NSSO Household Ownership Holdings in India

1,432 views
1,287 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,432
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

NSSO Household Ownership Holdings in India

  1. 1. Report No. 491(59/18.1/4) Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 NSS 59th Round (January–December 2003) National Sample Survey OrganisationMinistry of Statistics and Programme Implementation Government of India November 2006
  2. 2. PrefaceThe Land and Livestock Holdings survey carried out in the 59th round (January-December 2003)by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) is the sixth in the series of similar surveysconducted so far. The objective of these surveys has been to generate basic quantitativeinformation on the agrarian structure of the country, which is relevant to formulation of soundland policy. In the 59th round, information on various aspects of ownership and operationalholdings was collected for both rural and urban areas. Particulars of land owned, land leased outand leased in, and types and terms of lease were collected for study of ownership of holdings.For the operational holdings, data were collected on size, composition, tenurial form, land use,extent of irrigation, fragmentation of holding, drainage facilities and other related aspects. Aninventory of livestock owned by the household on the date of survey was also collected.The present report is the last of four reports planned to be brought out on the basis of datacollected from the Land and Livestock Holdings Survey. The earlier reports deal with number,size distribution, and other aspects of operational holdings, and ownership of livestock. Thepresent report deals with household ownership holdings during the year 2003. It presentsdifferent facets of the household ownership holdings and shows the estimates of land owned,land leased in and leased out, the types and terms of lease and different patterns of land useclassified according to sizes of the ownership holdings.Like all regular NSS surveys, the geographical domain of the present survey covered practicallythe whole of India. Information was collected from a sample of 52,265 rural households and29,893 urban households spread ove r 6,638 villages and 3,764 urban blocks through personalinterviews. Each sample household was visited twice during the period of survey with a gap offour to eight months.Chapter One of this report serves as the introduction. Chapter Two explains the concepts anddefinitions adopted in the survey. Chapter Three summarises the major findings of the survey onhousehold ownership holdings. It also briefly traces the changing aspects of householdownership holdings and their size distributions over the last four decades. Appendix A gives thedetailed survey estimates at State/UT and all-India level. Appendix B explains the sample designand estimation procedure used for the survey. The schedules of enquiry used in Visit 1 andVisit 2 of the survey are given in Appendix C.The Survey Design and Research Division of the NSSO undertook the development of surveymethodology and survey instruments as well as drafting of the report. The fieldwork was carriedout by the Field Operations Division of NSSO while the data processing and tabulation workwas handled by the Data Processing Division of NSSO. The Coordination and PublicationDivision of NSSO coordinated various activities pertaining to the survey.I am thankful to the Chairman and the Members of the Working Group for the NSS 59th roundfor their valuable guidance at various phases of work from designing of the schedules of enquiryto the preparation of this report. I am also thankful to the Chairman and the Members of the thenGoverning Council of NSSO, for providing technical guidance at various stages of survey work.I hope, the report will be useful to the planners and policy makers.Comments and suggestions from readers will be most welcome.New Delhi Vishnu KumarNovember 2006 Director General and Chief Executive Officer National Sample Survey Organisation NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003
  3. 3. HighlightsHousehold Ownership Holdings in India, 2003• The estimated total area owned by the households in the rural sector during the year 2003 was 107.23 million hectares. The corresponding area in the urban sector was 7.21 million hectares only.• About 10% of the rural households were reported to be landless, i.e. owning land either nil or less than 0.002 ha. The corresponding urban share was 49%.• The per-household average area of land owned in the rural sector for the year 2003 came to 0.725 ha, about 27% less than the corresponding figure in 1992.• The average area of land owned per household in the rural sector was highest in Rajasthan (2.077 ha) and lowest in Kerala (0.234 ha).• The percentage of landless households in the rural sector was highest in Sikkim (31%), followed by Arunachal Pradesh (22%), Maharashtra (18%) and Tamil Nadu (17%).• The share of marginal holdings (area less than or equal to 1.000 ha) in the rural areas was 80% in the year 2003 compared to 72% in 1992 and 67% in 1982.• In the rural areas, the share of land owned by different social groups was 11% for ST, 9% for SC, 44% for OBC and 36% for Others. The per-household land area owned by them was 0.767 ha, 0.304 ha, 0.758 ha and 1.003 ha respectively.• Of the total land area under ownership holding in the rural sector, 15% constituted of sand, 21% of loam, 7% of silt, 41% of light clay and 13% of heavy clay.• In the rural sector about 2.8% households reported leasing out of land while 11.5% households reported leasing in of land. Among the households leasing in, 40% contracted for share of produce, 31% for fixed rent in cash and 15% for fixed rent in kind. NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 i
  4. 4. Contents Page no. … Highlights i Chapter One Introduction 1– 2 Chapter Two Concepts and Definitions 3– 8 Chapter Three Summary of Findings 9 – 31 Appendix A Detailed Tables A-1 – A-307 Appendix B Sample Design and Estimation Procedure B-1 – B-11 Appendix C Facsimile of Schedule 18.1 C-1 – C-14 Appendix ATable No. Title Page 1R/1U Per 1000 distribution of households and average area owned by size class of A-1 – A-27 ownership holding separately for each social group (Rural / Urban) 2R/2U Per 1000 distribution of households reporting leasing-out of land and A-28 – A-54 average area of such land per reporting household by size class of ownership holding for each social group (Rural / Urban) 3R/3U Per 1000 distribution of households reporting leasing-in of land and A-55 – A-81 average area of such land per reporting household by size class of ownership holding for each social group (Rural / Urban) 4R/4U Per 1000 distribution of households by size class of holding of owned land A-82 – A-83 other than homestead (Rural / Urban) 5R/5U Average area (ha) per household by size class of holding of owned land A-84 – A-85 other than homestead (Rural / Urban) 6R Per 1000 distribution of households over household type for each size class A-86 – A-100 of ownership holding (Rural) 7R Percentage distribution of area owned by type of land for each size class of A-101 – A-129 ownership holding (Rural) 8R Proportions of households leasing in land of specific types among A-130 – A-158 households leasing in land and average area of land leased in by type (Rural) NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 ii
  5. 5. Appendix A (contd.)Table No. Title Page 9R Number per 1000 of households reporting leasing-in of land (excluding A-159 – A-187 homestead) by terms of lease for each size class of ownership holding (Rural) 10R Number per 1000 of households reporting leasing-in of land (excluding A-188 – A-202 homestead) by type of lessor for each size class of ownership holding (Rural) 11R Number per 1000 of households reporting land (excluding homestead) A-203 – A-217 possessed but not owned by type of possession for each size class of ownership holding (Rural) 12R Average area of land (excluding homestead) possessed but not owned A-218 – A-232 per household reporting such land for each type of possession by size class of ownership holding (Rural) 13R Percentage distribution of area leased out (excluding homestead) by terms A-233– A-261 of lease for each size class of ownership holding (Rural) 14R Percentage distribution of area leased in (excluding homestead) by terms of A-262 – A-290 lease for each size class of ownership holding (Rural)15R/15U Average household size by broad size class of household ownership A-291 – A-292 holding (Rural / Urban) 16R Per 1000 distribution of plots by soil type for each size class of ownership A-293 – A307 holding (Rural) NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 iii
  6. 6. Chapter One Introduction1.0 The survey on Land and Livestock Holdings carried out in the 59th round (January-December 2003) of the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) is the sixth inthe series of similar surveys conducted by the NSSO. The objective of these surveys hasbeen to generate basic quantitative information on the agrarian structure of the country,which is relevant to land policy. The first survey on land holdings was taken up by theNSS in its 8th round (July 1954 - April 1955) as part of the World Agricultural Censusinitiated by the Food & Agricultural Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations. In thissurvey, information on agricultural holdings was collected primarily to meet therequirements of the FAO. In addition, information on household ownership holdings wascollected to provide the policy framers with the much-needed data for formulating landreforms policy for the country. A similar survey was conducted again in the 16th (July1960-August 1961) and 17th (September 1961-July 1962) rounds of the NSS as a part ofthe World Agricultural Census Programme of 1960. Since then, NSSO has been regularlyconducting land holding surveys every ten years or so. The third land holdings survey ofNSSO during its 26 th round (July 1971-June 1972), was conducted simultaneously with asurvey on Debt and Investment at the instance of the Reserve Bank of India. Since then,this has been a regular feature of the rounds in which land and livestock holdings surveyshave been conducted: the 37th round (January-December 1982), the 48th round (January-December 1992), and the present one.1.1 In this round, 6760 villages formed the Central sample (surveyed by NSSO field -officials) in the rural sector. Of these, 6638 villages were ultimately surveyed. In theurban sector, the allocation for the Central sample was 3824 Urban Frame Survey (UFS)blocks of which 3764 were surveyed. This report is based on the estimates obtained fromthe Central sample alone. Eight households were selected for survey from each samplevillage and urban block. The actual number of households surveyed was 52,265 in therural sector and 29,893 in the urban sector. The Central sample covered the whole of theIndian Union except (i) Leh (Ladakh) and Kargil districts of Jammu & Kashmir, (ii)interior villages of Nagaland situated beyond five kilometres of any bus route and (iii)villages in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which remain inaccessible throughout the year.1.2 There were four subjects of enquiry in the 59th round of NSS: Land and LivestockHoldings (Sch.18.1), Debt and Investment (Sch.18.2), Consumer Expenditure (Sch.1.0),and Situation Assessment Survey of Farmers (Sch.33). Only the Situation AssessmentSurvey was restricted to rural India; the others covered both rural and urban areas of thecountry. The survey period of the 59th round was from January to December, 2003. Withthe exception of consumer expenditure, all the enquiries required two visits to eachsample household for collection of data: one during January to August, 2003 (visit 1) andthe other during September to December 2003, (visit 2). Accordingly, each sample firststage unit (village or block) was visited twice by the investigator to whom it was allotted. NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 1
  7. 7. Canvassing of the listing schedule (Sch. 0.0) and selection of the sample households wascarried out in the visit 1 only. The survey period was further divided into two sub-rounds.Sub-round 1 consisted of the first half of the period of each visit while sub-round 2consisted of the remaining period. Equal number of sample FSU’s were allotted to eachsub-round and an FSU was normally surveyed in the sub-round to which it was allotted.Because of arduous field conditions, this restriction was not strictly enforced in Andamanand Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, and rural areas of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland.1.3 Besides household and demographic characteristics, information on various aspectsof ownership and operational holdings had been collected in this survey in both rural andurban sectors. Particulars of land and livestock owned, land leased out and leased in,types and terms of lease, major types of land use, soil types etc. formed the main body ofinformation for study in this survey.1.4 The present report is the last of a series of four reports being brought out on thebasis of the Land and Livestock Holdings Survey. The first report dealt with livestockownership and the next two reports with number, area and other aspects of operationalland holdings. The present report deals with the Household Ownership Holdings duringthe period 2003. It presents different facets of the household ownership holdings andshows the estimates of land owned, land leased in and land leased out, and also the typesand terms of lease etc classified according to sizes of the ownership holdings of thehouseholds. The data on land owned, leased in and leased out by the household werecollected only in visit 1. Therefore, the results presented in this report are based on thedata collected during visit 1.1.5 Detailed estimates at State and Union Territory level are presented in Appendix Aof the report. The sample design and estimation procedure are explained at length inAppendix B. A facsimile of the schedule of enquiry (Schedule 18.1) is included asAppendix C. Concepts and definitions followed in the survey are set out in Chapter Twoand the results of the survey are presented in brief in Chapter Three: Summary ofFindings.1.6 Since estimates based on very small samples may not be reliable, it was decided torelease State-level estimates if the total number of sample households for the State was atleast 300 in the rural as well as in the urban sector. As a consequence, for the Tables 1 to16 in Appendix A, separate figures for the States of Delhi and Goa, and for all the UT’s,could not be brought out in the rural sector. Similarly, for the urban sector, separatefigures for the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya,Nagaland, Sikkim and Uttaranchal, as well as for all the UT’s, could not be brought out.However, figures for all the UT’s have been clubbed and shown under the head ‘Group ofUT’s’ in both rural and urban sectors. It may be noted that data from all the States andUT’s have been used in building up of all- India estimates. NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 2
  8. 8. Chapter Two Concepts and Definitions2.0 Before discussion on the main findings on Household Ownership Holdings, theconcepts and definitions of different terms used in the survey are given below:2.1 Household: A group of persons normally living together and taking food from acommon kitchen constitutes a household. By "normally" is meant, temporary visitors areexcluded while temporary stay-aways are included. Thus, a son or a daughter residing in ahostel for studies is excluded from the household of his/her parents, but a resident employee orresident domestic servant or paying guest (but not just a tenant in the house) is included in theemployer’s/hosts household. "Living together" is usually given more importance than"sharing food from a common kitchen" in drawing the boundaries of a household in case thetwo criteria are in conflict. However, in other cases, a person taking food with his family butsleeping elsewhere (say, in a shop or a different house) due to space shortage or otherwise, thehousehold formed by such a persons family members is taken to include the person also. Eachinmate of a mess, hotel, boarding and lodging house, hostel, etc. is considered as asingle- member household except that a family living in such an establishment is consideredas one household only. Under-trial prisoners in jails, indoor patients in hospitals and nursinghomes are excluded from listing therein, but such persons are taken into consideration forlisting in their original households. However, floating population without any normalresidence, foreign nationals and their domestic servants, persons in barracks of military andparamilitary forces, and members of an orphanage or rescue home or ashram or vagrant houseare excluded at the time of listing of households.2.2 Household size: The size of a household is the total number of persons, normally livingin the household.2.3 Agricultural production: The extended definition of agricultural production adoptedin the survey includes in addition to crop production, activities allied to agriculture that areintensive in the use of land such as growing of fruits, grapes, nuts, seeds, tree nurseries(except those of forest trees), bulbs, vegetables and flowers both in the open and in glasshouses; production of coffee, tea, cocoa, rubber, forest production in parcels of land whichform part of the enumeration holding and production of livestock and livestock products,poultry and poultry products, fish, honey, rabbits, fur-bearing animals, and silk-wormcocoons.2.4 Ownership of land: (i) A plot of land was considered to be owned by a household ifpermanent heritable possession, with or without the right to transfer the title was vested in amember or members of the household. Land held in owner-like possession under long-term(30-99 years) lease or assignment was also considered as land owned. Thus, in determiningthe ownership of a plot of land two basic concepts were involved, namely,(a) Land owned by the household, i.e., land on which the household had the right of permanent heritable possession with or without the right to transfer the title, e.g., pattadars, bhumidars, jenmons, bhumi-swamis, rayat sithibans, etc. A plot of land may NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 3
  9. 9. be leased out to others by the owner without losing the right of permanent heritable possession.(b) Land held under special conditions such that the holder did not possess the title of ownership but had the right to long-term possession of the land (for example, land possessed under perpetual lease, hereditary tenure and long-term lease for 30-99 years) was considered as being held under owner-like possession. In States where land reform legislation has provided for full proprietorship to erstwhile tenants, the latter were considered as having owner- like possession, even if they had not paid the full compensation.(ii) Sometimes a plot may be possessed by a tribal in accordance with traditional tribalrights from local chieftains or village/district council. Again, a plot may be occupied by atenant for which the right of ownership vests in the community. In both the cases, the tribalor other individual (tenant) was taken as owner, for in all such cases, the holder had theowner- like possession of land in question.2.5 Household ownership holding: A household ownership holding includes all plots (orparts of plot) of land owned or held in owner-like possession under a long-term lease orassignment by a member of the household, whether the land is cultivatable or not. Thus ahousehold ownership holding may include, besides cultivatable land, areas under forest,barren and unculturable land, cultivatable waste land, land put to non-agricultural uses (viz.house sties, roads etc.), land growing miscellaneous tree crops, etc.2.6 Lease of land: (i) Land given to others on rent or free by owner of the land withoutsurrendering the right of permanent heritable title is defined as land leased out. It is definedas land leased in if it is taken by a household on rent or f without any right of permanent reeor heritable possession. The lease contract may be written or oral.(ii) Sometimes orchards and plantations are given to others for harvesting the produce forwhich the owner receives a payment in cash or kind. Such transactions were not treated as“lease” for the purpose of the survey.2.7 Otherwise possessed land: This was understood to mean all public or institutionalland possessed by the household without title of ownership or occupancy right. Thepossession was without the consent of the owner. Private land (i.e., land owned by thehousehold sector) possessed by a household without title of ownership and occupancy rightwas not included in this category. All private land encroached upon by the household wastreated as leased- in land.2.8 Homestead land: (i) Homestead of a household was defined as the dwelling house ofthe household together with the courtyard, compound, garden, out-house, place of worship,family graveyard, guest house, shop, workshop and offices for running householdenterprises, tanks, wells, latrines, drains and boundary walls annexed to the dwelling house.All land coming under homestead was defined as homestead land.(ii) Homestead may constitute only a part of a plot. Sometimes, gardens, orchards orplantations, though adjacent to the homestead and lying within the boundary walls, may belocated on a clearly distinct piece of land. In such cases, land under garden, orchard orplantation was not considered as homestead land. NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 4
  10. 10. 2.9 Land possessed: Land possessed by the household is obtained by summing the landareas (in hectares) for plots owned, leased in and otherwise possessed by the household andthen subtracting the land area leased out by the household.2.10 Land use: The classification for land use was based on the usual status of the landand was meant for classifying land owned and land leased-in as on date of survey. Thedefinitions of various uses of land relevant for the survey are given below:2.10.1 Forest: This included all area actually under forest or land so classified under anylegal enactment or administered as forest, whether state owned or private. If any portion ofsuch land was not actually wooded but put to raising of field crops, it was treated under netsown area and not under forest. All area under social and farm forestry will be included inthis class.2.10.2 Net sown area: For a particular season, this consists of area sown with field cropsand area under orchards and plantations counting only once the area sown more than once inthe same season. The net sown area defined above has been further classified into areaunder orchards, plantations and seasonal crops.(i) Orchards: A piece of land put to production of horticulture crops, viz. fruits, nuts, dates,grapes etc. (other than those treated as plantation crops), was regarded as an orchard, if itwas at least 0.10 hectare in size or had at least 12 trees planted on it. In the case of such fruittrees where distance between the trees was quite large, say more than six meters, as in thecase mangoes, the orchard was defined according to the minimum number of 12 treesplanted in it. In case, where the distance was less than six meters as in the case of bananas,papayas, grape vines etc., the orchard was defined on the basis of the minimum area of1/10th of an hectare.(ii) Plantation: Area devoted to production of plantation crops, viz. tea, coffee, cashewnut, pepper, coconut, cardamom, rubber, cocoa, arecanut, oil palm,, clove and nutmeg, wastreated as area under plantation. The size restriction given for orchards was also applicablefor plantations for the purpose of the survey.(iii) Area under seasonal crop: All land under net sown area not coming under orchards orplantations was taken as area under seasonal crops.Sometimes, net sown area consists of a piece of land put to a combination of the above threeuses. In such cases, the use to which the major area of the piece of land was put was treatedas the ‘use’ of the piece of land.2.10.3 Current fallow: This comprises cultivable area which is kept fallow during thecurrent agricultural year. If any seedling area in the current agricultural year is not croppedagain in the same year, it is also treated as current fallow.2.10.4 Other fallow: All pieces of land which were taken up for cultivation in the past,but are temporarily out of cultivation for a period of more than one agricultural year but notmore than five years, including the current agricultural year, are classified under otherfallow.2.10.5 Land put to non-agricultural uses: This included all land occupied by buildings,path etc. or under water (tanks, wells, canals etc.) and land put to uses other than agriculturaluses. For the purpose of this survey, this class of land was further divided into two classes. NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 5
  11. 11. (a) Water bodies: All land which are perennially under water was defined as water bodies, provided that no crop was raised on them. (b) Other non-agricultural uses: All land put to other non-agricultural uses. Viz. buildings, roads, railways, paths etc. were classified under land put to other non- agricultural uses.2.10.6 Other uses: This included all land coming under rest of the classes of standardnine-fold classification, viz., “culturable waste”, “miscellaneous tree crops and groves notincluded in net sown area”, “permanent pastures and other grazing land” and “barren andunculturable waste”.2.10.7 Drainage facilities: A plot of land was considered to have drainage facility if thereexisted some method of removal of excess water from the surface of land, from the upperlayers of soil or sub-soil by artificial means for the purpose of making (a) non-producing wetland productive and (b) producing wet land more productive. Natural drainage, i.e. normaloutflow of excess water from the plot of land by virtue of its position, was not considered asdrainage facility.2.11 Irrigation: Irrigation was considered as a device of purposively providing land withwater, other than rain water, by artificial means for crop production.2.12 Terms of lease: The various terms of lease on which the area was leased out to thelessee households were:(1) For fixed money (2) for fixed produce (3) for share of produce (4) for service contract(5) for share of produce together with other terms (6) under usufructuary mortagage (7) fromrelatives under no specified terms and (8) under other terms.It may be noted here that leasehold under crop-sharing basis meant that the owner of landreceived a stipulated share of the produce but he did not participate in the work nor did hemanage or direct or organize the agricultural operations on the plot of land which he hadleased out. Leasehold under service contract meant that an employer gave some land to anemployee for cultivation in lieu of the services provided by him under the condition that theland could be retained so long as the employee continued to serve the employer and no otherspecific terms of lease was contracted. The term by which the mortgagor retained theownership of land till the foreclosure of the deed but the possession of the land wastransferred to the mortgagee would be considered as leasing-out under usufructuarymortgage. Sometimes land owned by a household is looked after and used by a closerelative. For example, a person staying away from his village may own a piece of land in thevillage which is looked after and used by his brother’s household. All such land owned bythe household but looked after and used by some relative’s household, under no contract ofpayment of any kind to the owner, was treated as leasing-out to ‘relatives under no specifiedterms’. Lease on terms other than those specified for types (1) to (7) stated above wastreated as ‘under other terms’. All rent free leases, other than those from ‘relatives under nospecified terms’ was treated as lease ‘under other terms’.2.13 Crop seasons (Kharif and Rabi): Generally, the agricultural year is divided intotwo main crop seasons, Kharif and Rabi. The crop season is identified by the months ofharvesting of the crop during the year. In a broad sense, crops which are harvested in theperiod from July to December are known as Kharif crops, while Rabi crops are those whichare harvested during January to June. For the purpose of the survey, Kharif season included NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 6
  12. 12. both early Kharif (i.e. autumn) and late Kharif (i.e. winter). Similarly, the Rabi seasonincluded both Rabi and Zaid Rabi (i.e. summer). The harvesting months of the early Kharifand the late Kharif seasons may extend over July to October and November to January,respectively. Again, the crops of Rabi and Zaid Rabi seasons may be harvested duringDecember to April and May to July, respectively. However, there may be further departurefrom this general rule in case of some crops grown in certain regions. Therefore, the generalpolicy is to ascertain the crop season from the farmer who has harvested the crop. As ageneral guideline, the crop seasons for some principal crops are given as shown below: crop season crop season Rice Kharif,Rabi (summer) Sugarcane Kharif Wheat Rabi Sesamum Kharif, Rabi Jowar Kharif, Rabi Groundnut Kharif Bazra Kharif Linseed Rabi Maize Kharif Castor Kharif Ragi Kharif Cotton Kharif Barley Rabi Tobacco Kharif Gram Rabi Jute KharifHowever, it was ensured that all the crops, whether principal or not, grown during theagricultural year 2002-03 were duly considered in either Kharif or Rabi season. For landwithout crop, July to December 2002 was treated as Kharif season and January to June 2003,as Rabi season.2.14 Social group: There are in all four social groups, namely, scheduled caste, scheduledtribe, other backward class and others. Those who do not come under any one of the first threesocial groups are assigned to ‘others’ meant to cover all other categories. In case differentmembers of a household belong to different social groups, the group to which the head of thehousehold belongs is considered as the ‘social group’ of the household.2.15 Number of villages and blocks surveyed: Table A shows, State/UT-wise, thenumber of villages/blocks allotted for survey and the number actually surveyed, and thenumber of sample households in which Schedule 18.1 was canvassed. It may be noted that 93sample villages falling in disturbed areas – 77 in Jammu & Kashmir and 16 in Assam – couldnot be surveyed. Apart from this, 29 villages – 8 in Tamil Nadu, 2 in Arunachal Pradesh and19 in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands – became casualty as they could not be surveyed withinthe deadline set for Visit 1. Similarly, 60 urban blocks – 47 falling in disturbed areas of Jammuand Kashmir, 8 in Arunachal Pradesh and 5 in Tamil Nadu could not be surveyed. NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 7
  13. 13. Table A: Number of villages/blocks allotted and surveyed and number of households s urveyed no. of villages no. of blocks sample householdsState/UT allotted surveyed allotted surveyed rural urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)Andhra Pradesh 432 432 244 244 3431 1946Arunachal Pradesh 68 66 36 28 523 224Assam 296 280 64 64 2200 512Bihar 504 504 88 88 3980 704Chhattisgarh 140 140 52 52 1098 415Delhi 12 12 188 8 90 1417Goa 12 12 16 16 96 128Gujarat 172 172 160 160 1343 1270Haryana 120 120 72 72 930 576Himachal Pradesh 148 148 24 24 1152 192Jammu & Kashmir 196 119 100 53 919 415Jharkhand 180 180 76 76 1417 604Karnataka 256 256 196 196 2025 1556Kerala 300 300 152 152 2230 1215Madhya Pradesh 312 312 168 168 2454 1327Maharashtra 424 424 424 424 3328 3361Manipur 124 124 60 60 989 480Meghalaya 92 92 36 36 731 288Mizoram 68 68 68 68 536 544Nagaland 48 48 16 16 384 128Orissa 244 244 64 64 1939 511Punjab 164 164 124 124 1291 990Rajasthan 336 336 152 152 2638 1207Sikkim 72 72 16 16 576 128Tamil Nadu 412 404 408 403 3208 3221Tripura 128 128 40 40 1024 320Uttar Pradesh 852 852 336 336 6765 2668Uttaranchal 56 56 32 32 416 256West Bengal 504 504 296 296 4012 2363A & N Islands 36 17 28 28 124 223Chandigarh 8 8 28 28 64 224Dadra & N. Haveli 16 16 8 8 128 64Daman & Diu 8 8 8 8 64 64Lakshadweep 8 8 8 8 64 64Pondicherry 12 12 36 36 96 288All-India 6760 6638 3824 3764 52265 29893 NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 8
  14. 14. Chapter Three Summary of Findings3.0 The objective of the Land and Livestock Holdings Survey of 2003 was to assessvarious aspects of land ownership holdings and operational holdings – the latter withreference to the agricultural year 2002-03 – as well as livestock ownership across operationalland holding size classes in both rural and urban sectors of the country. Data collected in thissurvey included particulars of land owned, land leased out and leased in, types and terms oflease, and the stock of cattle, buffalo, poultry and other livestock on the date of survey,besides information on household characteristics such as religion, social group, occupationand industry, and demographic characteristics of the members of the households.3.0.1 The present report brings out various facets of the household ownership holdings ofthe country in both rural and urban sectors. It covers different aspects of ownership holdingsin terms of alternative uses to which land is put, types and terms of lease, and their variationover size classes of ownership holdings. It also brings out the estimates of area underhousehold ownership holdings, average size of holding, the number and proportion oflandless households etc. The detailed results of the report are shown in Tables 1 to 16 ofAppendix A. Some important findings emerging from the survey on household ownershipholdings are described in this chapter. The findings are organised as follows: § Household ownership of land § Composition of ownership holdings by social group § Land use pattern in ownership holdings § Incidence and extent of tenancy of land3.1 Household ownership of land3.1.1 Land, with permanent heritable possession, with or without right to transfer the title,was considered as owned land. The land held in owner- like possession under a long-termlease or assignment (e.g. village land possessed by a tribal household as per traditional tribalrights or community land customarily operated by a tenant for a long period) was also treatedas land owned. A household ownership holding includes all plots (or parts of plot) of landowned by a member of the household, whether the land is cultivatable or not. Thus ahousehold ownership holding may include, besides cultivatable land, areas under forest,barren and unculturable land, cultivatable waste land, land put to non-agricultural uses (viz.house sites, roads etc.), land growing miscellaneous tree crops, etc.3.1.2 The estimates of area under household ownership holdings, average size of holding,and number and proportion of landless households are presented in Statement 1. Householdsowning no land or land less than 0.002 hectares are termed as landless households. Theestimated area owned by the rural households was 107.23 million hectares (mha) and thatowned by the urban households was 7.21 million hectares. The share of urban households inthe total land ownership was only 6.3%. The average size of rural holdings was 0.725hectare and that of urban holdings was 0.130 hectare. For the households excluding thelandless households, these averages turned out as 0.806 and 0.252 hectare in the rural andurban areas respectively. A large number of households owned practically no land or a very NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 9
  15. 15. small holding. While 10% of the rural households were reported to be landless, in the urbansector the share was almost 49%. In absolute terms, about 15 million households were foundto be landless in rural India. Statement 1: Estimated total area and average area owned, and propo rtion of landless households in rural and urban areas All-India item rural urban (1) (2) (3) 1. estimated no. of households (’000) 147,838 55,508 2. estimated no. of landless households (’000) 14,836 26,928 2.1 percentage of landless households 10.0 48.5 3. estimated total area owned (’000 ha) 107,228 7,212 4. average area owned per household (ha) a) including landless households 0.725 0.130 b) excluding landless households 0.806 0.2523.1.1 Trends in household ownership of land: all India3.1.1.1 Data on ownership of land are being collected regularly by the NSSO since its 8thround (1954-55). So far, including the present one, six land holding surveys have beenconducted. The results of these surveys contribute a fairly comparable set of data over quitea long period of time. For the NSS 8th round, a plot of land was considered to be owned by amember of the household only if he/she held it with permanent heritable possession, with orwithout right to transfer the title. The coverage of owned land remained unaltered throughthe rounds, except for one change introduced in the definition of owned land. The land heldin owner-like possession under a long-term lease or assignment became a part of the landowned by the household since the 17th round (1961-62). In that round the terms ‘assignment’or ‘long-term lease’ covered only those given by the Government. In the 26th round (1971-72), owner- like possession was elaborated to cover the following types of possession as well: (a) land held under perpetual basis, hereditary tenure and long-term lease (ranging from 30 to 99 years), (b) land held by tribals under traditional right from local chieftains, village councils or district councils, (c) land held by tena nts who were granted full proprietary rights by the government under land reforms legislation, and (d) land held by tenants while ownership rights were with the community.These types of possession, however, account for a very small share of area owned. But forthe coverage of owner-like possession, the coverage of the term ‘ownership’ has remainedunaltered since the 26th round. NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 10
  16. 16. 3.1.1.2 The basic estimates relating to ownership of land obtained from the above surveysare given in Statement 2. The estimates for the rural sector are discussed here. The sizes ofthe samples on which the estimates are based are also provided in the statement. It may beobserved that the total area owned (128.7 mha), as estimated in 1961-62, had fallen to 119.6mha in 1971-72 – a fall of about 7 percent. The 1982 survey estimate of 119.7 mha of landunder the ownership of rural households was quite close to the estimate of 1971-72. Thedefinition of ownership of land remaining the same for the surveys of 1961-62, 1971-72 and1982, there is no apparent reason for the decrease in area owned except that some rural landmight have been merged in urban land due to urbanisation over the years. Statement 2: Changes in household ownership of land during 1961-62 to 2003All-India Rural 1961-62 1971-72 1982 1992 2003 item (17th (26th (37th (48th (59th round) round) round) round) round) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1. Estimated area 128,734 119,636 119,736 117,354 107,228 owned (000 ha) 2. Average area owned per household (ha) (a) including landless households 1.78 1.53 1.28 1.01 0.73 (b) excluding landless households 2.01 1.69 1.44 1.14 0.81 3. Percentage of landless 11.7% 9.6% 11.3% 11.3% 10.0% households 4. Number of sample villages 3486 4547 3692 4231 6638 5. Number of sample households 53138 35947 29089 33289 522653.1.1.3 Figure 1 below shows the average area owned per ho usehold in hectares, when (i)landless households are included, as well as when (ii) landless households are excluded. Fig. 1: Average area owned per household (ha) 2.5 2 Av. area (ha) 1.5 1 0.5 0 1961-62 1971-72 1982 1992 2003 Year Av. area- including landless households Av. area -excluding landless households3.1.1.4 Statement 2 reveals no significant change in the percentage of landless householdssince 1961-62, except that it was slightly lower (10%) in 1971-72 as well as in 2003. Withthe progressive increase in the number of rural households, decline in average area owned is NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 11
  17. 17. inevitable. The increasing pressure of rural population on the limited land base is reflected in the steady decline in the average area owned per household over the years. In 1961-62, the average area owned per household was 1.78 hectares. Gradually and steadily, it came down to 0.73 hectare in 2003. Excluding the landless households, the average area owned was estimated to be 0.81 hectare in 2003, which is nearly 40% of the estimate (2.01 hectares) obtained in 1961-62. 3.1.2 Changes in the pattern of distribution of ownership holdings : all-India 3.1.2.1 To examine whether there has been any significant change in the agrarian structure, apart from the observed decline in average size of holdings, it is necessary to study the nature and extent of temporal variations in the size distribution of ownership holdings. Statement 3 gives the cumulative percentage distribution of rural households and area owned by size class of ownership holdings from all the Land Holding Surveys of NSS since 1961-62. It is seen from the statement that the broad, highly skewed nature of size-distribution of ownership holdings has by and large, remained unchanged over time, notwithstanding the progressively downward shift in the distribution. The size distribution of ownership holdings in India is characterized by predominance of landless households and marginal ho lders. During 2003, the marginal holdings (less than or equal to 1 ha) and the landless (below 0.002 ha) constituted about 80% of the rural households but owned only 23% of total area. The medium (owning 4 to 10 hectares of land) and large holders (owning more than 10 hectares of land) accounted for only 3.6% of the households but had a combined share of about 35% in the total land owned by all households in 2003. Gini’s coefficient of concentration of ownership of land holdings, computed on the basis of data for the size classes shown in Statement 3, came to about 0.73, 0.71, 0.71, 0.71 and 0.74 in 1961-62, 1971-72, 1982, 1992 and 2003 respectively. The Lorenz curves drawn for the five years are shown in Figures 2.1 to 2.5. Statement 3: Cumulative percentage distribution of households and area owned over size classes of household ownership holding in different NSS rounds All-India Rural 1961-62 1971-72 1982 1992 2003size class of (17th round) (26th round) (37th round) (48th round) (59th round)household % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % ofownership house- area house- area house- area house- area house- areaholdings (ha.) holds owned holds owned holds owned holds owned holds owned (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) below 0.002 11.68 0.00 9.64 0.00 11.33 0.00 11.25 0.00 10.04 0.01 below 0.21 37.90 0.54 37.42 0.69 39.93 0.90 42.40 1.31 50.60 2.08 below 0.41 44.21 1.59 44.87 2.07 48.21 2.75 51.36 3.80 60.15 5.83 below 1.01 66.06 7.59 62.62 9.76 66.64 12.22 71.88 16.93 79.67 23.02 below 2.01 75.22 19.98 78.11 24.44 81.34 28.71 85.30 35.52 90.48 43.40 below 3.01 83.51 31.55 86.00 37.14 88.61 42.55 91.86 50.90 94.76 57.21 below 4.01 88.08 40.52 90.00 46.36 92.12 52.09 94.58 60.10 96.51 65.37 below 6.01 93.17 54.49 94.67 60.93 96.02 66.73 97.39 73.33 98.38 77.46 below 8.01 95.64 64.15 96.71 70.19 97.66 75.55 98.50 80.74 99.14 84.44 below 10.01 97.15 71.75 97.88 77.09 98.57 81.99 99.12 86.17 99.47 88.45 below 12.01 98.01 77.08 98.55 81.89 99.00 85.73 99.40 89.18 99.63 90.83 below 20.01 99.40 88.87 99.59 92.14 99.76 94.57 99.85 95.69 99.90 97.02 all sizes 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00Gini’s coeff. of 0.73 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.74concentration NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 12
  18. 18. Fig 2.1: Lorenz curve for 1961-62 Fig 2.2: Lorenz curve for 1971-72 All-India (Rural) All-India (Rural) 100 100 Cumulative percentage Cumulative percentage 90 90 80 80 of area owned of area owned 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 0 50 100 Cumulative percentage Cumulative percentage of households of households Fig 2.3: Lorenz curve for 1982 Fig 2.4: Lorenz curve for 1992 All-India (Rural) All-India (Rural) 100Cumulative percentage Cumulative percentage 100 80 of area owned 80 of area owned 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 0 50 100 0 50 100 Cumulative percentage Cumulative percentage of households of households Fig 2.5: Lorenz curve for 2003 All-India (Rural) Cumulative percentage 100 of area owned 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 Cumulative percentage of households NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 13
  19. 19. 3.1.2.2 Over a period of four decades since 1961-62, the size distribution of ownershipholdings has progressively shifted downwards. The proportion of marginal holders has risenfrom 66% in 1961-62 to 80% in 2003 and the proportion of small holders (owning 1 to 2hectares), has increased from 9% to 11%. This rise in the proportion of marginal and smallholders has been accompanied by a steady decline in the proportion of medium and largeholders.3.1.2.3 Figure 3 shows the percentage of households and area owned by householdsbelonging to different size classes of ownership holding. Fig 3: Percentages of households and area owned for different size classes of ownership holding 25.00 20.00 percentage 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 nil 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00 0 0 00 00 .00 20 50 04 00 00 00 00 00 .00 .00 <0 2-. 2.0 0-. 0-. 5-. 12 -4. -8. -2. -3. -6. 0-1 -10 .00 .04 .20 .00 >= 00 00 0-1 00 00 00 .50 00 3.0 6.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 .00 8.0 10 size of ownership holding (ha) Percentage of households Percentage of area owned3.1.3 Household ownership of land: inter-State comparison3.1.3.1 The average size of ownership holdings and percentage of landless households fordifferent States are given in Statement 4 for rural India. For the States, the average areaowned per household varied over a wide range, with Kerala showing the lowest value (0.23ha) and Rajasthan reporting the highest (2.08 ha). Besides Kerala, Tripura (0.26 ha), WestBengal (0.30 ha), Tamil Nadu (0.34 ha), Uttaranchal (0.37 ha) and Bihar (0.38 ha) were theStates that reported an average area less than 0.40 hectare. The national average was 0.73ha. In addition to Rajasthan, six more States reported average holding size exceeding onehectare. They were Madhya Pradesh (1.31 ha), Arunachal Pradesh (1.17 ha), Mizoram (1.11ha), Chhattisgarh (1.06 ha), and Maharashtra and Gujarat (both 1.02 ha). NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 14
  20. 20. Statement 4: State-wise average size of household ownership holdings and percentage of landless households, 2003 Rural average area (ha) percentage of average area (ha) owned per State landless owned per household household excl. households landless households (1) (2) (3) (4) Andhra Pradesh 0.620 14.33 0.724 Arunachal Pradesh 1.173 21.59 1.496 Assam 0.551 8.05 0.599 Bihar 0.376 7.60 0.407 Chhattisgarh 1.064 12.09 1.210 Gujarat 1.016 13.60 1.176 Haryana 0.833 9.21 0.917 Himachal Pradesh 0.560 15.00 0.659 Jammu & Kashmir 0.794 3.29 0.821 Jharkhand 0.560 4.80 0.588 Karnataka 0.979 14.09 1.140 Kerala 0.234 4.80 0.246 Madhya Pradesh 1.310 12.05 1.490 Maharashtra 1.021 17.66 1.240 Manipur 0.498 2.68 0.512 Meghalaya 0.891 6.70 0.955 Mizoram 1.113 2.34 1.140 Nagaland 0.909 8.02 0.980 Orissa 0.483 9.56 0.534 Punjab 0.838 4.57 0.878 Rajasthan 2.077 5.65 2.201 Sikkim 0.447 30.67 0.645 Tamil Nadu 0.338 16.55 0.405 Tripura 0.259 8.69 0.284 Uttar Pradesh 0.618 3.82 0.643 Uttaranchal 0.371 10.64 0.415 West Bengal 0.295 6.15 0.314 Group of UTs 0.193 40.25 0.323 all-India 0.725 10.04 0.8063.1.3.2 The average size discussed so far is based on all households, including the landless.When we exclude landless households in calculating the average holding size per household,Karnataka is added to the list of seven States mentioned in paragraph 3.1.3.1, having averageholding size exceeding 1 hectare. NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 15
  21. 21. 3.1.3.3 The all-India proportion of landless households was 10.0%. The proportion wasmuch larger in the Group of UTs (40%) and Sikkim (31%). Apart from these, landlessnesswas high in Arunachal Pradesh (22%), Maharashtra (18%), Tamil Nadu (17%) and HimachalPradesh (15%).3.1.3.4 Figure 4 shows the percentage of landless households in 19 major States. Fig 4: Percentage of landless households in 19 major States 18 16 Percentage of landless households 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 HAR AP ASM PUN INDIA J&K JHK MAH RAJ BHR CHH KTK KRL TN ORS MP GUJ HP UP WB State Abbreviations used for State names in Figure 4 are listed below: AP Andhra Pradesh J&K Jammu & Kashmir PUN Punjab ASM Assam JHK Jharkhand RAJ Rajasthan BHR Bihar KTK Karnataka TN Tamil Nadu CHH Chhattisgarh KRL Kerala UP Uttar Pradesh GUJ Gujarat MP Madhya Pradesh WB West Bengal HAR Haryana MAH Maharashtra HP Himachal Pradesh ORS Orissa NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 16
  22. 22. Statement 5: Pe rcentage distribution of households and area owned over five broad classes in 17 major States for 2003, 1992, 1982 and 1971-72 Rural percentage of of households percentage of area owned State year mar- semi- mar- semi- small medium large all small medium large all ginal medium ginal medium (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) 2003 82.70 9.10 5.30 2.60 0.50 100 21.87 19.95 21.16 22.91 14.05 100 ANDHRA PRADESH 1992 76.41 12.35 7.46 3.38 0.39 100 21.30 22.44 24.15 24.06 8.06 100 1982 67.49 14.03 10.01 6.69 1.78 100 11.26 15.29 20.70 29.83 22.92 100 1971-72 65.30 13.65 11.22 7.57 2.26 100 9.92 13.16 21.19 30.15 25.58 100 2003 81.80 14.20 3.60 0.50 0.00 100 44.42 34.87 16.36 4.32 0.00 100 ASSAM 1992 77.69 14.82 6.29 1.13 0.08 100 38.05 29.07 23.06 8.53 1.29 100 1982 66.69 22.00 9.34 1.87 0.09 100 24.53 34.81 27.67 11.50 1.48 100 1971-72 69.58 18.20 9.73 2.38 0.11 100 22.15 30.22 30.79 15.20 1.64 100 2003 89.40 7.10 2.70 0.70 0.10 100 42.07 25.29 18.53 9.56 4.63 100 BIHAR1 1992 80.56 11.10 6.00 2.14 0.20 100 28.58 23.84 24.45 18.68 4.44 100 1982 76.55 12.42 7.79 2.82 0.31 100 23.96 22.91 27.02 20.22 5.90 100 1971-72 71.71 15.11 9.15 3.66 0.37 100 18.20 23.43 28.07 23.63 6.67 100 2003 73.30 11.90 7.20 6.50 1.00 100 13.60 16.05 18.96 39.12 12.28 100 GUJARAT 1992 63.33 15.18 12.19 7.62 1.67 100 9.55 15.44 24.78 31.99 18.24 100 1982 57.25 13.61 14.98 11.45 2.70 100 6.66 10.78 22.63 39.45 20.49 100 1971-72 52.25 15.24 13.63 13.80 5.08 100 4.53 9.94 16.73 36.15 32.65 100 2003 77.20 9.80 7.70 4.90 0.40 100 13.15 15.83 24.62 34.14 12.26 100 HARYANA 1992 59.04 13.49 18.19 8.53 0.77 100 7.96 13.43 33.54 37.17 7.91 100 1982 56.84 15.49 13.31 12.48 1.88 100 5.04 13.44 21.58 44.90 15.05 100 1971-72 63.90 8.95 11.67 13.00 2.48 100 4.63 7.43 18.95 46.93 22.06 100 2003 83.70 11.50 4.10 0.50 0.10 100 43.80 28.02 19.77 6.45 2.03 100 HIMACHAL 1992 79.17 11.55 6.43 2.58 0.25 100 34.99 20.35 21.57 18.50 4.60 100 PRADESH 1982 61.98 19.37 12.37 6.09 0.18 100 20.94 23.09 26.04 27.82 2.11 100 1971-72 61.19 20.92 12.18 5.20 0.51 100 21.22 23.43 25.92 23.12 6.31 100 1 includes Jharkhand NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 17
  23. 23. Statement 5 (contd.): Percentage distribution of households and area owned over five broad classes in 17 major States for 2003, 1992, 1982 and 1971-72 Rural percentage of of households percentage of area owned State year mar- semi- mar- semi- small medium large all small medium large all ginal medium ginal medium (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) 2003 77.50 15.00 5.60 1.70 0.20 100 36.26 25.49 19.54 11.12 7.58 100 JAMMU & KASHMIR 1992 63.40 23.88 9.85 2.88 0.00 100 25.52 33.40 25.84 15.23 0.00 100 1982 67.15 20.50 10.78 2.05 0.03 100 28.13 30.29 28.70 12.56 0.32 100 1971-72 59.18 29.20 10.00 1.62 0.00 100 27.41 39.33 25.20 8.06 0.00 100 2003 71.00 14.10 8.80 5.40 0.70 100 16.65 19.45 23.18 29.52 11.20 100 KARNATAKA 1992 58.72 18.27 14.95 6.58 1.48 100 11.05 18.35 27.82 26.62 16.16 100 1982 54.41 16.82 16.82 9.28 2.66 100 6.21 13.56 25.40 31.45 23.38 100 1971-72 50.94 16.27 18.13 11.85 2.81 100 5.74 11.81 24.84 35.19 22.42 100 2003 95.30 3.50 0.90 0.30 0.00 100 60.72 21.13 10.78 7.16 0.00 100 KERALA 1992 92.66 5.32 1.66 0.34 0.02 100 54.51 24.19 14.32 6.33 0.66 100 1982 90.67 6.07 2.52 0.69 0.05 100 45.74 23.51 19.11 10.06 1.59 100 1971-72 88.69 7.32 3.00 0.91 0.08 100 40.88 24.32 19.95 11.89 2.96 100 2003 61.70 18.00 12.10 7.10 1.10 100 11.61 19.07 25.80 31.25 12.29 100 MADHYA PRADESH 2 1992 52.38 19.19 16.20 10.34 1.88 100 7.61 15.49 24.97 35.38 16.57 100 1982 48.77 16.24 18.24 13.76 2.99 100 4.99 11.08 24.30 37.93 21.72 100 1971-72 40.26 16.96 20.72 17.20 4.86 100 3.34 9.16 21.36 37.80 28.34 100 2003 69.00 13.10 12.00 5.10 0.80 100 12.38 17.57 30.88 27.35 11.78 100 MAHARASHTRA 1992 59.47 14.19 15.14 9.14 2.05 100 7.02 12.61 25.54 33.43 21.41 100 1982 54.89 14.96 14.83 11.83 3.50 100 4.65 10.90 20.82 36.23 27.40 100 1971-72 48.36 14.94 16.28 14.99 5.43 100 3.48 8.59 18.34 35.45 34.14 100 2003 85.50 9.70 3.70 0.90 0.10 100 41.52 27.06 19.72 9.98 1.78 100 ORISSA 1992 75.15 14.42 7.34 2.40 0.12 100 26.37 27.16 25.99 18.08 2.40 100 1982 66.06 20.84 9.31 3.42 0.37 100 19.88 29.73 25.04 19.50 5.84 100 1971-72 68.94 18.08 9.04 3.52 0.42 100 20.45 26.95 25.88 20.72 6.00 100 2 includes Chhattisgarh NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 18
  24. 24. Statement 5 (contd.): Percentage distribution of households and area owned over five broad classes in 17 major States for 2003, 1992, 1982 and 1971-72 Rural percentage of of households percentage of area owned State year mar- semi- mar- semi- small medium large all small medium large all ginal medium ginal medium (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) 2003 76.30 9.50 7.90 5.10 1.00 100 9.16 15.63 25.30 34.50 15.31 100 PUNJAB 1992 69.63 9.98 12.21 7.11 1.08 100 7.18 12.35 30.21 38.04 12.22 100 1982 66.87 10.08 11.61 9.94 1.47 100 5.59 10.76 22.87 42.23 18.56 100 1971-72 67.50 8.37 12.71 9.19 2.23 100 4.47 8.87 25.06 37.96 23.64 100 2003 55.20 16.50 14.00 10.10 4.10 100 9.26 11.19 18.61 28.40 32.52 100 RAJASTHAN 1992 44.50 18.53 17.71 13.89 5.37 100 5.42 10.04 18.90 31.55 34.10 100 1982 37.08 16.23 20.07 19.60 6.53 100 3.63 7.29 17.29 35.19 36.59 100 1971-72 26.96 19.87 20.49 22.63 10.05 100 2.03 6.78 13.15 32.89 45.15 100 2003 90.10 5.70 2.90 1.20 0.00 100 33.21 23.10 22.09 20.57 1.23 100 TAMIL NADU 1992 87.13 8.01 3.81 0.92 1.11 100 33.28 26.24 24.15 12.15 4.18 100 1982 81.85 10.89 4.95 2.16 0.16 100 23.57 27.24 23.53 20.94 4.71 100 1971-72 73.13 11.39 6.75 3.00 0.46 100 20.23 21.84 25.21 22.97 9.75 100 2003 81.00 12.30 4.80 1.60 0.10 100 34.89 27.38 20.74 14.65 2.34 100 UTTAR PRADESH 3 1992 74.40 14.73 7.92 2.76 0.21 100 27.42 24.88 25.82 18.14 3.73 100 1982 67.95 17.38 10.23 4.06 0.37 100 20.36 24.08 28.11 22.25 5.18 100 1971-72 65.58 18.60 10.84 4.49 0.49 100 17.49 24.65 27.94 23.85 6.07 100 2003 92.06 5.70 1.40 0.20 0.00 100 58.23 25.71 11.88 4.02 0.00 100 WEST BENGAL 1992 85.88 9.48 3.94 0.71 0.00 100 41.29 28.11 22.98 7.62 0.00 100 1982 81.60 11.50 5.54 1.28 0.08 100 30.33 28.77 27.23 12.12 1.54 100 1971-72 77.62 12.64 7.30 2.39 0.05 100 27.28 25.69 27.72 18.61 0.70 100 2003 79.60 10.80 6.00 3.00 0.60 100 23.05 20.38 21.98 23.08 11.55 100 ALL-INDIA 1992 71.88 13.42 9.28 4.54 0.88 100 16.93 18.59 24.58 26.07 13.83 100 1982 66.64 14.70 10.78 6.45 1.42 100 12.22 16.49 23.58 29.83 18.07 100 1971-72 62.62 15.49 11.94 7.83 2.12 100 9.76 14.68 21.92 30.73 22.91 100 3 includes Uttaranchal NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 19
  25. 25. 3.1.4 Changes in the distribution of ownership holdings: inter-State comparison3.1.4.1 Statement 5 gives the percentage distributions of households and area owned bybroad size-class or “category” of holding in 17 major States and all-India for the years 2003,1992, 1982 and 1971-72, as obtained from the NSS 59th , 48th , 37th and 28th round LandHolding Surveys respectively. The size classes of the detailed classification have beenmerged to form 5 broad size classes or categories along the lines adopted in the AgriculturalCensus of India. The 5 broad size classes are as fo llows: category of size holding marginal less than or equal to 1.000 hectares small more than 1.000 but less than or equal to 2.000 hectare semi- medium more than 2.000 but less than or equal to 4.000 hectares medium more than 4.000 but less than or equal to 10.000 hectares large more than 10.000 hectares3.1.4.2 Considering the country as a whole, the large and medium holdings, at the top 10 percent bracket, owned 54% of the total land in 1971-72, their share declining to 35% in 2003while their proportion declined to 4%. At the bottom, the proportion of marginal holdingsincreased from 63% in 1971-72 to 80% per cent in 2003, while the proportion of area undermarginal holdings rose from about 10% in 1971-72 to 23% in 2003. In fact, the proportion ofmarginal holdings to total number of holdings increased in all the States during the lastdecade. An increasing trend in the percentage of area owned by marginal households is alsoobserved in all the major States. The decline in the shares of the top three classes, both innumber and area of ownership holdings, is noticeable in practically all the major States,though the pace may vary.3.1.4.3 The general feature that emerges from the distributions given in Statement 5 is thatthere is a rise in the percentage of households in the lowest category, and a decline in thepercentage of households in the categories of semi- medium and upwards. Only in respect ofthe small and semi- medium holders can some amount of inter-State variation, both inmagnitude and direction of change be observed. There is no doubt that a declining trend ispresent in the proportion of small holders in all the States. The proportion of area undersmall holdings reveals much more varying trends over the states. Assam, Bihar, Gujarat,Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradeshreported perceptible rise in proportion of area under small holdings during the period 1992 to2003. This was in contrast to the trend observed in the proportion of small holdings. In theproportion of area under semi- medium holdings, on the other hand, increased marginally inMadhya Pradesh and Maharashtra only. The impact of population growth is evident from thenature of the temporal variations in the pattern of distribution of ownership holdings observedfor all the major States.3.1.4.4 The results presented in Statement 6 below reveal that the percentage of landlesshouseholds as estimated by the present (2003) survey (10 per cent) is not ve ry different fromthe estimated proportion for 1971-72, more than three decades ago. However, both the 37thand the 48th round surveys (estimates for 1982 and 1992) gave a higher estimate, namely,11.3 per cent. NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 20
  26. 26. Statement 6: Changes in proportion of landless households Rural percentage of landless households State 1971-72 1982 1992 2003 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Andhra Pradesh 7.0 11.9 11.9 14.3 Assam 25.0 7.5 13.4 8.1 Bihar1 4.3 4.1 8.6 7.6 Gujarat 13.4 16.8 16.3 13.6 Haryana 11.9 6.1 3.7 9.2 Himachal Pradesh 4.4 7.7 10.4 15.0 Jammu & Kashmir 1.0 6.8 2.8 3.3 Karnataka 12.5 13.7 10.0 14.1 Kerala 15.7 12.8 8.4 4.8 Madhya Pradesh 2 9.6 14.4 15.2 12.1 Maharashtra 10.4 21.2 19.6 17.7 Orissa 10.6 7.7 13.8 9.6 Punjab 7.1 6.4 5.9 4.6 Rajasthan 2.9 8.1 6.4 5.7 Tamil Nadu 17.0 19.1 17.9 16.6 Uttar Pradesh3 4.6 4.9 4.9 3.8 West Bengal 9.8 16.2 11.0 6.2 all India 9.6 11.3 11.3 10.0 1 2 3 includes Jharkhand includes Chhattisgarh includes Uttaranchal3.1.5 Per capita ownership holding: all India3.1.5.1 Statement 7 gives average size of holding per household, average household size andper capita holding by size class of ownership holdings, at the all-India level. It is seen thatthe overall average of household size was 5.0 and the per capita holding was about 0.15hectare. For the size classes below 2.00 hectare, size of holding per household was close tothe mid-point of the size class. In the higher size classes, it was found to be closer to thelower limit. It was 6.0 hectares for the size class ‘5.00-7.50’, 8.5 hectares for the size class‘7.50-10.00’ and 31.0 hectares for the open-ended class ’20.00 & above’.3.1.5.2 It is seen that the average household size increases steadily from 3.3 for the ‘nil’class to 11.3 for the highest class ‘20.00 & above’. The per capita ho lding, therefore,increases at a much slower rate than the average household holding over the size classes. NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 21
  27. 27. Statement 7: Average household size and per capita holding by size class of ownership holding, 2003 All-India Rural size class of average holding average per capita ownership per household household holding holding (ha) (ha) size (ha) (1) (2) (3) (4) nil 0 3.3 0 less than 0.002 0.002 4.0 0.00 0.002 - 0.005 0.004 4.3 0.00 0.005 - 0.040 0.015. 4.7 0.00 0.040 - 0.500 0.251 5.0 0.05 0.500 - 1.000 0.734 5.4 0.14 1.000 - 2.000 1.366 5.7 0.24 2.000 - 3.000 2.344 6.0 0.39 3.000 - 4.000 3.385 6.2 0.54 4.000 - 5.000 4.393 6.8 0.65 5.000 - 7.500 6.040 7.0 0.87 7.500 - 10.000 8.502 7.1 1.19 10.000 - 20.000 13.484 8.2 1.65 20.000 & above 31.047 11.3 2.75 all sizes 0.725 5.0 0.153.2 Number and area of ownership holdings by social group3.2.1 Statement 8 provides estimates generated from the present survey of the absolute andpercentage distribution of households and of total area owned over different social groups, aswell as average area owned by households of different social groups, separately for rural andurban sectors at all-India level. The State-wise details are shown in Tables 1R and 1U ofAppendix A.3.2.2 It is observed that in the rural sector, 10.6% households belonged to ST, 21.6% toSC, 41.6% to OBC and 26.3% to Others. The corresponding shares of land owned were11.2% for ST, 9.0% for SC, 43.5% for OBC and 36.3% for Others. That is, in the context ofownership of land, SC community fared worse in comparison with other social groups. Thisfact is clearer when we compare average area owned per househo ld belonging to differentsocial groups. It is observed that average area owned per household was the lowest at 0.304ha for SC, followed by 0.758 ha for OBC, 0.767 ha for ST, 1.003 ha for Others and 0.725 hafor all social groups taken together. NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003 22

×