What is The Bardoli Case by Mahadev Desai

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

 

 

What is the Bardoli Case by Mahadev Desai

 

 

 In the matter of revision settlements there has been calculated flouting of public opinion and of resolutions of the Legislative Council during recent years. In pursuance of the advice of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, “that the process of revising the land revenue assessments ought to be brought under closed regulation by a Statute”, the Bombay Legislative Council passed by a large majority in March 1924 a resolution to the effect that a committee be appointed to consider the question of regulating revision of assessment by legislation, and that “no revision be proceeded with and no new rates under any revised settlement be introduced till they said Legislation is brought into effect”. The first part of the resolution was carried out by Government appointing the Land Revenue Assessment Committee, but the second part was ignored, and revision settlement of one taluka after another was proceeded with in the teeth of the resolution. In the mean time the Land Revenue Committee had set and published its report, and the Bombay Legislative Council in March 1927 passed by a very large majority another resolution recommending to the Governor in Council to give immediate effect to the resolution of March 1924 by effecting necessary legislation after taking into consideration the Report of the Land Revenue Assessment Committee, and “pending such legislation to issue orders to the revenue authorities concerned not to collect the assessment enhanced in revision after the 15th March 1924”. The legislation suggested by the Land Revenue Assessment Committee is at present before the Legislative Council, but revision settlements have gone on, almost with the deliberate intention of frustrating the very object of the legislation when it should ultimately come to pass.

Bardoli is only one of several taluka where there should have been no revision and no levying of new rates in the terms of these resolutions. This is a fundamental preliminary objection to the revision settlement in Bardoli, apart from the merits of the case. I shall briefly discuss the merits. The new Bardoli revision settlement was prepared by Mr. Jayakar who submitted his recommendations in November 1925. He recommended 30 per cent enhancement. The Settlement Commissioner Mr. Anderson disagreed with the basis on which Mr. Jayakar had made his recommendation, adopted a new basis, and recommended 29 per cent. Government disagreed with the recommendations of both and fixed 22 per cent. The original assessment of the taluka which was Rs. 5, 14,762 is under the new revision something over Rs. 6, 20,000. As against this the agriculturists of Bardoli contend that the taluka is assessed right up to the full limit and that there is absolutely no case for enhancement. The occupants in the taluka are divided as under according to the size of their holdings:

 1 to 5 acres 10,379

 6 to 25 acres 5,936

 26 to 100 acres 829

 101to 500 acres 40

It may be safely assumed that all the occupants having not more than 25 acres cultivate their own land and that those with larger holdings lease their land to the agriculturists. This means that 16,315 occupants actually cultivates 1, 27,045 acres which is the total occupied area, i.e., each occupant cultivate on an average something like 8 acres of land. It is inequitable to go on the strength of rents— economic or uneconomic enjoyed by a very small fraction, i.e., 869 large landholders. The land revenue assessment ought to be fixed having regard to the value of the land held by the 16,315 agriculturists and to the profits of agriculture enjoyed by them under the Land Revenue Code. The agriculturists of Bardoli contend that assuming the average yield per acre and assuming the very high standard of prices adopted by the Settlement Officer as accurate (though the prices have considerably gone down since the report), an agriculturist cultivating 8 acres of land (the average) does not earn profits entitling the Government to make any increase in the existing rate of assessment.

They are prepared to prove this statement and they maintain that even if the basis of 50 per cent of the profits be accepted, no increase is warranted, and if the basis of 25 per cent of the profits be accepted, a considerable reduction in the existing rates would be necessary. They thus rely for their contention on the actual conditions obtaining in the taluka, but they also rely on attacking the value and accuracy of the Government reports. They contend, inter alia, that Mr. Jayakar, the Settlement Officer, made no enquiry worth the name, visited few villages, afforded no opportunities to villagers of making representations pertaining to the question of increasing the assessment, and prepared a perfunctory survey. He prepared the most essential statistics in his office, without exercising the slightest scrutiny and relied for his recommendations of 30 per cent on the sole basis of rise in the value of gross produce. The perfunctory nature of Mr. Jayakar’s inquiry, if inquiry it could be called, is enough to render it valueless. But Mr. Anderson seriously questioned the value of Mr. Jayakar’s report on another and very substantial ground which was pointed out be the people’s representatives also. He rejected the most vital part of Mr. Jayakar’s report viz., where he bases his recommendations on the value of gross pro-duce as “irrelevant” and “positively dangerous as affording no justification for his proposals and suggesting arguments against them”. In the circumstances Mr. Anderson’s obvious duty was to suggest to Government a fresh inquiry.

But he overshot the mark and proceeded to make his own recommendations on the basis of rental statistics—a basis of which the equity has been seriously challenged by several high-placed Government officials, and the statistics themselves have in the present case been seriously challenged as lacking scrutiny. If Mr. Jayakar drove a coach and four through the Settlement Manual, in making no real inquiry, Mr. Anderson went one better in contravening the Settlement Manual which lays down that rents should be only one of the factors to be considered and that even when they are taken into account, “they cannot be used as the basis for definite conclusions . . . unless they exist in considerable volume and unless their reliability has been carefully tested”. Mr. Anderson grossly erred

(1) In exclusively relying on the rental statistics and

(2) In assuming that the two essential conditions for their being of any value and been satisfied. In one place, Mr. Anderson charges Mr. Jayakar with having made “no attempt to compile statistics showing the area rented and the area cultivated by its owners,” and yet proceeds on Appendix H and wrongly arrives at the conclusion that “at least half the total area is held by landlords who do not cultivate it”. The error is based on his hastily assuming seven years’ statistics 42,923 acres as one years’ statistics and on his utter disregard of Mr. Jayakar’s own estimate of land held by non-agriculturists, which is 23,995 acres, i.e., about 18 per cent of the total area a more plausible, though not a strictly accurate estimate, because not based on inquiries on the spot. For these reason both Mr. Jayakar’s and Mr. Anderson’s reports are worthless and the rate of 22 per cent fixed by Government is absolutely arbitrary as it is based on no fresh or accurate data. The satyagrahis of Bardoli have therefore pledged themselves to pay no assessment until either the enhancement is cancelled; or an independent impartial tribunal is appointed to examine the whole case.