and the 1944 Famine Inquiry Commission. In line with the country’s land reform initiatives, Assam also took significant steps. The most notable was the enactment of The Assam Adhiars Protection and Regulation Act, 1948, aimed at protecting sharecroppers. Subsequently, several other pro-poor land reform laws were enacted, such as:

1. The Assam Assessment of Revenue Free Waste Land Grants Act, 1948
2. The Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaries Act, 1951
3. The State Acquisition of Land Belonging to Religious and Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959
4. The Assam Fixation of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1956
5. The Assam Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1960

Although post-independence governments in India sought to abolish zamindari and intermediary interests to vest land rights in the hands of actual cultivators, these plans were never fully implemented. Various states enacted tenancy reform laws, but except for West Bengal and Kerala, these laws remained unimplemented promises elsewhere. For instance, in some states, occupancy rights were granted only to tenants who had possessed land continuously for 12 years (Assam, Bihar, and six others), while in others, the period was six years. Such discriminatory provisions meant that only permanent tenants gained land rights, while ordinary or non-occupancy tenants were left out.

The Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971

In protest against discriminatory provisions and the non-implementation of tenancy laws, widespread movements erupted in India during the 1960s and 1970s, some of which turned violent. In this context, The Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, was enacted, defining occupancy tenants and the process for them to acquire land rights. It also regulated the rights and duties of non-occupancy tenants and prohibited the creation of new tenants. Sections 21 and 22 of this Act are particularly important concerning tenants’ land rights.

Unfortunately, despite the enactment of progressive laws in Assam for the benefit of poor, landless farmers, the actual process of granting land pattas or ownership rights was entangled in bureaucratic red tape. The government’s indifferent attitude has led to rampant illegal sales of tenancy lands and the eviction of indigenous people from their own lands. The unlawful eviction of native tenants in Mikir Bamuni, Nagaon District, for the purpose of constructing a solar power plant, followed by corporate land purchase, is a prime example of the increasing risk that native Assamese people may become landless in their own motherland.

I want to provide an example of how the government has rendered some laws ineffective, which are now referred to as “outdated.” The Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1956 initially set the maximum limit of land an individual could hold at 150 bighas. Later, the Government of Assam reduced this ceiling twice. In the first reduction, the maximum amount of land an individual could hold in their name was decreased from 150 bighas to 75 bighas. In 1975, this ceiling was further reduced to 50 bighas. According to the Ceiling Act, if someone possesses land exceeding the prescribed limit, the government has the authority to acquire the excess land. If tenants are cultivating that land, the Act had provisions to grant land ownership rights to such tenants. Section 17 of the Act mentions that the government or an authorized officer can allot the land that remains undistributed to tenants under Section 16. The following categories of people are to be given priority in the allotment of such land:

• Farmers who have become landless due to floods, erosion, or earthquakes.
• Landless farmers.
• Agricultural-based farm corporations formed under the Assam Agricultural Farming Corporation Act, 1973.

Unfortunately, due to the inefficiency of the Revenue Department of the Assam Government and the lack of goodwill among ruling leaders, most of the acquired land was never distributed. The little that was distributed largely violated policy and was contrary to government schemes or rules. As a result, under the current patronage of the Assam Government, instead of distributing the undistributed land among genuine tenants or landless farmers, there is now a plan to illegally transfer such land to large corporate groups. It’s important to note that the Ceiling Act does not mention anywhere that acquired land can be allocated for industrial purposes. Similarly, the Act does not provide for the change of agricultural land classification for industrial expansion.

To further demonstrate how the Assam government deceived the public in the matter of Ceiling Surplus land, I would like to provide another example. Between 1956 and 1981, the Government of Assam acquired 1,744,622 bighas of ceiling surplus land, of which 543,322 bighas were acquired from individuals and 1,201,399 bighas from tea estates. Out of this, 675,518 bighas were settled with occupancy tenants and 282,461 bighas with other families. (Source: A study of the Land Systems of North Eastern Region, Law Research Institute, Eastern Region, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati). Thus, barely half of the acquired land was settled, with no clear record of what happened to the rest after 1981. The fear is that such land is now being illegally transferred to corporate houses instead of landless cultivators.

Community Land Rights and Protective Provisions

The notification’s objective of recognizing traditional and community land rights through the integration of Forest Rights Act provisions is, in one sense, revolutionary. Many indigenous communities in the Northeast still follow collective land ownership systems rather than individual land titles. Recognizing community land rights would protect people who have been cultivating land for generations without formal pattas from eviction. However, questions arise: will these community lands remain collectively recognized, or will they be converted to individual pattas? If individual pattas are granted, will they be within the land ceiling limits, or will pattas be issued based on the land historically occupied? Given the Northeast’s unique traditional land systems, safeguarding indigenous land from outsiders is essential, and the new Land Bill must address this.

In recent years, certain land mafia groups and vested interests have been campaigning to abolish protective provisions like the Tribal Belts and Blocks mentioned in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, and the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. If the 1886 Regulation is repealed, will these protections also disappear? In light of the State Government’s lenient land conversion policies, there is justified concern that protective provisions ensuring land rights for indigenous people and landless cultivators may be quietly removed.

Is a new legislation truly necessary if the government’s carelessness or unwillingness prevented the implementation of previous progressive laws? Or is this process merely a means to remove or dilute protective provisions that stand in the way of land-grabbing by companies and outsiders?

Recommendations from the Justice Biplab Kumar Sharma Committee

I believe that the recent committee must seriously consider the recommendations incorporated in the Report of the Committee on Implementation of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord under the Chairmanship of Justice Biplab Kumar Sharma. These recommendations include:

1. Identify revenue circles where only “Assamese people” can own and possess land, in addition to existing Tribal Belts and Blocks.
2. Prevent shrinkage/decrease of prime agricultural land and retain such land as permanent cropland; there should be a complete ban on transferring such land for non-agricultural purposes.
3. Repeal Section 8 of the Assam Agricultural Land (Regulation of Reclassification and Transfer for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2015, which facilitates such conversions, and impose penalties for illegal conversions.
4. Cancel the 2018 Notification (Notification No. RLA/192/2017/30 Dated 18th January, 2018) declaring agricultural land from Guwahati to Tihu as industrial, and exclude such land from the industrial Belt.
5. Launch a three-year mission to grant pattas to Assamese people who have occupied land for decades without formal documents.
6. Prevent indiscriminate sale of land by encouraging youth towards agriculture, horticulture, fishery, and livestock-based occupations.
7. Update and modernize Assam’s land records within a set timeframe.
8. Free encroached wetlands, professional grazing reserves (PGRs), and village grazing reserves (VGRs), and protect them from future encroachment.
9. Strengthen the land administration by increasing staff and ensuring their exclusive engagement in land governance duties.
10. Conduct special surveys of char areas (river islands), declare new chars as Government land, and prioritize allotments to flood-affected landless cultivators.
11. Enact a law preventing clandestine transfer of tea estate land through share sales by original grantees to others.
12. Impose mandatory restrictions on transferring tea estate land during grant renewals or new grants.
13. Establish district-level land tribunals to identify and evict illegal occupants from Tribal Belt and Block lands.
14. Remove Tribal Belts and Blocks from the purview of the Assam State Capital Region Development Act, 2017.

Ambiguities and Call for Transparency

Finally, I would like to raise some concerns regarding ambiguities in the notification:

• If digital land surveys and conclusive title systems are only now being given legal validity, were previous digital surveys and titles legally valid?
• Regarding participatory approaches and environmental/social impact assessments, will the general public be mandatorily consulted during land acquisition and project implementation?
• Who exactly will benefit from the conclusive land title system ensuring investment and ownership security? Is it only for those wealthy enough to purchase large tracts of land in Assam? Why does the notification not explicitly mention that indigenous, landless people will be granted land rights without paying a premium?
• Lastly, the Assam government must reveal the process by which the laws they now deem “outdated” were deliberately rendered defunct. How many people in Assam received land pattas (ownership documents) through The State Acquisition of Land Belonging to Religious and Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959; The Assam Fixation of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1956; The Assam Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1960; The Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971; and other revolutionary land reform initiatives aimed at providing land to actual cultivators and landless people? The Assam government must publish a white paper detailing how many people received land pattas through these progressive laws.

The people of Assam deserve to know how these progressive laws were rendered non-functional and outdated. Only with this information can ordinary citizens provide proper opinions and suggestions regarding the proposed land bill.