PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 959
with another or transfer the management of one to another. These clauses must be subject to the rule of public purpose. If that, is so, then there is no objection to them.
Now going back to the other clauses, to (a) I have no objection; it may stand as it is.
With regard to (b) I do not know whether the first part of (b) is very different from (a). It seems to me that both are alike, but I would like to have some explanation as to what is meant by “modification of any rights in agricultural holdings”. What does that mean ? There is no explanation. As far as I understand, an agriculturist requires four rights. First is security of tenure; he must not be liable to ejection by the landlord without proper cause. Secondly he would be liable to pay only what is called fair rent, as may be determined by a court if it is necessary. Thirdly he must have transferability of tenure. If he wants to sell his holding he should be free to sell it and the landlord should not stand in his way. And fourthly it must be hereditable, that is to say, if he dies, his descendants should have a right to claim the holding. Now these are the four things which I think a holder of an agricultural holding is interested in. Now Government would take power to modify these things. I do not know what is the nature of the modification and what are the rights which they propose to modify. I think some explanation is necessary.
Then comes (c), the fixation of the maximum extent of agricultural land, etc. Well, all that I can say is this that whether this particular clause will have positive results depends upon what is the maximum that you are going to fix. This is the pet idea of the Socialist Party. They want that land should be distributed after fixing the maximum holding of a tenant.
Mr. Chairman: Are not these matters to be taken up in the Joint Committee when it comes to discuss the thing?
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It may be but the point is this that it is necessary to know whether these things are really good to be incorporated in the Constitution. My Friend Mr. Pant