IT was not until 1955 that a ceiling bill, called the Bihar Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Management) Bill, was framed and referred to a committee. However, in the face of strong opposition from the landed elite and failure to muster enough support within the Congress Legislature Party itself, the bill was eventually shelved. Subsequently, a new bill, much more diluted and with sufficient loopholes, was framed in the early 60s and in 1961, it was enacted into law as the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act.

The 1961 Act stipulated that a “person” would be permitted to retain possession of no more than (a) twenty acres of Class I land (land irrigated by flow irrigation works constructed, maintained, improved or controlled by Central, State or local governmental institutions); (b) thirty acres of Class II land (land irrigated by “lift” irrigation works or tube wells constructed or maintained by Central, State or local governmental institutions); (c) forty acres of Class III land (land used for orchards or for other horticultural purposes); (d) fifty acres of Class IV land (diara land); or (e) sixty acres of Class V land (land considered hilly, sandy or incapable of yielding paddy, ravi or cash crops).

However, there were numerous supplementary provisions in the Act designed to permit a landholder to retain lands much in excess of the ceiling provisions. For example, a landholder could retain, in addition to his ceiling area, lands forming part of his “homestead” not exceeding ten acres in area. He could retain all established structures together with the lands on which they stood, and such other lands as might be considered by the collector necessary for the use and enjoyment of his homestead lands. He could retain any land in consolidated blocks (not exceeding fifteen acres in area) used for growing fodder. Moreover, a landholder with more than four dependents could retain lands in excess of his ceiling area — not exceeding one-fifth of his ceiling area for every dependent exceeding four — so long as he retained no more than twice the area of his ceiling holding, as otherwise specified.

Other provisions of the Act permitted a landholder to transfer (within one year following the commencement of the Act) any lands held by him as a raiyat to any person or persons who might have inherited the land or have been entitled to a share of it at his death. In other words, a landholder with lands in excess of the ceiling could transfer his excess lands to sons, daughters, children of his sons or daughters, or others within the terms and conditions of the act — the only limitation being that the aggregate of lands held by the recipients do not exceed, in each instance, the ceiling area specified by the Act.

Moreover, the Act was not applicable to (a) lands previously donated to the Bhoodan movement, (b) lands held by educational institutions, (c) the plantations, and (d) properly licensed sugarcane farms.

The Act of 1961 contained provisions that permitted landholders to resume for “personal cultivation” lands within their ceiling areas being cultivated at the commence ment of the Act by tenants or under-raiyats who were unable to establish that they were entitled to permanent occupancy of the lands they tilled. By “personal cultivation” was meant “cultivation by a raiyat himself or by members of his family or by servants or hired labourers on fixed wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop-share under his personal supervision or the supervision of any member of his family”.

The Act also permitted a landholder, under specified conditions, to sublet any land within his ceiling area for a period not to exceed seven years on any one occasion. The amount of rent in kind payable by the tenant to the land­holder or raiyat was limited to no more than one-fourth of the produce and the landholder was denied any share in the straw or bhoosa (jute sticks after the jute has been extracted or maize stocks following the harvesting of maize) that might exist as a by-product of agricultural production on the leased lands. The Act also made explicit provision for the ejectment of the sublessee by a landholder (a) for failure to pay an arrear of rent, (b) for using the land in a manner that rendered it unfit for the purposes of the tenancy; or (c) on the ground that the term of a lease had expired.

The Act stipulated that every person whose lands in excess of the ceiling were acquired by the state would receive compensation, and regarding the distribution and management of the surplus land it held that (a) such surplus lands as were occupied by under-raiyats might be settled permanently with the under-raiyats on payment of a prescribed amount to the state, and that (b) the management of the remaining surplus land was to be left to village councils or Gram Panchayats who would also attempt to assure the actual cultivation of the land by means of co-operative farming societies of landless labourers. If they were unable to establish such co-operative farming societies within twelve months, the representative of the State government was empowered to settle the land either with individual house­holds of landless agricultural labourers or with other persons of the village or of a neighbouring village.

In December 1971 by an ordinance the quantum of ceiling with respect to each category of land was halved and the exemptions were also made more rigid. By an amendment in June 1973, the ceiling was further reduced to 15, 18, 25, 30, 37.5 and 45 acres for land belonging to Classes I, II, III, IV, V and VI respectively, with family (a couple with three minor children) as the unit, and the exemptions were also drastically curtailed. The jurisdiction of the civil court was barred in respect of action taken under the Ceiling Act.

As regards implementation of the Act, whether in its original or amended version, one can get an idea from the following pieces of official information. The Ceiling Act had come into force on April 19, 1962, but it was only in 1970 that notices began to be served to persons owning lands in excess of the ceiling and that too, only one hundred and twenty-five landholders were notified.

In 1964 the Planning Commission had estimated that with the enforcement of the ceiling all over the State, between 1,00,000 and 1,50,000 acres would become available as “surplus” land. The reality was that between 1961-62 and 1974-75, no more than 9,700 acres were collected by the state. Even during the Emergency, when the government claimed to have acquired no less than 50,000 acres of surplus land, no more than 10,000 acres were distributed, to quote once again from the government's own sources.