28 On Small Holder's Relief Bill : 2(Minute of dissent from the Report of the Select Committee) 30th June 1928 - Page 151

28

*ON SMALL HOLDERS’ RELIEF BILL : 2 (Minute of Dissent)

Proceedings of the Council of the Governor of Bombay

BY THE SECRETARY TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

OF THE GOVERNOR OF BOMBAY

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OFFICE

Council Hall, Poona, 10th July 1928

No. 894.—With reference to the footnote to the Report of the Select Committee on Bill No. XVI of 1927 (An Act to prevent the excessive subdivision of agricultural land and to promote the consolidation of such land) published at pages 34-49 of the Bombay Government Gazette, Part V, dated the 30th June 1928, it is notified that Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, M.L.C. has signed the report of the Select Committee subject to a minute of dissent shown below :

(Minute of dissent by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, M.L.C.)

  1. Part I of this bill starts with the assumption that for the purposes of profitable cultivation it is necessary to have bigger farms than what we have now. I am not at all satisfied that this assumption is correct. But assuming that it is correct the main question every one shall be required to satisfy himself about before giving his assent to this part of the bill is “does the bill solve the problem of creating large farms out of the existing small farms in such manner that no serious objection can be raised to it ?”

  2. The mechanism employed by the bill to maintain the standard unit once it is laid down in two-fold. First it severely penalises the owners of farms smaller than the standard so that ownership of a small farm shall to him become a burden instead of a benefit. Secondly it prohibits the ownership of small farms in that it provides that in future small farms shall not come into existence at all. As an instance of the latter one may refer to the restrictions on partitions. It is therefore obvious that in the mechanism adopted by the bill the rights of ownership of people are at stake.

  3. I object to this mechanism on three grounds. Firstly because it affects the rights of property. If the arrangement was state ownership and

*The Bombay Government Gazette, Part V pp. 64-65, dated July 12, 1928.

Prev Next