Sanjay Balan
The British transported convicts to the Andamans to establish a penal settlement. In time, some were allowed to settle, cultivate land and raise families. But freedom came with a condition. The land remained under the control of the colonial Government, and the settler’s rights were conditional. It was a relationship closer to that of a tenant and an all-powerful landlord than a free citizen and his property.
The 1931 Census report described the early settlers as tenants-at-will of the Government and acknowledged that this arrangement had become a handicap to agricultural development. The Land Tenure Regulation of 1926 granted more secure occupancy rights, but Government-controlled tenure remained the foundation.
India became independent in 1947. A new Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation was enacted in 1966, followed by the Rules which came into force on 1 April 1968. Yet many features of the earlier system survived. We still have occupancy tenants, non-occupancy tenants, grants, restrictions on transfers and permission for changing the use of land.
The penal settlement has long disappeared. Its administrative thinking has proved remarkably durable.
A family may have cultivated land for generations or lived on a house site for decades. Yet when it wishes to sell, mortgage, divide or use the property differently, it may have to visit several offices, obtain certificates from departments already holding the relevant records, and wait for permission.
Consider the requirement for change of land use. The law links land classification to assessment of land revenue. That was understandable when land revenue was an important concern of Government. But what does the Administration gain today by making a landholder wait for permission to undertake an activity otherwise allowed by planning and environmental laws? A nursery, small processing unit, shop or farm stay could generate employment, business and tax revenue many times greater than the land revenue involved.
One consequence deserves particular attention. For an ordinary island family, selling land can be easier than developing it. A wealthy purchaser can engage consultants and navigate official procedures. The family that has held the property for generations may have neither the finance nor the patience. Selling starts to look more attractive than trying to run a business.
This is hardly desirable in a territory where land available for ordinary settlement and development is severely limited. Population and housing demand have grown. Prices have increased. Once a family sells its holding, the next generation may never be able to buy another.
Privately held land accounts for barely 3 to 4 per cent of the total geographical area of the Islands. Yet even over this small fraction, we have imposed layers upon layers of conditions, restrictions and permissions. The result is not merely that land cannot be put to productive economic use. When lawful activities become unnecessarily difficult, violations and shortcuts become more attractive. Such a system creates fertile ground for middlemen, favouritism and corruption. Yet, instead of removing these obstacles, our tendency is often to amend another rule, introduce another condition and add one more layer of control.
But the solution is not to prohibit sales or introduce more restrictions in the name of protecting islanders. Such measures may create even greater problems in the long run. The real solution is to make holding land economically worthwhile.
An islander growing coconut, pepper, nutmeg or other crops should be encouraged to earn more from the same holding. Why should a small processing facility, nursery, farm shop or carefully regulated farm stay require an elaborate conversion process? Agriculture should be allowed to support tourism and rural enterprise without losing its basic character. It must become profitable enough for families to wish to remain in it.
The excellent initiative of Government of India as regards compliance-reduction and deregulation initiative offers an opportunity to change direction. Lawful activities compatible with planning and environmental requirements should ordinarily be permitted, unless specifically restricted. Routine sale permission for transferable holdings should be abolished. Registration and mutation should work as one connected process. Revenue records should disclose restrictions clearly, rather than sending citizens from counter to counter to discover them.
This does not mean every form of regulation should disappear. In fact, there is one area where the Islands need far greater discipline.
We have grown accustomed to cutting hills, levelling natural slopes and removing trees before constructing houses. A building plan is prepared and the land is then made to fit it. In islands with heavy rainfall, fragile terrain and sensitive coastal ecology, this is a poor way to build. We damage the very landscape that sustains our lives and attracts visitors.
Construction should respect natural contours, drainage and tree cover. Major earth cutting and environmentally risky projects deserve strict scrutiny. Smaller, low-risk works should face simpler rules. A farm stay should not become a disguised resort, nor should environmental protection become another excuse for endless NOCs.
The distinction is simple: the Government should regulate the consequences of land use, rather than unnecessarily control the landholder’s decisions.
The Revenue Department should protect records and rights. Planning authorities should apply clear development standards. Environmental agencies should prevent actual damage. None should exercise powers merely because an old law gives it the opportunity to do so.
Land reform, therefore, is not just about easier registration or faster building permission. It is about enabling island families to become entrepreneurs, employers and producers instead of being left with one practical choice: sell the land.
We need neither unrestricted construction nor the continuation of controls inherited from the colonial period. We need secure land rights, freedom for legitimate enterprise and firm safeguards for the environment.
The test of a new land policy should be straightforward: does it help an islander build a better life on the land he already holds, without damaging the Islands that belong to us all?
The penal settlement ended generations ago. Surely, it is time our approach to land administration reflected that change.
(The writer Mr. Sanjay Balan, though retired from government service, he continues to blend governance insight, land- law expertise, and candid public commentary in service of Island development) (Note: Views expressed in this column are writer’s own)
