Agricultural Tenancy in Andhra Pradesh

A.Venkateswarlu*

I. Introduction

Land tenure as a term suggests the manner and the terms and conditions under
which land is leased out by the owner and leased-in by the actual cultivator or tenant, as
a general description. But, this land tenure assumes different forms in different modes of
production. In feudalism and pre-capitalist modes, the tenancy is linked with the labour
service due to extra-economic coercion. In capitalist mode of production, the tenancy
depends on the market for leasing-out and leasing-in. Chakravarthy (1981) has the
following to say:

Tenancy as an institution has both predated and post-dated feudalism; it has also
coexisted with feudalism both as an integral part of the feudal system as well as an
institution of differing, on vital points, from feudalism. It existed in the antiquity when
the dominant mode of production was slavery; it existed in the medieval period when the
dominant mode of production, in the Western Europe was feudalism; and at least in some
countries it continued into 20th century as an integral part of developed capitalism.

But in all underdeveloped and labour-surplus countries, the demand for leasing-in
arises from the lack of employment opportunities outside agriculture. In such a case, if
the feudal and pre-capitalist relations are not done away with, the land-augmenting and
labour-intensive technologies or capital-intensive technology would not develop in
agriculture.

In India, on the eve of Independence, in almost all the states, there were semi-
feudal relations due to the presence of intermediaries. After independence,
intermediaries were abolished on a large scale. Thereafter, the tenancy began to assume
new extent and forms. To extend certain benefit to the tenants, laws were enacted in
almost all the states, thereby adjusting the tenancy with development of capitalism, as
rightly pointed out again by Chakravarthy (1981):

In India, until recently, tenancy was an institution which was very much part of the pre-
capitalist relations of production that characterized agriculture. But it is getting changed
along with changing conditions to the point of becoming compatible with emerging
capitalist relations.

Tenancy in general is neither good nor bad, so long as the landed property does
not become people’s property (common ownership), as per Marx (1971 / Vol.III). Yet
two forms of rent payment are differentiated, viz., fixed-rent and share-rent. The fixed
rent may be in terms of cash rent or rent-in-kind; and the share cropping tenancy may be
_________________________________
* Fellow at CESS. I thank my teacher Prof. G.K.Chadha, Also express my gratitude to Prof. S. Mahendra Dev and
Prof. S. Galab for their encouragement at CESS. This is presented in Seminar on Agricultural Crisis and
Tenancy in Andhra Pradesh, at Sundaraiah Vijnana Kendram, Hyderabad, on 14 October, 2007.

1
with or without cost-sharing (Chadha, 1976). Fixed rent tenancy has been found to be
efficient and has been treated on par with the owner-cultivation, as the tenant may have
incentives to increase productivity without any transfer of the increased produce. But, the
share crop tenancy is mostly found to be inefficient, as the tenant may not have any
incentive to increase productivity. However, there has been a debate in contravention of
both the approaches. As the fixed rent tenancy is better, tenants demand for
implementation of such rent through enacting suitable laws.

2. Objective

The specific objectives of the study are : (i) to look into the extent and forms of
tenancy in rural Andhra Pradesh at the state level based on the NSS Reports; (ii) to see
the inter-district variations in the extent of tenancy at the district level from the
Agricultural census data; (iii) to examine results on the tenancy situation from some
primary sources; (iv) to briefly analyse the agrarian crisis in India and Andhra Pradesh;
and (v) to deal with the impact of the agrarian crisis on the tenants in Andhra Pradesh.

3. Data and Methodology

The data from secondary sources are available from three sources: NSS and
Population and Agricultural Censuses. However, to reflect on the concrete situation, we
also draw from the primary sources on the extent of tenncy.

3.1 NSS Reports

The tenancy data is available with respect to both household ownership holdings
(HOHs) and operational holdings (OHs). The data on the number of households leasing-
out and area leased-out of area owned are furnished with respect to HOHs, from 1953-54
onwards for six points of time: 1953-54, 1960-61, 1970-71, 1981-82 , 1991-92 and 2002-
03 in 8th, 17th, 26th, 37th, 48th and 59th Rounds respectively. Further, the leasing-in
aspects with respect to HOHs were also covered from 1970-71 onwards. The forms of
tenancy (the terms of lease) in respect of HOHs were furnished in 1970-71 and 1981-82
for leasing-out aspects, whereas for leasing-in aspects, they were covered for 1970-71,
1991-92 and 2002-03.

Leasing-in aspects with respect to operational holdings (OHs) were covered from
1953-54 (except1960-61). However, the forms of tenancy for 1953-54 and 1960-61
were not furnished. In 1970-71 (26th Round) and the latter Rounds (37th, 48th and 59th ),
the terms of lease (forms of tenancy) were furnished in detail.

Though the data for leasing-in/leasing-out aspects are available to suit 11 size-
classes up to 1981-82, such data in 1991-92 are available so as to suit five broad size
classes, because the data for the classes 10.01 ha & above was clubbed together. Thus
the tenancy data are analyzed throughout for five broad size-classes only.

2
3.2 Population and Agricultural Censuses: District Level Data

The data on the extent of tenancy at district level is available from two sources,
viz; the Population Census and Agricultural Census. In 1951 and 1961 population
censuses, the share of tenant households was given. From Agricultural Census 1970-71
onwards, Agricultural Census has been providing the tenancy data quinquennially. As
regards the tenancy, this data is inferior to the NSS data in some respect, as per
Laxminarayana and Tyagi (1977):

Between the two estimates, the NSS data are more dependable as they (Agricultural
Census data) are based on land records; while land records are more dependable in
matters of land utilization, crop and irrigation statistics, they are not comparable when it
comes to the question of tenancy.

As the NSS data are not available at district level, we depend on Population
Census for 1951 and 1961 for the share of tenant households and on Agricultural Census
for 1970-71 and 1995-96, for both the shares, i.e., share of tenant holdings and share of
leased-in area.

Tenants are treated equal to the sum of pure tenants and mixed tenants (who
owned some land but leased-in land) and the leased-in area accounts for the land leased-
in by both types of tenants. But, in 1995-96, the tenants are treated equal to the sum of (i)
those who operate land by wholly leasing-in, partly owning, partly leasing-in, and (ii)
those who are otherwise operating land. All such land other than owned is treated as
leased-in area.

3.3 Primary sources

The data from primary sources are taken to know the actual position in regard to
the extent of tenancy. The studies are Venkateswarlu (1998), Subrahmanyam (2000),
Reddy and Chandayya (2006), Chadha and Venkateswarlu (2007), and Srinivasulu
(2007).

4. The Extent and Forms of Tenancy from NSS data

The present section deals with the changing pattern of tenancy in Rural Andhra
Pradesh, depending on the NSS data. As has already been pointed out in the
methodology, the changes in the extent of tenancy are examined with reference to both
the operational holdings and ownership holdings. But the changes in the forms of
tenancy are dealt with reference to operational holdings only.

4.1 The Extent of Tenancy

As there is some fear of conferring occupancy rights to the tenants, who are
legally contracted and or openly declared by the land owner, the land owners generally
prefer to underreport the tenancy, even when they engage tenants. Thus, the tenancy

3
data, on leased-out area and households leasing-out collected from household ownership
holdings ( HOHs) are underestimates.

However, the NSS collects tenancy data by operational holdings (OHs) and this
also reflects information from the demand side. On the one hand, these data are more
reliable and on the other, they are available for all the points of time (except for 1960-
61) in published form. Therefore, it is preferred to examine the magnitude of tenancy
by operational holdings first and then by ownership holdings.

4.1.1 The Extent of Tenancy by Operational Holdings

By operational holdings, the data for the extent of tenancy are available in
published form for 1953-54, 1970-71, 1981-82, 1991-92 and 2002-03. However, the
aggregate level data for 1960-61 are obtained from Sanyal (1977).

The operational holdings are divided into three types: (i) Purely owned holdings,
(ii) Pure tenant holdings and (iii) Mixed tenant holdings. Mixed tenant holdings may
have partly owned and partly leased-in area. Thus, purely owned holdings and mixed
tenant holdings report owned area. These two together are referred as operational
holdings reporting owned area. Pure tenant holdings and mixed tenant holdings together
are referred as operational holdings reporting leased-in area. Thus, operational holdings
reporting owned area and operational holdings reporting leased-in area both have mixed
tenant holdings in common. However they are separable conveniently.

In 1981-82, two additional categories of operational holdings were taken up for

study, viz. ‘neither owned nor leased-in’ and ‘others.’ The former category includes the
holdings which are in possession of institutional lands (i.e., non-private), without any
rights. The latter is not defined properly. In 1991-92 and 2002-03, the former category is
referred as ‘otherwise possessed’, while showing another category of holdings, as ‘n.r.
(not recorded).’ For convenience sake, we club these categories into a single hybrid
category as ‘others.’

As regards the operated area also, in addition to owned area and leased-in area the
other categories are being shown and so they together are again clubbed under the
category “others.”

4.1.2 Tenant Holdings in Operational Holdings: Some Aspects at Aggregate Level

Table-1 shows important aspects about the tenant holdings. In 1953-54, in the
immediate post-independence period, when the land ceiling measure was not yet on the
agenda of land reform, the total tenant holdings have the share of 32.61 percent, in total
operational holdings; and the leased-in area share assumes 18.60 percent, in total
operated area. Just after the impending ceiling measure was indicated (in 1959 Nagpur
AICC), lot of evictions of tenants took place and as a result, 1960-61 data show a sharp
decline in shares of both the total tenant holdings and leased-in area, as they assume
18.52 percent and 9.15 percent respectively. Both the shares decrease upto 1981-82 and

4
by 1991-92 they rise and assume 14.11 percent and 9.57 percent respectively. Again in
2002-03, these shares decrease to 12.89 and 8.95 percent respectively.

As regards the percentage of pure tenant holdings in the total operational

holdings, it is 11.21 percent in 1953-54 and it decreases drastically to 0.71 percent in
1970-71; thereafter there is increasing tendency, reaching 2.32 percent in 1991-92 and
5.00 percent in 2002-03. But the percentage share of the mixed tenants in total holdings
shows the decreasing trend from 21.40 percent in 1953-54 to 11.79 percent in 1991-92
(except 1960-61) and further to 7.89 percent in 2002-03..

It appears as though the tenancy has lost its negative character, as losing of land
under tenancy is no more a reality, because of the fact that land owners have already
reached the limits of ceiling. That is, how the reported tenancy has increased in 1991-92,
and the share of pure tenants has been on the increase since 1981-82.

Further, the share of pure tenants in total tenants shows the same behavior as the
share of pure tenants in total operational holdings; i.e., decreases up to 1970-71 and
thereafter rises. But, the share of mixed tenants in total tenant holdings first rises from
65.62 percent in 1953-54; shows rising trend till 1970-71, reaching maximum in 1970-
71 (96.72 percent) and continuously decreases thereafter. In fact, this share behaves in
opposite direction, compared with the share of pure tenants (in total tenants), because
both shares together form 100, at each point of time. That is, upto 1970-71, the tenants,
who have some own land only, have retained the rights of tenancy, because of some
bargaining position during the period of tenancy and ceiling legislations.

4.1.3 Shares of Tenant Holdings and Leased in Area: Farm-Size

Table-2 shows the shares of operational holdings having pure owners, pure
tenants and mixed tenants along with others; and the shares of owned area, leased-in area
and others’ area, by farm-size, for 1953-54, 1970-71, 1981-82, 1991-92 and 2002-03.

As regards the share of mixed tenants, it shows increasing tendency from

marginal to semi-medium farms and it shows an inverted-U behavior for 1953-54, 1970-
71 and 1981-82. But, in 1991-92 and 2002-03, there is a tendency to rise on the farm-
size ladder (except medium farms) and even among the large farms, the mixed tenants
have shares to the extent of 21.95 and 30.00 percent respectively. But the share of pure
tenants shows a systematic inverse relation with farm-size in 1953-54. In the latter years
also, though shares are very smaller, the inverse relation with farm size is still
maintained. As the size of operation goes up pure tenants do not have a dominant place
in the agrarian economy among the large farms, there are no pure tenants from 1970-71
onwards..

If we look at the share of leased-in area, in 1953-54, 1981-82 and 2002-03, there
is a systematic inverse relation with farm size. In other years no systematic relation
seems to exist. But, in 1970-71, the medium farms and in 1991-92 the large farms show
higher shares.

5
 Thus, in 1991-92, the shares of mixed tenant holdings (both in the number and
area) are the highest among the large farms (22.0 and 13.6 percent respectively). In 2002-
03 also, the share of mixed tenants among large farms is as highas 30.00 percent, with
leased-in area share of 7.31 percent; and these shares are higher than those among the
medium farms. It is an indication for the symptoms of the so called reverse tenancy.

4.1.4 Distribution of Tenant Holdings and Leased-in Area: Farm Size

Table-3 shows the distribution of tenant holdings (mixed +pure) and leased-in
area among the broad size-classes for 1953-54, 1970-71, 1981-82, 1991-92 and 2002-03.

Considering the entire period, for the total tenant holdings, the marginal and small
farms together account for 62.69 percent in 1953-54 and 79.76 percent in 2002-03, with
leased-in area shares of 16.82 percent and 50.86 percent respectively. Thus, over the
total period, the marginal and small farms enhance their shares in terms of both tenant
holdings and leased-in area. Again, between the marginal and the small farms, the small
farms have gained more effectively, both in tenant holdings and leased-in area over the
period.

Further, in 1953-54, the large farms have large share of leased-in area i.e., 38.74
percent, while having only 7.15 percent of tenant holdings; and thereafter decrease is
there in the share of tenant holdings up to 1991-92 And again rising by 2002-03 from
1.26 percent to 2.60 percent. However, the share of leased-in area lies between 12.60 and
13.40 percent from 1970-71 onwards. Interestingly, the medium and large farms together
account for 18.50 percent tenant holdings and 63.30 percent leased-in area in 1953-54
and those shares decrease to 6.10 percent and 23.44 percent respectively by 2002-03.

4.2 The Extent of Leasing-out by Ownership Holdings

Leasing-out aspect of tenancy is related with supply side phenomenon, whereas

the leasing-in aspect is demand-related phenomenon. From the beginning, the NSS
provide data on the extent of leasing-out with reference to household ownership holdings
and they are available for all the six points of time 1953-54 to 2002-03. First the
households leasing-out and the area leased-out at the aggregate level and then the farm-
size variations are taken up.

4.2.1 Households Leasing-out and Area Leased-out

Table-4 gives the number of households leasing-out and their share in the
households leasing-out; the owned area leased-out and its share in the total area owned.
In 1953-54, the number of households leasing-out is 5,604 hundred. By1960-61 it falls to
4,300 hundred, but it reaches peak level, rising to 7,800 hundred in 1970-71. Thereafter
it falls to 4553 hundred in 2002-03. If their share is considered in the total households
(excluding the landless), in 1953-54 it forms 14.89 percent and then decreases to 6.95

6
percent in 1960-61. But it rises to 12.05 percent in 1970-71, just as the increase in
absolute number, and thereafter decreases, reaching 3.73 percent in 2002-03.

As regards the total leased-out area, it is 14,121 hundred hectares in 1953-54. It

decreases in 1960-61 and rises to 9182 hundred hectares in 1970-71 just as the
number of households leasing-out has increased. But in case of area leased-out, the peak
level is in 1953-54 only. Again, leased-out area declines after 1970-71, reaching 2281
hundred hectares in 2002-03. Similar is the behavior of the share of area leased-out in
total owned area. It assumes 13.95 percent in 1953-54, decreases first and then, it rises to
8.93 percent in 1970-71 and thereafter it falls, reaching 2.59 percent in 2002-03.

4.2.2 Farm-Size Variations in the Shares of Households Leasing-out and Area

Leased-out

Now, the turn is towards the farm-size variations. Table-5 furnishes broad size-
class wise information on the extent of leasing-out in terms of the percentage of
households leasing-out in the total households and the percentage of leased-out area in
the total owned area; and also the shares in the distribution of leasing-out households and
area leased-out.

Looking at the farm-size variations in the percentages of the households leasing-

out and the area leased-out, there seems to exist positive association with the farm-size
in almost all the points of time for households leasing out up to 1981-82. In 1991-92,
there is inverted-U shape and in 2002-03, there is a U-shape pattern. In 2002-03, the
leasing-out large farmers form as high a share as 17.17 percent. But for the percentage
area leased-out, it shows a clear inverse relation with farm-size in 1970-71 and 1991-92
and in other points of time also (1953-54, 1960-61, 1981-82 and 2002-03), there is a
tendency towards inverse relation (with one exception each).

As regards the shares in the distribution of households leasing-out and area

leased-out, between 1953-54 and 1981-82, the medium and large farmers leasing-out,
together, have their share varying between 23.90 percent and 11.70 percent, while their
contribution to the total leased-out area varies between 71.35 percent and 46.70 percent
in this period. In contradistinction to this, the marginal and small farmers (put together)
assume dominance in both the shares by 1991-92, with households and area shares of
85.90 percent and 64.15 percent respectively. In 2002-03, their share of holdings rises to
91.20 percent, contributing area to the extent of 70.40 percent. Prior to 1991-92, the
marginal and small farmers have high shares for households leasing out (varying between
59.90 percent and 75.45 percent), while contributing leased-out area only to the extent of
14.30 percent to 31.10 percent. The semi-medium farmers contribute nearly the same
share of area as their share of households leasing-out in 1953-54, but thereafter they show
higher area share than their share of households; and by 2002-03, the shares of
households leasing-out and leased-out area are 2.80 and 9.69 percent respectively.

7
4.3 Forms of Tenancy of Tenant Holdings by Operational Holdings

The data on forms of tenancy, i.e., terms of lease, has been published by NSS
for 1970-71, 1981-82, 1991-92 and 2002-03. The terms of lease for each round have
been expanded and they are given in the following statement.

Terms of Lease for Leased-in Area in 26th, 37th and 48th Rounds
1970-71 (26th Round) 1981-82 ( 37th Round)
1. Fixed money 1. Fixed money
2. Fixed produce 2. Fixed produce
3. Share of produce 3. Share of produce
4. Usufructuary mortgage 4. Usufructuary mortgage
5. Other terms 5. Share of produce withother terms
6. Other terms
7. Not recorded (n.r.)
8. Neither owned nor leased
in (but occupied)
1991-92 (48th Round) and
2002-03 (59th Round)
1. Fixed money
2. Fixed produce
3. Share of produce
4. Usufructuary mortgage
5. Share of produce with other terms
6. Service contract
7. From relatives: no specified terms
8. Other terms
9. Not recorded (n.r.)

Looking at the statement, it is clear that “other terms” in each round are different.
For easy grasp and comparative purpose, it is preferred to keep the first three terms
separately while the remaining terms in each round (except item 8 in 1981-82) are
clubbed together under category “other terms” as a hybrid category. Item 8 in 1981-82
is not taken because it was shown separately from the actual leased-in area (Chadha and
Sharma, 1992).

4.3.1 Terms of Lease at Aggregate Level and by Farm-Size

Table-6 portrays the terms of lease. If we look at the shares of tenant holdings
under different terms of tenancy; at the aggregate level, the holdings under share of
produce assume the highest share, 8.03 percent, followed by fixed money terms with 4.32
percent and fixed produce terms with 3.50 percent in 1970-71. However, other terms
also assume dominant position with a share of 7.60 percent. By 1981-82 only other
terms (which includes “n.r.” terms) assumes 10.01 percent of tenant holdings, while
fixed money, fixed produce and share of produce terms together account for only 3.88
percent. Very important point to be noted is that the “n.r.” terms account for 9.16
percent in 10.01 percent of “other terms”. In 1991-92 again the tenant holdings under
share produce terms rise to dominant position with a share 4.69 percent, followed by
fixed produce and fixed money terms having shares of 4.35 percent and 4.20 percent
respectively. But, by 2002-03, the fixed produce and money terms become dominant..

Thus, though as a single source, the share produce terms dominate among the
tenant holdings, in 1970-71 and 1991-92; the percent of holdings under the share
produce terms gets halved. However, the terms under fixed rent (fixed money and fixed
produce terms together) account for 7.82 percent and 7.55 percent respectively in 1970-
71 and 1991-92. That is, by 1991-92 tenants under fixed rent terms have become
dominant, compared with the share produce terms, whereas in 1970-71, the percentage of

8
share produce terms (8.03 percent) exceeds the combined fixed rent terms share (7.82
percent). However, by 2002-03, the fixed produce and fixed money terms both occupy
dominant position. This is a signal to say that the share produce terms is losing
importance over the period

If we look at the percentage of leased-in area under different terms, in 1970-71,

1991-92 and 2002-03, the terms of lease under fixed rent terms, the fixed money and
fixed produce terms put together, account for more share of area leased-in, having shares
of 3.83, 5.03 and 6.21 percent respectively. The leased-in area under share produce has
come down over the period. However it is important that the leased-in area under
combined fixed rent terms, just as the tenants under those terms, has risen to dominance
by 2002-03. In 1981-82 again the area leased-in under other terms (inclusive of “n.r.”
terms) is dominant.

At the farm-size level, on examination, it is found that no systematic relation

seems to exist for both shares of tenants and leased-in area under any of the terms of
lease with farm-size. However, it is alarming to note that in 1991-92 and 2002-03, the
tenant holdings in the large farms have the highest shares of their holdings and area
leased-in under the share produce terms. This goes against the general view that
among large holdings, the share cropping may not be high. However among the
marginal and small farms, the share produce terms assume dominance in 1970-71; but in
1991-92 and 2002-03, the fixed rent terms together dominate.

4.3.2 Distribution of Tenant Holdings and Leased-in Area by Terms of Lease and
Farm-size

Table-7 presents the distribution of tenant holdings and leased-in area by

terms of lease among farm-size groups. At the aggregate level, in 1970-71, the tenant
holdings have nearly equal shares for share produce terms (34.24 percent) and fixed rent
terms (33.35 percent), i.e., fixed money and fixed produce terms put together in the latter
case. But in 1991-92 and 2002-03, the fixed rent terms become dominant. In 1991-92, it
assumes nearly double the share produce terms (29.80 percent), and by 2002-03, it
becomes four times the share produce terms. . However, in 1981-82 only “other terms”
inclusive of “n.r.” terms assumes dominance (72.06 percent). Despite this, in 1981-82
also the fixed rent terms assume 20.96 percent which is thrice the share produce terms.

As regards the leased-in area under different terms it has 42.50 percent area
under fixed rent terms in 1970-71, increasing to 69.49 percent by 2002-03. But in 1981-
82 other terms assumes dominance (67.10 percent) as at the tenant holdings. However,
in 1981-82 also, the leased-in area under fixed rent terms is nearly three times the terms
under share produce.

If we look at the distribution of terms of lease among broad size classes, in all
points of time on farm-size ladder, it is observed that the tenant holdings under fixed
money terms seem to maintain a positive relation with farm size while those under fixed
produce have a negative relation. Similar is the behavior of percentage shares of leased-

9
in area under those two types of terms of lease respectively. In 1981-82 other terms
assume dominance for both area and holdings, on all farm-size groups.

Tenant holdings under the terms of share produce have nearly 31.00 to 40.00
percent among all farm size groups in 1953-54, just as the shares of area leased-in lie
between 32.70 and 43.20 percent. In 1991-92 and 2002-03, the fixed money and
produce terms put together have gained prominence among all the farm-size groups
(except large ones), in both holdings and leased-in area, having nearly 50.00 percent or
more. In 1991-92 and 2002-03, the large farms have higher shares in share produce terms
in respect of both tenant holdings and leased-in area.

5. Inter-District Variations in the Extent of Tenancy from Agricultural Census

Table-8 shows information on tenancy. First, we undertake the analysis at state

level, and then at regional and district levels.

5.1 State Level

The figures for 1951 and 1961 are taken from Parthasarathy and Prasada Rao
(1969, p.42 and p.48). For 1951, Andhra Pradesh figures are not there, because it was
prior to reorganisation of states. By 1961, the tenant households were of the order of
21.02 percent. As per Agricultural Census, the tenant holdings formed 12.25 percent in
1970-71. Thus the trend in tenancy was towards decline. The area leased-in 1970-71
was 7.03 percent. It is quite surprising to note that by 1995-96, the tenant holdings and
the area under tenancy decreased substantially, as seen from their shares 0.07 and 0.08
percent respectively.

This is not believable that the tenancy had declined so much; and it happens so
because the data collected in Agricultural Census is based on land records, which are not
updated, on the one hand; and on the other, the tenancy is not being recorded in the land
records, as the tenancy in practice is unreported and concealed, due to fear of conferment
of rights on the tenants.

5.2 Regional Level

At regional level, in 1970-71, Telangana and Rayalasima showed higher shares of

tenant holdings ( with 15.81 and 15.42 percent respectively), whereas Coastal Andhra
had 7.69 percent tenant holdings. In respect of the share of leased-in area also the same
order maintained, with 8.70, 6.30 and 4.86 percent respectively. By 1995-96, both
shares declined drastically, just as at the state level. The shares of tenant holdings and
leased-in area were 0.11 and 0.16 percent in coastal Andhra; 0.05 and 0.06 percent in
Telangana and 0.01 and 0.01 percent in Rayalasima respectively.

10
5.3 District Level

In 1951, the share of tenant households was the highest in Hyderabad district,
with 40.28 percent and Nizamabad had the lowest share (6.23 percent). In Telangana,
after Hyderabad, three districts - Mahbubnagar, Adilabad and Warangal - had the higher
shares crossing 20 percent. In Coastal Andhra, West Godavari and East Godavari districts
showed higher shares, with 26.53 and 27.95 percent respectively. In Rayalasima, two
districts – Chittore and Anantapur – exhibited higher shares with 13.42 and 13.83 percent
respectively.

In 1961, East Godavari showed the highest share of tenant households, with
38.53 percent and Nizamabad had the lowest share (11.89 percent). Among other
districts, eight districts crossed 20 percent; and other ten districts showed more than 14.0
percent.

In 1970-71, in regard to the share of tenant holdings, ten districts showed higher
than state level share. They are Prakasam and Nellore in Coastal Andhra; and Chittore
and Anantapur in Rayalasima; whereas from Telangana, six districts crossed state level
share and they are Mahbubnagar, Hyderabad, Medak, Nizamabad, Adilabad and
Khammam. Looking at the share of leased-in area, it is clear that only one district from
coastal Andhra, two districts from Rayalasima and five districts from Telangana crossed
the state level share. In Telangana and Rayalasima, all those districts that showed higher
shares of tenant holdings also showed higher shares of leased-in area. But in Coastal
Andhra, the district (East Godavari) that showed higher share of leased-in area is not
from the districts that showed higher shares of tenant holdings i.e: on comparison with
state share in holdings and area.

By 1995-96, the shares of both holdings and area became negligible. The highest
shares of holdings and area (1.68 and 1.13 percent respectively) could be seen in respect
of Hyderabad district, wherein the absolute figures were quite less.

Thus, the tenancy, in terms of the share of tenant holdings in total holdings and
the share of leased-in area in total operated area, was somewhat high in 1970-71; by
1995-96, it became negligible at state, regional and district levels. The tenancy data of
1970-71 was nearly reliable, but by 1995-96, it became unreliable.

6. Extent of Tenancy from Selected Primary Sources

As seen from the NSS Reports, in 2002-03, in rural Andhra Pradesh, the extent
of tenancy was nearly 9.0 percent of the operated area accounted for by 5.0 percent pure
tenants and 7.9 percent mixed tenants. These figures are somewhat reliable when
compared to those of agricultural census. Yet, there are doubts on the NSS data, as there
is scope for under-reporting bias in the information on tenancy. Chandrasekhar and
Ghosh (2004) gave a figure to the extent of 33.33 percent (1/3rd ) of the operated area
being under tenancy in Andhra Pradesh. It is from this estimate of the tenancy area, we
have to look into some of the primary studies which have brought out the figures on

11
tenancy area and tenants. The five studies selected are put in the order of period covered
roughly.

6.1 Reddy and Chandayya (2006)

Reddy and Chandayya study was based on field trips to 29 villages covering
various districts and different years, as shown in Table-9. There are four sets of villages.
In the first set there are 9 villages which were visited at different times covering the data
for the years 1978-79 to 1986-87. The leased-in area varies between 13.16 and 3.44
percent for which the average leased-in area was only 3.85 percent (in fact, this average
is only for accounting purpose, as it cannot be done so for the information were of
different years). The second set of 9 villages, which were covered for the year 1981-82,
showed the aggregated tenancy 11.98 percent, varying between 6.9 percent and 19.97
percent. The third set of 6 villages showed 17.24 percent tenancy area at the aggregate
level, individually lying between 3.50 percent and 37.21 percent . The fourth set of 5
villages exhibited 21.68 percent area under lease, within the range of 6.30 percent and
33.26 percent. Thus, it clearly shows that though depended on the village records, these
figures show relatively high tenancy.

6.2 Venkateswarlu (1998)

Venkateswarlu study covered the agricultural year, 1984-85, in two districts, viz.,
West Godavari and Khammam, as in Table-10. He surveyed 240 farming households,
covering 140 in each district by stratifying into three farm-size groups. In the canal
irrigated part of West Godavari, at the aggregate level, the lease area was 23.71 percent
under 27.9 percent mixed tenants and 8.6 percent pure tenants. Against this, in the dry
parts of Khammam district, the leased in area was 11.76 percent, nearly half of that in
other region. In West Godavari, it was the small (upto 5.00acres) and medium farms
(5.00 – 10.00 acres) which dominated in the leased area. Against this, in Khammam
district it was the large farms (>10.00 acres) that dominated scene. In the former region,
the fixed produce system and in the latter region, the fixed money system were
dominant.

Thus, in the irrigated regions, the area under tenancy is high. It was also true at
the macro state level data as was shown by Laxminarayayna and Tyagi (1977, 1982).
Subrahmanyam (2000) also showed significant correlation between area under tenancy
and share of net irrigated area with state level NSS data for 1970-71, 1981-82 and 1991-
92 respectively.

6.3 Subrahmanyam (2000)

Table-11 shows the figures of area under tenancy and forms of tenancy for three
villages. In Jaladanki (Nellore district) which has nearly 73.0 percent irrigated area
showed the highest leased-in area of 27.10 percent. Madiki (East Godavari district),
though has cent percent irrigated area, showed 27.6 percent leased-in area. Thondangi
(East Godavari district), with 73.0 percent irrigated area, had 22.3 percent area under

12
lease. In East Godavari, the terms of lease dominant was fixed rent and in Nellore distict,
it was share produce. Thus, in irrigated areas, the leased area formed 22.0 to 30.0
percent.

6.4 Srinivasulu (2007)

Srinivasulu collected data on tenancy in four agro-climatic zones to see the

regional variations in the tenurial conditions, for the agricultural year 2003-04, as set in
Table-12. In West Godavari district, he selected three villages of which two are canal
irrigated and the other one is tubewell irrigated. In the two canal irrigated villages the
leased-in area was quite high 66.20 percent in Kothapalli and 52.5 percent in Mentipudi.
But, the tubewell irrigated village (Seethampet) showed only 15.9 percent leased-in area.
At the other extreme, in Mahabubnagar district, both the semi irrigated and dry villages
demonstrated very less area under lease 5.4 to 8.5 percent. In Karim Nagar and
Srikakulam districts, semi-irrigated villages exhibited relatively high leased-in area with
17.8 and 30.1 percent respectively. In both these villages, the terms of lease dominant
were share cropping. In the villages of West Godavari and Mahbubnagar districts, the
fixed produce or cash terms were prevalent dominantly. Thus, irrigated villages
demonstrate high leased-in area.

6.5 Chadha and Venkateswarlu (2007)

Chadha and Venkateswarlu surveyed 50 households in Pindiprolu in 1993 and

they resurveyed 50 households in 2006, by stratifying into four groups each time: Large
farmer (LF), medium farmers (MF), small farmers (SF) and Labourers (L) with
operation land as >10.0 acres, 5.0-10.0 acres, 1.0-5.0 acres and < 1.00 acres respectively.
From Table-13, it is clear that in 1993, there was no practice of leasing-in and leasing-out
in the village on all categories of households. But by 2006, there was a change in the
land lease market. At the aggregate 16.00 percent of land was leased-in. The major
players in the lease market were SFs and MFs, the former leasing in 35.11 percent of
their operated area and the latter 15.07 percent. Among LFs and Ls there was no leasing.
Thus, over the period, the institution of tenancy (land lease market) comes into operation
to provide access over land to the demanders from the suppliers who do not like to lose
ownership rights.

7. Agrarian Crisis in India and Andhra Pradesh

In this section we first deal with the agrarian crisis in general and in Andhra
Pradesh in particular; with theoretical basis for the suicides of farmers.

7.1 Agrarian Crisis

The economic reforms in India were introduced in 1991 under the influence of the
Fund-Bank policies, in the context of changing national and international political
scenario and the impending approval of the Dunkel Draft on the eve of formation of the
WTO. As a part of structural adjustment programme (SAP), the effect of reduction of

13
fiscal deficit first fell on fertiliser subsidy, in August 1991, which led to a rise in the
fertiliser prices. The immediate impact fell on fertiliser subsidy and reduction in
fertilisers subsidy particularly for nitrogenous fertlisers, on the one hand, and phosphatic
and potassic fertilisers, on the other, in a disproportionate manner, resulted in the adverse
NPK ratio, leading to environmental disorder (Patnaik, 1993; Rao, 1998). As per the
SAP, neo-liberal policies had to be adopted, leading to (i) state withdrawal from public
irrigation, extension services and many subsidies related to agricultural sector; and (ii)
opening up of the international markets for the agricultural commodities.. The MSP
prices for rice and wheat went up due to political instability during 1996-99; as the
lobbying of rich farmers worked well due to repeated elections.

Farmers suicides occurred in a few states to the extent of some thousands among
the cotton, chilly and groundnut growers, as no systematic extension and credit facilities
were available to them, due to state withdrawal. Jayati Ghosh gave an estimate of 10,000
farmers suicide deaths spanning over a decade from mid-1990s to the end of 2004 in the
entire country (Deccan Chronicle, January 21, 2005).

7.1.1 Agrarian Crisis in AP

Andhra Pradesh, being the experimental station of SAP policies, tops in farmer
suicide deaths among the states in India and they are continuing even today in this state.
Only four instances are given here.

(i) Failure of government to invest in public irrigation for following the World
Bank’s agenda of withdrawing state from the public works has really affected the farmers
in the AP. Added to this, continuous failure of rains till 2004 caused a lot of suffering to
the farmers.

(ii) For the farmers suicides the major reason is the failure of extension, “the
squeezing of assistance to the states by the central government for extension services
has led to the virtual breakdown of extension machinery.” As no public extension is
available, the resource-poor and gullible farmers are becoming victims of exploitation by
unscrupulous traders and money lenders in selling spurious materials including
adulterated seeds and pesticides (Rao, 2003). In fact, The Deccan Chrnicle, dated. 04-02-
05 and 05-02-05, in its case studies of Atmakur Mandal, Warangal District in AP,
published exactly the same type of exploitation meted out by the local traders and
dealers in the sale of such spurious seeds.

(iii) The GOI gave encouragement to the oil seed growers between 1989-90 and
1994-95. During this period, domestic production was encouraged by the government
policy, which resulted in higher price for oil seeds and oils (Landes and Gulati, 2003). So
growing of groundnut became important in Rayalasima of AP. Since 1994-95, the
government reduced protection for oils and no effective MSP was there for oil seeds. As
a consequence, oil seed area has declined and yield levels stagnated; and as a
concomitant effect, capacity utilization rates of oil seed processing industry have also
fallen

14
 (iv) The next problem faced by the farmers, who began to grow commercial
crops, is the remunerative price. The prices of the chilly and cotton are very much
volatile. The price variation is very much high in the case of chilly. For example, chilli
was grown with a view to export during mid-1990s. But the prices were so low that
farmers had to struggle for the rise of prices by government intervention. There was a
large farmers movement of agitation for chilly price during March 1997, and on 10th
March 1997, nearly 500 farmers were arrested in Khammam (district head quarters)
alone. Further, during 2005-06, the price of chilly went upto Rs. 10000 per quintal in
June 2006. But at the end of the 2005, when the crop was taken to the market the rate was
around Rs. 3000 – 4000 per quintal. The price rise started in January 2006. The
beneficiaries of the price rise were the merchants and speculators during the period when
the prices were high during January-June 2006. Seeing this the farmers grew chilly in
2006-07. But again the prices were low. The farmers who grew chilly hoping with high
price put lot of investment on pesticides and seeds of Mahyco company. Though the
chilly was grown from the company seeds , the virus disease attacked the crop causing to
lower the yields in chilly. Thus the farmers were put to loss in double ways: (i) loss of
yield due to virus and (ii) the price going down.

7.2 Agrarian Crisis and Farmer Suicides: Conceptual Background

In the post liberalisation scenario, euphoria has been generated among the
middle, small and marginal farmers that they can cultivate and export commercial
agricultural commodities, such as chilly, cotton and groundnut in Andhra Pradesh. The
farmers engaged in growing these crops have to invest more on seeds, chemical fertilisers
and pesticides. For example, some seeds of chilly or tomato cost Rs. 30,000 to 35,000 per
Kg. Untrained pest management, due to lack of proper extension, has led them to use
high quantities of pesticides and chemical fertilisers, due to dependence on local input-
sellers/dealers for advice. As a result, per acre cost goes up, while the yield levels are
falling.

The phenomenon is to be understood from the point of view of capitalist culture

that induces even marginal and small farmers to adopt unsuitable cropping pattern. When
Bhardwaj (1974) referred distress cropping pattern in the FMS studies of mid-1950s and
early 1960s, the farmers used to involve in the cash crops, by compulsion depending on
the financial burdens and the soil type of the farmers. But now this is a new phenomenon,
where the farmers by their exposure to global media become overoptimistic and grow
cash crops, beyond their means by borrowing from the private money lenders / merchant
agents. In fact the farmers are trapped by the ambitious outlook, induced either by the
demonstration effect (from local rich farmers or fanciful media) or local inexpertise
dealers of seeds, chemical fertilisers and pesticides. This is where we have to locate the
farmers, who are against subsistence farming, as against Chaynov (1987, pp.88-89) who
thought the peasant farms / farmers would have the competitive capacity against market-
oriented capitalist agriculture, as he says:

Given a deterioration in the market situation negative quantities (losses), thanks to the mechanism
of the labour calculation, appear much later on the peasant farm than on the capitalist one (hence,
the exceeding viability and stability of peasant farms). Frequently, the family farm’s internal basic

15
 equilibrium makes acceptable very low payments per labour unit, and these enable it to exist in
conditions that would doom a capitalist farm to undoubted ruin.

In the subsistence farming, even the small or marginal farmers used to sustain by
overwork and underconsumption, as envisaged by Kautsky. Once the subsistence farming
is given up and market vagaries are bound to take place and kill the farmers of non-
economically viable size. If subsistence farming is there or low cost input is there the
small farmers would survive by maximizing their per acre farm business income (FBI), as
described by Banaji (1976):

The labour-intensifying-techniques-which households, faced with the pressure of surplus labour or

consumer demand (c/w: consumer-worker ratio), adopt by way of expanding the annual
consumption fund-will not necessarily increase the productivity of each unit of labour expended,
they must, however, increase the gross output per unit of land area worked. For the peasant
households of the types posited above will be indifferent to increases in output per unit of work, but
crucially interested in increases in output per acre cultivated. The latter functions directly as an
index of expansions in the level of the consumption fund (assuming, of course, that paid out costs
do not absorb completely the increment in output). Since, by the argument proposed, what matters
to an enterprise of this sort is an expansion of family-income, adoption of labour-intensifying-
techniques would be fully justified from the household’s point of view, as long as they expand net
output (farm business income-FBI) per acre, even if at lower levels of labour-productivity and
payment.

But, the small and marginal farmers are growing cash crops, which require
waterings and so they dig borewells by borrowing from private sources at exorbitant rates
of interest and ultimately immerse in the debt burden. As the government provides
electricity at lower rate or free, the digging of borewells picked up. Added to this, highly
costlier inputs are leading to low output-high cost agriculture, culminating in suicides.
Thus, in the present day agriculture, paid out costs absorb nearly completely the
increment in output, as the paid out costs increased in various forms: seed cost, chemical
fertilisers, pesticides, interests on fixed capital for installation of borewell and pumpset
and interest on working capital and so on. As a result, simply increasing the gross output
per unit of land area, which was the goal of the farmer, is not enough. Increasing paid
out costs under the failure of remunerative prices for the output sets in the agrarian
crisis.

8. Tenancy and Agrarian Crisis in Andhra Pradesh

As per the NSS estimates as portrayed in Table-14, in 2002-03, in rural Andhra

Pradesh, the percentage households neither owning nor operating land is 13.42 percent
(as against 9.88 percent in 1991-92), whereas the percentage of landless households is
14.33 percent (as against 11.86 percent in 1991-92). Very interestingly, the percentage of
households owning but not operating land has increased substantially between 1991-92
and 2002-03 from 37.60 to 53.20 percent. Similarly the households owning but not
operating land also rose to 39.80 percent from 27.60 percent between 1991-92 and 2002-
03. Further, the households owning but not operating were concentrated in the class,
0.002 - 0.040 ha, forming 33.54 percent; and if the class, 0.002 – 0.50 ha, is considered,
owning but not operating households accounted for 37.40 percent in the total
households. All these latter households naturally take up agricultural labour or some
other non-agricultural service or self-employment as their occupation.

16
 If we further examine leasing-out and leasing-in aspects of 2002-03 with
reference to household ownership holdings (HOH), as shown in Table-15, it is evident
that though only 4553 hundred households were leasing-out their land, the households
leasing-in land were 9986 hundred. Similarly the areas involved in leasing-out and
leasing-in were 2281 hundred and 8477 hundred hectares respectively. Thus, it is clear
that the difference goes up between figures on leasing-in versus leasing-out. It seems that
the estimates of tenants and leased-in area with reference to the HOHs are reliable.

Thus, banking on leasing-in aspects under HOHs, it is clear that marginal farmer
housheholds (including nil + zero class) account for 86.62 percent of the total households
leasing-in, with 71.55 percent of the total leased-in area. Thus the trend is very clear that
the tenants are of marginal farming households. In fact Table-3, showing distribution of
tenant holdings with reference to Operational holdings, also exhibited the same picture,
though not as sharply as this.

Further, in regard to the recorded tenancy, as per the leased-in area with reference
to HOHs, it showed that more than 95.0 percent households leasing-in were under
‘unrecorded tenancy’, i.e., out of 9986 hundred households leasing-in, 9539 hundred
households did not have recorded lease contracts (GOI, 2006. p.A-203).

Thus, the tenants in Andhra Pradesh suffer from insecurity of tenancy. Even the
burden of rent is abnormally high. Even the law in Andhra Pradesh did not follow the
guidelines stipulated by the GOI. Now we may have a brief look into the tenancy laws
enacted in Andhra Pradesh.

8.1 Tenancy Reforms

Just as for abolition of intermediaries, the tenancy reforms were also carried on
separetely in the two regions, depending on the specificities, as they were under different
states (unreorganised). We deal tenancy reforms separately for the two regions for easy
grasp.

8.1.1 Telangana Region

After abolition of intermediaries the immediate solution to deplorable conditions

of tenants became important, as otherwise would lead to furtherance of peasants’ struggle
as Parthsarathy and Prasada Rao (1969:59) say, “ The historical circumstances were so
pressing that atleast something should be done to wean away the peasantry in lending
even their passive support to this movement.”

To accomplish this, “The Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950
was enacted to protect the rights of tenants. The act was intended to (a) regulate the
period of tenure, (b) fix reasonable rent, (c) give the tenant the right to compensation in
case of eviction, and (d) restrict the right of the landlord to evict the tenant.(ibid., p.67).

The Act provided for the creation of protected tenants. In notified areas, the
tenants were declared as owners, if they had owned less than a family holding and the

17
land owner had owned more than two family holdings. The Hyderabad Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act 1954, defined a family holdings as an area yielding
Rs.800/- of net income from cultivation (Khusro, 1973:41). However, the protected
tenants to be conferred ownership rights had to pay reasonable price of that land either in
lumpsum or in 16 instalments, the purchase price being fixed at 12 times the land
revenue. Altogether, by mid seventies, 33,000 protected tenants became owners of
82,000 hectares of land in Telangana (Appu,1975). In non-notified areas, the purpose
was to provide the tenants with heritable rights, depending on the tenants’s and
landowner’s owned land (in terms of family holdings, such that the tenant should not own
more than one and the landlord should ----- own more than three).

The maximum rent fixed in the Act varied between 1/3rd and 1/4th of the gross
produce, depending on the irrigation level and type. By an Amendment in 1954, the rent
was converted into a multiple of land revenue i.e., 3 to 5 times the land revenue.

As regards the period of tenure, all the protected tenants would have heritable
rights so long as they could not default in rent payment to the landlord. Originally
ordinary tenants were not extended rights of secure tenure, though got certain rights after
Amendment in 1953. Original Act prescribed minimum period of lease as 10 yeas. But
it was later cut to 5 years only, with a condition that the tenure would be renewed, if the
land is resumed by the owner.

8.1.2 Andhra Region

Compared to Telangana region, in Andhra Region there had been less resentment
among the peasentry. Only in 1956, the question of tenants was taken up by the
government and “The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956” was enacted.
As per Parthasarathy and Prasada Rao (1969:130), this Act provides for:
(a) Fixation of maximum rent, (b) minimum period of lease, (c) procedure for determination of fair rent in case
of disputes and for remission of rent, (d) circumstances under which the landlords could terminate the tenancy,
and (e) the machinery for settlement

But this Act failed to achieve any objective. The maximum rent fixed was greater
than conventional rates in practice, as it was upto 50 per cent of the gross produce. The
minimum period of lease was fixed as 6 years, but the Act gave the landlord the right to
resume the land after the expiry of lease period. As a result, the tenants were in a
precarious position to bargain with the landlords and evictions occurred on large scale.
As regards disputes of rent, the Tahsildars of Revenue Department and the courts did not
favour the tenants, as the burden of proof is on the tenants. The termination of tenancy
by the landlord was easy in view of the Act, as it had many loopholes. Ultimately, there
was no proper machinery for settlement, rendering the provisions of the Act ineffective.

After its failure, the government brought out an Amendment to the Act, viz.,
“Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy (Amendment) Act 1970”. It provides for (i)
fixing a fair rent, (ii) automatic renewal of lease and (iii) pre-emptive rights. The rates of
rent were fixed between 30 and 25 per cent of gross produce. Though these rates were

18
not as proposed by planning commission (25 to 20 per cent), the rents fixed were less
than market rates. Automatic renewal of lease was provided, but the landowner was
allowed to take land for personal cultivation, if he had owned less than the ceiling limit
under “The Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1961.” Further, the
Amendment Act provided for pre-emptive rights, without seeking to regulate the price of
land. In view of its weaknesses, Parthasarathy and Suryanarayana (1971) aptly pointed
out long back:

Even to confer limited benefits to a limited class of the rural poor the present Tenancy
(Amendment) Act needs to be modified considerably, redefining personal cultivation,
fixing the price of land along with giving tenants pre-emptive rights, lowering the ceiling
limit for resumption, not allowing resumption in case of non-resident land owners,
enabling tenants to retain some land in the case of resumption by owners; and applying
all provisions of the legislation to temple lands too are essential.

8.2 Effects of Insecurity of Tenancy

In addition to the general adverse effects of agrarian crisis referred earlier, which
equally affects both owner operators and tenants equally, the tenants have to face worst
situation when they have to involve in the credit market, input supply market and product
market, which operate favourably towards the owner operators and recorded tenants.
Though there may not be semi-feudal relations (a la Bhaduri, 1973), due to interlocking
of markets and that too dominated by the big landowners; yet the conditions of the
tenants are reduced to worse situation due to reinforcement of agrarian crisis.

Though the laws were enacted the government of Andhra Pradesh did not follow
the spirit of GOI guidance in the fixation of fair rent. Further, the farmers also began to
think as though the laws were not there. There are no movements for the recognition of
tenancy. It is because the landless cultivators and many marginal and small farmers
tend to lease in additional land; but they lack bargaining power. On the other hand,
suppliers of land also mostly small land owners and they face problem legally if they
have to take possession for personal cultivation. Thus, both on demand side and supply
side, marginal and small farmer households come into the picture.

Therefore, there is a necessity to revise the laws to be advantageous to both

lessors and lessees, giving scope for transparency. That is, the landowners, who are
under ceiling limits, should not fear to give land on lease. Only in such a case, the
tenants will develop land and invest in agriculture to increase land productivity, being
under the security of tenure.

But, recognition of tenancy would help the tenants to get benefits provided by the
government on par with other owner operators particularly in respect of subsidised
inputs, compensation for losses, etc. This will require careful separation of owners from
tenants. Further, regulation of rent, either fixed produce or fixed money terms, is
essential as the rents are generally high in AP, depending on the irrigation, the region and
the crops grown. In this connection, Chandrsekhar and Ghosh (2004) have the following
to say:

19
 Cash rent rates in rural Andhra Pradesh are typically quite high, ranging from Rs. 3,000
per acres in unirrigated and less fertile areas (such as in parts of Anantapur district) to as
much as Rs. 7,000-9,000 per acre in irrigated areas of higher soil fertility (such as in
Guntur). In the fertile south coastal Andhra region, rents can go up to as much as Rs.
15,000 per acre. These rates are in direct contravention of existing legislation (such as the
AP Tenancy Act of 1956 and its 1974 amendment) under which land rents are controlled.
Of course, such legislation has been so totally ignored that it is now effectively forgotten,
and so neither landlords nor tenants pay much attention to such limits. In actual practice,
tenant farmers are currently paying more than 3 or 4 times the rents stipulated in this Act.

It is a fact that there should be political will to do favour to the tenants, for
recording the tenancy, by providing for the regulation of tenancy so that the tenants may
get their due share in the credit, input and product markets..

9. Conclusion

(i) As regards data on tenancy, the NSS Reports are better than the Agricultural Census.
But the advantage of the Agricultural Census is that these statistics are available at
district level and at intervals of 5-years from 1970-71. As there were doubts even on the
NSS, we also depended on some primary sources, which showed somewhat higher
tenancy in different regions.

(ii) There has been a perceptible decline in the magnitude of tenancy during
1953-54 and 1981-82. By 1991-92, tenants have gained lost ground. Though
significance of the pure tenants - the tenants with no owned land of theirs - decreased
upto 1970-71, their prominence increased since. The pure tenant, who belongs to the
lowest rung among cultivators and therefore who has little bargaining strength, may be
surviving against all odds, by allowing himself to be exploited in the rental market. The
share of pure tenants rose to 5.0 percent in 2002-03.

(iii) The distribution of tenanted area by size-class of farmers shows that the
marginal and small tenants’ control over the area increased appreciably overtime, either
on the basis of Operational Holdings or Hosehold Ownership Holdings..

(iv) Overtime, there appears to be a tendency towards fixed-rental (kind and cash
together) contracts to become prominent. In 1991-92 and 2002-03, the leased-in area
under fixed rental has the share of 50.0 percent or more.

(v) It was also clear from the primary studies that in specific regions, the
tenancy is high particularly in the irrigated area, as was also shown from the macro level
data from the NSS.

(vi) The institution of tenancy has the effect of improving the access of land to
the petty cultivators. So it need not be curbed. What is called for at the present juncture
are the efforts to reduce the exploitative nature of the lease contracts. This is possible if

20
tenancies are registered and tenants are made to pay legislated rent to their landlords, as
in West Bengal.

(vii) Due to the agrarian crisis, the tenants, who are also mainly marginal and
small farmers, are facing a lot of troubles in the credit, input and product markets. Only
recognition of tenancy would better the conditions of tenants, as the recorded tenants
would get benefits of subsidies, concessional credit and government aided schemes.

References
Appu, P.S. (1975): “Tenancy Reform in India”, Economic and Political Weekly, August (Special)

Banaji, Jairus, (1976): “Chayanov, Kautsky, Lenin: Considerations towards Synthesis”, Economic and
Political Weekly, Oct. 2.

Bardhan, Pranab (1970): “Trends in Land Relations”, Economic and Political Weekly, January (Annual).

Bharadwaj, Krishna, (1974): Productiion Conditions in Indian Agriculture, Cambridge Univesity

Press, London.

Bhaduri, Amit, (1973): “An Analysis of Semi-Feudalism in East India”, Frontier, September 29.

Chadha, G.K (1976): “Tenancy and Agricultural Productivity – A Case Study of the Punjab (India)”, Social Sciences
Research Journal, July-December.

______ (1986): The State and Rural Economic Transformation: The Case of Punjab (1950-85), Sage Publications,
New Delhi.

_____ and Sharma, H.R (1992):”Agrarian Relations in India: Comments on the Available Data”, in G.V.S. Murthy
and G.K. Kadekodi (eds): Poverty in India: Data Base Issues, Vikas Publication.

______ , Sucharita Sen and H.R.Sharma (2004): State of the Indian Farmer: Land Resources, Vol.2, Department of
Agriculture and Cooperation, Academic Foundation, New Delhi.

_______ and Venkateswarlu (2007): Development through Community Participation in Pindiprolu,

Project Report sent to NF University, Japan

Chakravarthy, Aparajita (1981): “Tenancy and Mode of Production”, Economic and Political Weekly, March 28.

_______and Ashok Rudra (1973): “Economic Effects of Tenancy: Some Negative Results”, Economic and Political
Weekly, July 14

Chandrasekar, C.P and Jayati Ghosh (2004): “The Continuing Possibilities of Land Reform” , Macroscan, An
Alternative Economic Webcentre Novemeber 23.

Chayanov, A.V.,(1987): The Theory of Peasant Economy,Oxford University Press, Delhi, (edited by
Daniel Thorner, Basile Kerblay and R.E.F. Smiht, with a Foreword by Teodor Shanin).

Dandekar, V.M and Nilakanth Rath (1971): “Poverty in India,” Economic and Political Weekly, January 9.

Dwivedi, H. and Ashok Rudra (1973): “Economic Effects of Tenancy : Some Further Negative Results ”, Economic
and Political Weekly, July 21

21
Government of India (1962): The NSS Eighth Round , No.66, Report on Land Holdings (4) Rural Sector – States,
Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi.

_____ (1970): The NSS Seventeenth Round, No.144, Table with Notes on Some Aspects of Land Holdings in Rural
Areas, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi.

_____ (1975): The NSS Twenty Sixth Round, No.215.1, Tables on Land Holdings at State Level – State – Andhra
Pradesh, NSSO, Department of Statistics.

_____ (1986): Thirty Seventh Round, No.330, Report on Land Holdings – 1, Some Aspects of Household Ownership
Holdings (State and All India Estimates), NSSO, Department of Statistics.

_____ (1986a): Thirty Seventh Round, No.331, Report on Land Holdings – 2, Some Aspects of Operational Holdings (
State and All India Estimates), NSSO, Department of Statistics.

_____ (1987): Thirty Seventh Round, No.338, Report on Land Holdings – 3, Some Aspects of Household Operational
Holdings (States and All India Estimates), NSSO, Department of Statistics.

____ (1995): NSS Forty Eighth Round, No.399, Some Aspects Household Ownership Holdings, (Report-1), NSSO,
Department of Statistics.

____ (1996): NSS Forty Eighth Round, No.408, Livestock and Agricultural Implements in Household Operational
Holdings, NSSO, Department of Statistics.

____ (1997): NSS Forty Eighth Round, No.407, Operational Land Holdings in India, 1991-92 – Salient Features,
NSSO, Department of Statistics.

______ (2006a): NSS 59th Round, Report No. 492 - Some Aspects of Operational Land Holdings in India,
2002-03(January–December 2003), NSSO, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, August.

______ (2006b): NSS 59th Round, Report No. 491 - Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003,
(January–December 2003), NSSO, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation,
November.

Herring, Ronald J (1981): “Embedded Production Relations and the Rationality of Tenant Quiescence in Tenure
Reform”, Journal of Peasant Studies, January.

Ip. P.C and Stahl (1978): “Land Tenure and Economic Development”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
February.

Khusro, A.M (1973): The Economics of Land Reform and Farm Size in India, Mc Millan.

Krishna, S. Radha and K. Madhava Rao (2006): :Extent and pattern of Tenancy in Plain and agency Areas – A Studty
in Khammam District of A.P”, in N. Linga Murthy et al. (eds.), Land Question in India, Serials Publications,
New Delhi.

Landes, Rip and Ashok Gulati (2003): “Policy Reform and Farm Sector Adjustment in India”, Paper
presented at the Workshop on The Policy Reform and Adjustment, Imperial College, London, 23-25 October,
Agricultural Adjustment Project,
Penn University.

Laxminarayana, H and Tyagi S.S (1977): “Tenancy Extent and Inter-State Variations”, Economic and Political Weekly,
May 28.

_________ (1982): Changes in Agrarian Structure in India, Agricole Publishing Academy, New Delhi.

Parthasarathy, G and B. Prasada Rao (1969): Implementation of Land Reforms in Andhra Pradesh, Scientific Book
Agency, Calcutta.

_______ and K. Suryanarayana (1971): “Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Amendment Act”, Economic and
Political Weekly, March 27

22
Patnaik, Utsa (1993): “Towards A Recolonisation of Indian Agriculture”, in Janavignana Vedika (1993):
New Economic Policies - Their Impact and Implications, Hyderabad.

Prasad, Pradhan H (1973): “Production Relations: Achilles Heel of Indian Planning”, Economic and Political Weekly,
May 5.

Rao, C.H.H (1998): “Agricultural Growth, Sustainability and Poverty Alleviation: Recent Trends and
Major Issues of Reform”, Economic and Political Weekly, July 18.

_____ (2001): “WTO and Viability of Indian Agricultur”, Economic and Political Weekly, September 8.

_____ (2003): “Reform Agenda for Agriculture”, Economic and Political Weekly, February 15.

Reddy, M.Atchi and M. Chandayya (2006); “Changes in the Landholding Structure in A.P: 1956-2004”, in N. Linga
Murthy et al. (eds.), Land Question in India, Serials Publications, New Delhi.

Sanyal, S.K (1972): “Has There Been Decline in Agricultural Tenancy”, Economic and Political Weekly, May 6.

____ (1977): “Trends in Some Characteristics of Land Holdings – An Analysis for a Few States”, Sarvekshana, July.

Srinivasulu, Y (2007): An Analysis of Functioing of Land Lease Market in Different Agro-Climatic Settings in Andhra
Pradesh, Ph.D is yet to be submitted to the University of Hyderabad.

Subrahmanyam. S (2000): “Agricultural Tenancy in India: Growth Promoting or Growth Retarding”, Artha Vijnana,
December, Vol.XLII, No.4.

Venkateswarlu, A (1984): Regional Variations in the Agrarian Structure in India, 1953-54 to 1970-71, M. Phil
Dissertation (Unpublished), School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

_________ (1998): Developing Agricultural Technology: A Study of Andhra Pradesh Agriculture, Rawat
Publications, Jaipur.

_________ (2003a): Pattern of Land Distribution and Tenancy in rural Andhra Pradesh, Working Paper No.51,
September.

_________ (2003b): “Changing Workforce Structure in India and Andhra Pradesh: 1961-2001”, The Indian Journal
of Labour Economics, Vol.46, No.4, October-December.

_________ and B. Sampath Rao (2006): “Pattern of Land Distribution of Operational Holdings in Andhra Pradesh:
1970-71 and 1995-96”, in N. Linga Murthy et al. (eds.), Land Question in India, Serials Publications, New
Delhi.

Vijaya Kumar, C and Prasada Rao, C.R (1979): “Trends and Causes of Tenancy Variations among the Districts of
Andhra Pradesh”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, January – March.

23
 Appendix Tables

Table 1: Tenant Holdings in Operational Holdings - Some Aspects - 1953-54 to 2002-03

S.No Item 1953-54 1960-61 1970-71 1981-82 1991-92 2002-03
1 Operational Holdings (percent)
Reporting Area as:
i. Entirely owned 67.39 81.48 78.34 83.55 81.33 85.24
ii. Pure tenants 11.21 3.04 0.71 1.04 2.32 5.00
iii. Mixed tenants 21.40 15.48 20.95 12.28 11.79 7.89
iv. Others - - - 3.13 4.56 1.88
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 Percentage of Operated Area Reported as :
a. Owned 81.40 90.85 90.99 92.98 88.49 90.13
b. Leased-in 18.60 9.15 9.01 6.23 9.57 8.95
c. Others - - - 0.79 1.94 0.92
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3 Share of Total Tenants in Total
Op. Holdings (%) = 1(ii)+ 1(iii) 32.61 18.52 21.66 13.30 14.11 12.89
4 Leased-in Area (%) = 2(b) 18.60 9.15 9.01 6.23 9.57 8.95
5 Share of Pure Tenants
in Total Tenants (%) 34.38 16.42 3.28 7.82 16.44 38.79
6 Share of Mixed Tenants
in Total Tanant Holdings (%) 65.62 83.58 96.72 92.18 83.56 61.21
7 Total Tenant Holdings
(Pure + Mixed) (' 00) 9689 7360 9598 6859 9975 8559
8 Total Operated Area Leased-in
by Total Tenant Holdings (' 00 ha) 19722 10450 9179 6441 8820 7928

Source : 1. GOI (1962) for NSS Report No.66; 2. GOI (1970) for NSS Report No.144,
3. GOI (1975) for NSS Report No.215.1; 4. GOI (1986a) for NSS Report No.331;
5. GOI (1997) for NSS Report No.407 and 6. GOI (2006a) for NSS Report No.492.
Notes :
1. 1953-54 data is adopted from the data of Agricultural Holdings i.e., excluding non-agricultural Holdings
2. 1960-61 data are not directly available and are taken from Sanyal (1977)
3. In 1991-92 and 2002-03, zero-class tenants are excluded.

24
Table 2: Percentage Operational Holdings Leasing-in and Operated Area Leased-in by Farm-size
Operational Holdings having Operated Area
S.
Farm-size Pure Pure Mixed Leased-
No Others Total Owned Others Total
owners tenants tenants in
1 1953-54
i. Marginal 71.78 15.81 12.41 100.0 71.24 28.76 100.0
ii. Small 62.13 8.92 28.95 100.0 75.98 24.02 100.0
iii. Semi-
58.65 5.89 35.46 100.0 76.20 23.80 100.0
medium
iv. Medium 66.59 3.27 30.14 100.0 82.15 17.85 100.0
v. Large 63.86 3.83 32.31 100.0 84.58 15.42 100.0
Total 67.39 11.21 21.40 100.0 81.40 18.60 100.0
2 1970-71
i. Marginal 80.04 0.89 19.07 100.0 85.64 14.36 100.0
ii. Small 77.43 0.92 21.65 100.0 88.97 11.03 100.0
iii. Semi-
75.01 0.27 24.72 100.0 89.40 10.60 100.0
medium
iv. Medium 77.37 0.54 22.09 100.0 80.38 19.62 100.0
v. Large 80.89 0.00 19.11 100.0 95.35 4.65 100.0
Total 78.34 0.71 20.95 100.0 90.99 9.01 100.0
3 1981-82
i. Marginal 86.42 2.09 8.79 2.70 100.0 90.74 7.71 1.55 100.0
ii. Small 80.88 0.12 14.75 4.25 100.0 91.49 6.65 1.86 100.0
iii. Semi-
78.93 0.00 16.35 4.72 100.0 90.22 8.43 1.35 100.0
medium
iv. Medium 82.22 0.02 16.60 1.16 100.0 93.78 6.02 0.20 100.0
v. Large 85.72 0.00 13.87 0.41 100.0 96.44 3.55 0.01 100.0
Total 83.55 1.04 12.28 3.13 100.0 92.98 6.23 0.79 100.0
4 1991-92
i. Marginal 84.79 1.45 8.97 4.79 100.0 88.00 10.72 1.28 100.00
ii. Small 75.56 1.38 19.15 3.91 100.0 86.23 10.22 3.47 100.00
iii. Semi-
72.62 0.00 20.93 6.45 100.0 87.27 10.65 2.08 100.00
medium
iv. Medium 87.90 0.17 11.20 0.73 100.0 93.51 5.26 1.23 100.00
v. Large 78.05 0.00 21.95 0.00 100.0 85.91 13.61 0.58 100.00
Total 81.33 2.32 11.79 4.56 100.0 88.49 9.57 1.94 100.00
5 2002-03
i. Marginal 85.16 6.75 5.11 3.01 100.0 86.91 11.96 1.14 100.0
ii. Small 85.00 2.30 12.60 0.10 100.0 87.81 11.05 1.15 100.0
iii. Semi-
medium 84.69 3.32 11.89 0.08 100.0 88.98 10.10 0.93 100.0
iv. Medium 91.37 0.65 7.53 0.39 100.0 94.48 4.38 1.14 100.0
v. Large 70.04 0.0 30.0 0.0 100.0 92.69 7.31 0.00 100.0
Total 85.24 5.00 7.89 1.88 100.0 90.14 8.95 0.92 100.0

Source : As in Table 1

25
Table 3 : Diastribution of Tenant Holdings and Leased-in Area by Farm-size
S. Farm- 1953-54 1970-71 1981-82 1991-92 2002-03
No size % % % % % % % % % %
No Area No Area No Area No Area No Area

1 Marginal 46.33 7.39 43.57 13.21 39.63 12.69 43.76 19.64 55.83 24.77
2 Small 16.36 9.43 19.94 14.36 24.74 16.4 31.11 24.91 23.93 26.09
Semi-
3 medium 18.81 19.9 21.03 25.74 19.08 28.53 19.54 29.16 14.14 25.70
4 Medium 11.35 24.54 12.4 33.42 13.49 29.2 4.33 12.91 3.50 10.82
5 Large 7.15 38.74 3.06 13.27 3.06 13.18 1.26 13.38 2.60 12.62
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(i) Marginal +
Small 62.69 16.82 63.51 27.57 64.37 29.09 74.87 44.55 79.76 50.86

(ii) Medium +
Large 18.50 63.28 15.46 46.69 16.55 42.38 5.59 26.29 6.10 23.44

Source: As in Table 1

Table 4: Leasing-out Households and Leased-out Area - Some Aspects

1953- 1960- 1970- 1981- 1991- 2002-
S.No. Variable 54 61 71 82 92 03

1 Total HHs 5604 4300 7800 5221 5221* 4553*

Leasing out ('00)

2 Percentage of 14.89 6.95 12.05 6.90 5.24 3.73

Households Leasing out

3 Total Area 14121 6060 9182 6988 3702 2281

Leased -out(' 00 Ha)

4 Percentage of Area 13.95 5.33 8.93 6.31 4.18 2.59

Leased out to Owned Area

Source : As in Table 1
* Excluded 'nil' and 'zero' class households to make it comparable with other years, as the original
data included those figures to calculate percent in these two classes in the denominator

26
Table 5: Percentage of Households reporting Leased-out Area and Percentage of Area leased-out in HOHs
1953 - 54 1960 -61 1970 - 71 1981 - 82 1991 - 92 2002-03
Sl. Broad
No. Farm-size % % % % % % % % % % % %
No Area No Area No Area No Area No Area No Area
(i) Percentage in Each Size
1 Marginal 11.26 15.23 6.43 10.63 10.13 11.23 6.32* 7.33 5.21* 8.16 3.83* 5.66
2 Small 19.17 15.13 5.12 3.34 17.08 12.67 7.68 5.93 4.94 4.21 3.29 2.90
3 Semi-Medium 16.88 13.16 10.7 7.72 15.30 9.35 7.78 5.80 7.16 5.12 1.71 1.16
4 Medium 19.21 12.16 7.69 4.91 12.28 8.04 8.47 7.01 3.09 0.90 4.43 1.33
5 Large 24.24 14.56 9.01 3.81 14.37 6.83 8.25 5.59 3.30 0.57 17.17 1.38

Total 14.89 13.95 6.95 5.33 12.05 8.93 6.90* 6.31 5.24* 4.18 3.73* 2.59
(ii) Distribution of Households Leasing-out and Area Leased-out
1 Marginal 40.61 5.75 59.08 16.30 52.71 12.47 57.72 13.10 72.71 41.55 81.80 48.05
2 Small 19.25 8.56 9.06 6.07 20.79 18.66 17.73 14.38 13.20 22.61 9.40 22.35
3 Semi-Medium 16.24 14.34 17.43 24.59 15.31 22.18 12.81 19.04 11.55 29.59 2.80 9.69
4 Medium 14.50 24.05 10.24 28.79 8.29 27.12 9.31 33.18 2.26 5.16 3.50 12.16
5 Large 9.40 47.30 4.19 24.25 2.90 19.57 2.43 20.30 0.28 1.09 2.50 7.65

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.00
Source : As in Table 1
* Excluded 'nil' and 'zero' class households to make it comparable with other years.

27
Table 6: Terms of Lease of Tenant Holdings and Leased-in Area among Op. Holdings by Farm size -
1970-71 to 1991-92.

Percentage of Holdings under Percentage of Leased-in Area under

S.
Farm-size Fixed Fixed Share of Other Fixed Fixed Share of Other
No
money produce produce terms money produce produce terms

1 1970-71
1. Marginal 2.71 3.39 7.06 7.91 2.05 2.43 5.21 3.15
2. Small 3.55 3.83 8.22 10.01 1.25 1.96 3.77 4.05
3. Semi-
6.04 4.18 10.63 6.01 3.05 2.05 3.47 2.03
medium
4. Medium 8.52 2.75 7.68 5.86 3.42 1.08 3.14 1.98
5. Large 7.02 2.02 7.80 4.43 1.88 0.16 2.01 0.60
Total 4.32 3.50 8.03 7.60 2.55 1.28 3.18 2.00
2 1981-82
1. Marginal 0.58 1.49 0.67 8.73 0.16 1.33 0.64 5.58
2. Small 0.80 2.02 1.91 10.59 0.57 1.01 1.45 3.61
3. Semi-
2.75 2.24 0.16 1.51 0.92 0.02 5.98
medium 12.50
4. Medium 2.74 1.63 1.41 10.86 1.28 0.52 0.47 3.75
5. Large 0.00 1.34 1.58 11.37 0.00 0.21 0.48 2.86
Total 1.18 1.73 0.97 10.01 0.81 0.69 0.55 4.18
3 1991-92
1. Marginal 3.03 3.04 3.17 3.22 2.04 3.06 3.19 2.43
2. Small 4.52 6.46 9.48 0.45 2.12 3.04 4.46 0.60
3. Semi-
8.22 7.66 3.91 3.80 3.54 1.81 1.50
medium 2.39
4. Medium 5.88 2.72 2.50 2.55 2.11 0.97 0.89 1.28
5. Large 4.20 1.13 16.62 4.29 2.18 0.58 8.62 2.23
Total 4.20 4.35 4.69 2.49 2.47 2.56 2.77 1.77
4 2002-03
1. Marginal 3.55 4.93 2.16 2.50 3.32 5.37 2.13 1.12
2. Small 6.49 7.02 4.05 2.44 2.78 5.51 1.97 0.77
3. Semi-
medium 6.92 6.32 2.65 2.36 4.28 3.81 1.27 0.75
4. Medium 4.84 3.06 1.45 0.71 2.38 1.04 0.80 0.17
5. Large 12.91 3.93 13.08 0.41 0.85 0.82 5.64 0.00
Total 4.74 5.42 2.69 2.35 2.83 3.38 2.15 0.58

Source : As in table 4
Note: For 1991-92 and 2002-03, the total of holdings under different terms does not tally with
the percent of No. of tenant holdings for each size class, because here a single holding may be
involving in more than one type of lease terms. So the former value would be greater than the latter

28
Table 7: Distribution of Tenant Holdings and Leased-in Area under different Terms of Lease-by Farm size, 1970-71 to 1991-92

Percentage Distribution of Tenant Percentage Distribution of Leased-in

Holdings under Area under
S.No Farm-size Share Share
Fixed Fixed of Other All Fixed Fixed of Other All
money produce terms terms money produce terms terms
produce produce
1 1970-71
1. Marginal 12.86 16.09 33.51 37.54 100.0 15.96 18.93 40.58 24.53 100.0
2. Small 13.86 14.95 32.10 39.09 100.0 11.33 17.77 34.18 36.72 100.0
3. Semi-
22.49 15.56 39.58 22.37 100.0 28.77 19.34 32.74
medium 19.15 100.0
4. Medium 34.34 11.08 30.96 23.62 100.0 35.55 11.23 32.64 20.58 100.0
5. Large 33.00 9.50 36.67 20.83 100.0 40.43 3.44 43.23 12.90 100.0
Total 18.42 14.93 34.24 32.41 100.0 28.30 14.21 35.29 22.20 100.0
2 1981-82
1. Marginal 5.06 12.99 5.84 76.11 100.0 2.08 17.25 8.30 72.37 100.0
2. Small 5.22 13.19 12.46 69.13 100.0 8.58 15.21 21.84 54.37 100.0
3. Semi-
15.58 12.69 0.91 100.0 17.91 10.91 0.24
medium 70.82 70.94 100.0
4. Medium 16.47 9.80 8.47 65.26 100.0 21.26 8.64 7.81 62.29 100.0
5. Large 0.00 9.38 11.06 79.56 100.0 0.00 5.92 13.52 80.56 100.0
Total 8.50 12.46 6.98 72.06 100.0 13.00 11.08 8.83 67.09 100.0
3 1991-92
1. Marginal 24.32 24.40 25.44 25.84 100.0 19.07 28.50 29.77 22.66 100.0
2. Small 21.62 30.89 45.34 2.15 100.0 20.77 29.71 43.60 5.92 100.0
3. Semi-
37.06 34.54 17.63 100.0 35.70 33.25 16.97
medium 10.77 14.08 100.0
4. Medium 43.08 19.93 18.31 18.68 100.0 40.10 18.55 17.02 24.33 100.0
5. Large 16.00 4.31 63.34 16.35 100.0 16.00 4.30 63.35 16.35 100.0
Total 26.70 27.65 29.82 15.83 100.0 25.90 26.76 28.90 18.44 100.0
4 2002-03
1. Marginal 28.57 39.66 17.33 14.44 100.0 27.84 44.95 17.81 9.40 100.0
2. Small 32.50 35.15 20.28 12.07 100.0 25.16 49.86 17.83 6.97 100.0
3. Semi-
medium 38.87 35.52 14.87 10.74 100.0 42.33 37.67 12.61 7.39 100.0
4. Medium 50.05 31.62 15.04 3.29 100.0 54.25 23.82 18.20 3.83 100.0
5. Large 42.58 12.97 43.12 1.33 100.0 11.59 11.28 77.13 0.00 100.0
Total 32.28 36.88 18.31 12.53 100.0 31.67 37.82 24.01 6.46 100.0

Source : As in Table-1

29
Table-8: Tenant Holdings and Leased-in Area
% Tenant Holdings % Leased-in Area
1951 1961 1970-71 1995-96 1970-71 1995-96

Srikakulam 19.19 19.40 3.30 - 2.50 -

Vizianagaram - - - - - -
Visakhapatnam 17.88 14.72 3.40 - 2.30 -
East Godavari 26.53 38.53 9.70 0.14 10.40 0.1634
West Godavari 27.95 31.85 6.90 - 4.40 -
Krishna 11.74 18.60 7.60 0.10 4.40 0.2160
Guntur 8.89 25.28 3.60 0.37 2.40 0.4762
Prakasam - - 13.20 0.14 6.70 0.2383
Nellore 9.37 22.48 19.60 0.04 6.10 0.0315

Coastal - - 7.69 0.11 4.86 0.1594

Chittoor 13.42 22.92 24.00 0.01 9.20 0.0115

Cuddapah 7.16 17.81 6.60 0.05 2.20 0.0447
Anantapur 13.83 17.20 17.90 - 7.40 -
Kurnool 7.06 20.15 9.50 - 5.40 -

Rayalaseema 11.10 20.21 15.42 0.01 6.30 0.0089

Mahbubnagar 27.55 22.50 18.70 0.08 10.40 0.0846

Ranga Reddy - - - 0.01 0.0052
Hyderabad 40.28 26.87 26.00 1.68 17.00 1.1299
Medak 13.57 18.10 18.70 - 9.30 -
Nizamabad 6.23 11.89 16.40 - 6.50 -
Adilabad 29.14 32.08 24.50 - 16.90 -
Karimnagar 12.15 14.69 9.30 - 3.30 -
Warangal 22.22 14.64 11.20 - 4.50 -
Khammam - 18.52 20.50 0.26 10.30 0.2154
Nalgonda 19.71 16.24 9.30 0.07 3.50 0.1161

Telangana 19.72 18.53 15.81 0.05 8.70 0.0545

Andhra Pradesh - 21.02 12.25 0.07 7.03 0.0777

Notes:
1. In 1951, Khammam district was not there. It became district in 1953.
2. In 1979, Rangaredy and Vizianagaram districts were formed. Vizianagaram was
carved out from Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam; and Rangareddy from Hyderabad
3. For 1995-96, the tenant holdings are taken as the sum of wholly leased in holdings
and partly leased-in, partly owned and partly otherwise operated holdings:
columns 4 and 6 of Table 15 (p.55), Government of AP (2002): Report on
Agricultural Census, 1995-96: Andhra Pradesh, Directorate of
Economics and Statistics, AP, Hyderabad.
4. 1951 and 1961 figures are from Parthsarathy and Prasada Rao (1969), pp.42 and 48.

30
Table-9: Tenancy in 29 Villages from the Records 1978-79to 1986-87
% of
%
Area Area tenants
leased- Cultiv- Ten-
S.No. Village District Year Oper- leased- in total
in ators ants
ated in Cultiv-
area
ators

1 Mypaul Nellore 1978-79 1640 122 7.44 422 36 8.53

2 Rudraram Medak 1979-80 1756 142 8.09 276 41 14.86
3 Lakkavaram Prakasam 1980-81 1860 98 5.27 315 29 9.21
4 Adilibad Rangareddy 1981-82 1120 141 12.59 272 30 11.03
5 Bhatapalle Prakasam 1982-83 1105 38 3.44 92 14 15.22
6 Tallur Prakasam 1983-84 2890 191 6.61 521 36 6.91
7 Kandi Medak 1984-85 21217 136 6.13 392 47 11.99
8 Donthi Medak 1985-86 1524 178 11.68 367 52 14.17
9 Agonoor Rangareddy 1986-87 2440 321 13.16 252 21 8.33
35552 1367 3.85 2909 306 10.52

10 Chennur Cuddapah 1981-82 1287 168 13.05 737 34 4.61

11 Nandilapalle Cuddapah 1981-82 720 116 16.11 81 22 27.16
12 Somthjutur Kurnool 1981-82 1650 124 7.52 138 21 15.22
13 Kothur Medak 1981-82 1260 87 6.9 158 26 16.46
14 Koheda Rangareddy 1981-82 2150 320 14.88 216 17 7.87
15 Bandlaguda Rangareddy 1981-82 250 42 16.8 32 11 34.38
16 Tripuravaram Nalgonda 1981-82 4744 489 10.31 1280 160 12.50
17 Narsigabhatla Nalgonda 1981-82 3850 416 10.81 460 38 8.26
18 Haripur Nalgonda 1981-82 1798 359 19.97 277 43 15.52
17709 2121 11.98 3379 372 11.01

19 Karlapalem Guntur 1983-84 4046 863 21.33 1566 116 7.41

20 Aliabad Rangareddy 1983-84 7220 2250 31.16 597 215 36.01
21 Kothapalli Medak 1983-84 4663 163 3.50 1140 32 2.81
22 Rampur Adilabad 1983-84 430 160 37.21 12 5 41.67
23 Pendial Warangal 1983-84 10600 1190 11.23 994 149 14.99
24 Narsingabhatla Nalgonda 1983-84 4750 840 17.68 1260 154 12.22
31709 5466 17.24 5569 671 12.05

25 Jagathi Srikakulam 1985-86 964 184 19.09 77 25 32.47

26 Kovvali Godavari 1985-86 4870 1620 33.26 910 106 11.65
27 Aruru Medak 1985-86 1220 86 7.05 148 21 14.19
28 Konapur Nalgonda 1985-86 540 34 6.30 96 16 16.67
29 Nonkal 1985-86 3220 420 13.04 588 76 12.93
10814 2344 21.68 1819 244 13.41

Source: Reddy and M. Chandayya (2006). The data were collected from the records maintained at the village level,
from field trips during 1979-2004 organised by the University of Hyderabad.

31
Table-10: Tenurial Structure of Sample Households in Two Disricts: 1984-85
% Households Reporting as % Area

District/ Farm- Owner-

S.No. Pure Pure
size cum Leased-
Own- Tena- Owned
Tena- in
ers nts
nts

1 West Godavari
Small 63.64 24.67 11.69 69.58 30.42
Medium 56.25 34.38 9.37 66.99 33.01
Large 70.97 29.03 0.00 82.43 17.57
Total 63.57 27.86 8.57 76.29 23.71

2 Khammam
Small 88.33 10.00 1.67 94.49 5.51
Medium 86.67 11.11 2.22 91.78 8.22
Large 68.57 31.43 0.00 84.14 15.86
Total 82.86 15.71 1.43 88.24 11.76

Source: Venkateswarlu (1998, p.68)

Table-11: Extent and Formas of Tenancy in 3 Villages

Jalada- Madiki Thondangi
S. nki (East (East
Item
No. (Nellore Godavari Godavari
dist) dist) dist)
Dry 4448 - 2471
Cultivated land
1 Irrigated 12108 3756 6672
(acres)
Total 16556 3756 9143

Total (ac.) 4819 1038 2086

2 Leased-in land
% 29.10 27.60 22.80

Share crop 69.20 - -

Forms of
3 Fixed rent 30.80 100.00 73.80
Tenancy (%)
Mortgage - - 26.20
Source: Subrahmanyan (2000)

32
 Table-12: Tenancy from the Recent Field Survey

% % of leased-in area under

%
Leased-
Leas-
in
ing-
Area in
in
S.No. District Village Type Total Share
Hhs Fixed Fixed
Area crop-
in kind cash
ope- ping
Total
rated
Hhs
Hhs

Mentipudi Canal irri. 41.11 52.54 100.00 - -

1 West Godavari Kothapalli Canal irri. 37.50 66.18 100.00 - -
Seethampet Tube well irri. 16.47 15.86 2.33 96.11 1.56

Arepalli Semi-irri. 5.33 5.41 92.59 7.41 -

2 Mahabubnagar
Tatiparthy Dry 6.94 8.45 11.76 75.74 12.50

Chinnapur Semi-irri. 12.96 17.80 5.72 16.21 78.07

3 Karim Nagar
Nagaram Dry 11.70 7.98 39.17 1.48 59.35

Jonanki Semi-irri. 28.48 30.14 4.05 17.37 78.58

4 Srikakulam
B.Koduru Dry 4.52 7.67 3.29 91.71 5.01

Total 15.83 16.66 57.85 24.57 17.58

Source: Srinivasulu (2007)

Table -13: Tenancy in Pindiprolu (Khammam District)

1993 2006

% Oper- % % Oper- %
S.No. Category % %
ated Leased- ated Leased-
Owned Owned
House- Area in House- Area in
Area Area
holds (acres) Area holds (acres) Area

1 Large 6.00 48.01 32.68 0.00 6.00 43.00 100.00 0.00

2 Medium 10.00 33.99 23.14 0.00 14.00 47.00 64.89 35.11
3 Small 40.00 58.41 39.76 0.00 38.00 73.00 84.93 15.07
4 Labour 44.00 6.49 4.42 0.00 42.00 9.00 100.00 0.00

Total 100.00 146.90 100.00 0.00 100.00 172.00 84.01 15.99

Source: Chadha and Venkateswarlu (2007)

33
Table-14: Household Ownership and Operational Holdings - Some Aspects, 1953-54 to 2002-03
1953- 1960- 1970- 1981- 1991- 2002-
S.No. Item 54 61 71 82 92 03

1 Landed HHs excluding Landless (00) 37640 61870 64726 75652 99563 122001

2 Landless HHs (00)* 13594 4540 4831 10245 13391 20408

3 Total HHs (including Landless (00) 51234 66410 69557 85897 112954 142409

4 Landless HHs in Total (%) 26.53 6.84 6.95 11.93 11.86 14.33

5 Percentage of HHs Operating No Land 22.92 37.95 36.05 40.47 37.49 53.20

6 Percentage of Households Neither - 5.92 6.37 10.89 9.88 13.42

Owning nor Operating Land

7 Percentage of Households Owning - 32.03 29.68 29.58 27.61 39.78

but not Operating Land
Source: As in Table-1 and GOI (1987, 1995, 2006a)
Note: For items 6 and 7 in 1981-82, the figures are not directly available, they are taken from
Chadha and Sharma (1992)
* Prior to 1981-82, the landless was shown as a single class as owning no land or land owning upto < 0.002
ha (0.005 acre ). But 1981-82 onwards the NSS shows owning no land class as 'nil class' and owning land
upto < 0.002 ha as 'zero class' .

Table-15: HHs Leasing-out and Leasing-in by HH Ownership Holdings 2002-03

Area Area
% %
% % per per
Area Area
HHs HHs HH HH
S.No. Farm-size
Leasing- Leasing- leasing- leasing-
Leased- Leased-
out in out in
out in
(ha) (ha)

0 Nil + Zero Class* - - 7.08 4.54 - 0.546

1 Marginal 81.80 48.10 79.54 67.01 0.294 0.716
2 Small 9.40 22.37 6.52 8.84 1.191 1.153
3 Semi-Medium 2.80 9.70 4.17 6.86 1.734 1.398
4 Medium 3.50 12.18 1.70 11.20 1.741 5.589
5 Large 2.50 7.66 0.98 1.55 1.534 1.337
Total 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.00 0.501 0.850

HHs. (00) 4553 - 9986 - - -

Area leased-out /-in (00 ha) - 2281 - 8477 - -
* Nil= no land; and Zero = Land <0.002 ha

34