KERALA LAND REFORM AMENDMENT ACT (1969)

Introduction
The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act of 1969, which has been viewed as
“perhaps the most drastic of any (land reform legislation) passed by any state
legislature in India") seems to have been mainly responsible for earning land reforms in
Kerala the reputation of being a model for other states! Out of the three schemes
envisaged by it, the first two have been efficiently implemented as will be seen shortly.
In spite of this,however, in its consequence the implementation of the Act has failed to
achieve the wider national objectives of land reforms. viz, elimination of the constraints
on agricultural production and securing of social justice to the different sections of the
agrarian population.

An examination of the scope of this Act and the consequences of its implementations,
will reveal that rather than seek a model in the Kerala land reforms, the other states
would do well to draw a lesson from the failures of the present Act to achieve the
declared objectives of land reforms - notwithstanding that the Act is thought to have
been implemented by parties committed to promote the interests of the peasantry and
that too in a region which has been in the thick of peasant and communist activism. It
will also suggest that if land reform has to serve as an effective instrument of planned
social change aimed at economic growth with social justice, it is necessary to have a
fresh look at its theory and practice in the country.

Earlier Efforts at land reforms

It was argued that land reform is neither a modern phenomenon nor a gift from the
enlightened government, but a historical process necessitated by the protracted
struggle of the peasants. In fact, the recent land reforms are but a culmination of the
earlier efforts.This should mean that the scope and the consequences of the present
Act can be best understood in the context of a brief review of the earlier land reform
efforts, though it is not intended to digress into a lengthy discussion of the same.

Communist ministry and land reforms:

The undivided Communist party, which formed the first ministry in Kerala in March 1957
was true to the promises held out by it in its election manifesto in regard to the
implementation of far-reaching land reforms favoring the peasantry, as well as true to its
role as protector of the peasantry. The immediate need was to put an end to evictions
which had reached an all-time high and which had been proceeding mercilessly. For

1
 this purpose, the ministry proclaimed an ordinance, enacted later as the Kerala: Stay of
Eviction proceedings Act of 1957. This Act was a prelude to the comprehensive Kerala
Agrarian relations Bill (KARB) which was introduced in the Assembly in December 1957
and passed in June 1959, with the mass support and involvement of the peasantry. It
was also a measure aimed at forestalling the efforts of the landlord class from escaping
the radical provisions of the KARB.

However the ministry could not enact and implement the KARB. The radical popular
reforms initiated by it, especially in the field of education (through the Kerala Education
Bill) and in agrarian relations (through the KARB), posed a major threat to the vested
interests. As a result, an agitation referred to as Vimochana Samaram (liberation
struggle), organized and spearheaded by the Nayar Service society (NSS) and the
Christian Churches and backed by the Congress-dominated coalition of the opposition
parties brought the ministry down on July 31, 1959 ,within two months of the KARB
being passed In the Assembly.With this President’s rule was imposed on the state for
over six months.

Congress-PSP coalition and land reforms :

The congress-dominated Congress-PSP coalition, which formed the second ministry in

February 1960, tried to undo what the Communist ministry had done so painstakingly in
the field of land reforms. Despite stiff opposition from the Communist party and the
peasantry, it greatly watered down the KARB and then enacted it in February 1961.
However, no progress was made in its implementation as the government was dragging
its feet while the landlords resorted to mass evictions. Later, when many of the
provisions of this Act were struck down by the Kerala High court and the Supreme Court
- thanks to the efforts of the landlord class to scuttle even this mild Act -the ministry
found an alibi to replace the Act with a further watered down version of it. This was also
done in the teeth of stiff opposition from the Communist party and the peasantry, and
also the Karshaka Thozhilaali Party (Party of Agricultural Laborers) formed in 1961 by a
radical Catholic priest who ironically enough had played a crucial role in overthrowing
the Communist ministry in 1959! This Act, known as the Kerala Land Reform Act of
1964 1 has been the principal land reforms Act in the state. However, this ministry also
soon came down due to squabbles among its partners. With this, the state again came
under President’s rule,this time for over two years, and the prospect of the
implementation of the Act became bleak and dismal

1) P Radhakrishnan,”Land Reforms in Theory and Practise,”Economic and political

weekly,vol.16,no.52,1981,p.131.
2
As in 1957, soon after assuming power, the ministry brought into force an ordinance.
Enacted later as the Kerala Stay of Eviction proceedings act of 1967. This was followed
by a drastic amendment to the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1964, passed in the
Assembly in October 1969. This became an Act in December 1969 as Kerala Land
Reform Act of 1969 and was brought into force in January I, 1970. It is with this
amendment Act that the present paper is concerned.

Kerala Laud Reforms (Amendment) Act of 1969

The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act of 1969 envisaged the. implementation of
three important schemes. Of these the first was to confer ownership right on the
cultivating tenants of the lands leased in by them. With a view to facilitating the
implementation of this scheme, invoking section 7 of the Act the government ordered
that from January l 1970 ,the ownership rights of all tenanted lands, save those on
which court cases were pending, would vest in it for subsequent transfer to the
cultivating tenants. This, in effect , meant the abolition of landlord-ism, tenancy and
intermediary tights in land. from this date.

The tenants were expected to pay only a nominal sum as purchase price, and this was
the aggregate of 16 times the fair rent of the land holding plus the value of structures,
wells, and embankments of a permanent antic, and one half of the value of timber trees
belonging to the landlord or intermediary subject to a maximum of 16 times the, fair rent.
The purchase price were treated as a debt to the government and the tenants were not
bound to forfeit their rights for default in paying it. They were also exempted from paying
any rent either to the government or to the former landlords from the date of the
enforcement of the Act. Possession alone was made sufficient to claim a valid tenancy
and on the basis of such possession, cultivators with leased-in holdings were to be
deemed as tenants. This prevented courts from questioning their rights once they
proved possession of the holdings. To help the tenants, the government had enacted
earlier the Kerala Record of rights Act of 1968 based on which it had prepared a record
of rights in land.

The Second scheme of the Act was aimed at giving option to the homestead tenants
(Kudikidappukar) to purchase from their land owners 3 cents of their homestead in a city
or major municipality-5 cents in a municipality or 10 cents in a panchayat area. The
Kudikidappukar were expected to pay only 25 per cent of the market value of the land
for such purchases and only half of it if the land owner was in possession of land in

3
excess of the ceiling area. Out of this purchase price, only-half was to be subsidized by
the government and the other half was payable by the Kudikidappukar in 12 equal
annual installments.

The third scheme of the Act was to take possession of the surplus land by the
imposition of ceiling laws and distribute the same among the landless labors and land-
poor peasants owning or holding less than one acre of land. The ceiling area fixed was
five standard norm in the case of an adult unmarried person or a family consisting of a
sole surviving member, 10 standard acres for a family of up to five members, with one ,
additional acre for every additional member subject to a maximum of 15 standard acres.

Progress in implementation :

Data as on February 28. 1981, supplied by the Kerala Land Board show that the
implementation of these three schemes is virtually complete and that the first two
schemes have been efficiently implemented while the same cannot be said about the
third scheme.2

Positive and negative consequences

First scheme

Comparison of the land transfers under the three schemes tweak that, in terms of the
total acres of land transferred and the number of households benefited by them, the
first scheme has been the most important plank of the Act. The implementation of this
scheme has had both positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, it has
succeeded in laying a heavy axe on the feudalistic agrarian structure in Kerala. It has
legally abolished landlord-ism, tenancy and share cropping, emancipated the tenants
from their Socio-Economic subservience to the landlord class, and mapped the
centuries old feudal strings or the nexus between two major agrarian class.
The implementation of the first scheme seems to have removed a major constraint on
agricultural production posed by traditional landlord-ism.For, belonging, as they did to
the high-status castes, landlords in pre-land reform Kerala society spurned labour,
remained the Ieisure class and were not inclined either to invest in the land holdings
themselves or to motivate their tenants for doing so. The later point has been very well
brought out by Aziz in the context of the pre-land reform society in China and his

2) Achutan Menon,”What happened in Kerala?”Communist Party Publication,Kerala , 1983,p.42.

4
observation seems valid for all the Agrarian societies. According to him, the efforts of
the landlords to extract the maximum possible surplus from the peasant not only
exposed him to perpetual hunger but also destroyed his capacity and his motivation to
improve his land.The implementation of the first scheme has also broken down very
large holdings of the pre reform period thereby reducing the extreme concentration of
land in a few hands.
Despite these achievements however there has not been any appreciable change in
agricultural production.During 1970-71, when the implementation of this act had just
begun, the total rice production in Kerala was 12.98 lakh tonnes but during 1976 -77
when the implementation was virtually complete it was only 12.52 lakh tonnes . The
situation is almost the same in the case of other crops too. As such the implementation
of the first scheme of the present act has obviously increased the percentage of
operational holding of less than 1 acre size and reduce the average size of holding per
household .As a result, if the implementation of the first scheme has eliminated the
constraints on agricultural production post by traditional landlord-ism it has also
introduced a new constraints through the fragmentation of holding and any paucity
gains arising out of the release of land from the monopoly of the landlord class is
presumably neutralized.
Further although the implementation of the first scheme has resulted in the breakup of
large holdings and in a reduction of the extreme concentration of land in few hands ,it
has not resulted in the equalization of the size of holding .This is evident from data on
land holdings collected from a North Malabar village. As such it may be said that the
implementation of the first scheme of the act has resulted in an inversion of classes that
is a small group of rich land owners who were not so important in the pre-reform period
now occupied the first position in the agrarian hierarchy while the land lords of the pre
Reform period are relegated to a lower position The Other groups remained as in the
pre-reform period save for the fact that they now have the title of the piece of land they
have been holding for long. It is also found that many of the rich land owners who
became owners of all the lands leased in by them on the government's assumption that
they were the tillers of the soil do not till the soil themselves but only supervise the work
of higher tillers.
At the other extreme is a large group of Agricultural labourers. For most of them only
benefit out of the present act has been that tiny piece of homestead land as noted
earlier for their livelihood. They still sell their own labour and depend on the groups
above them in the hierarchy but there seems to be a progressive reduction in the
chances of their getting employment on the farm .
The inability of the poor and marginal farmers to stick to their holdings and the ability of
the rich farmers to corner the benefits of the Governmental measures is driving Kerala
agriculture into the clutches of capitalism and monopoly and it is likely that after
sometime agriculture in the state of model Land Reforms will be where it was before the
launching of the land reforms.

5
Another failure of the first scheme has been that it did not render justice to the
dispossessed the land lords as government did not offer them the market value of the
land confiscated from them. Most of these landlords were mainly depending on
sharecropping for their livelihood but the abolition of their property without the payment
of adequate compensation has compelled many of them into penury or to live from hand
to mouth. The scheme has also failed to rehabilitate them and cushion the shocks of the
dislocation. Of the dispossessed class the nambootiri brahmins seem to be the worst
affected.
Despite being a popular measure the act in general failed to arouse much popular
enthusiasm though numerous public functions like Land Reforms Day, Pattaya Mela
and so on were organized throughout the state.But as in the case of many other
emergency programs, the implementation of the act during the emergency turn out to be
the most callous, careless and clear the Deck type about which landlords and tenants
alike had many stories to tell.

Second scheme

The impact of the land transfers under the second scheme can be viewed in two
different ways .On the one hand it will appear significant when the present land
ownership of the Kudikidappukar is compared with their landlessness and the resultant
socio economic subservience in the pre reform period. On the other hand it will pale into
insignificance if the extent of land received per kudikidappukar is compared with that
for the cultivating tenants under the first scheme or if it is borne in mind that the
Kudikidappukar belong to the large category of landless agricultural labourers.
Considering that the objective of Land Reforms is to bring about distributive justice in
the society ,the second view seems more plausible. The effect of the implementation of
the act has been more to widen the existing inequality in land ownership than to reduce
it perhaps the third scheme was to eliminate this anomaly but the poor performance of
this scheme has only contributed to its accentuation.3

Third scheme

In this connection, it is pertinent to mention that the rise of the Communist Party to
power in 1957 itself hard served as a danger signal to the landlord class in Kerala.
Sensing that the days of landlord-ism where numbered the landlords made tremendous
efforts to circumvent this danger by partitioning their Holdings among their Kith and Kin
3) P Radhakrishnan,”Land Reforms in Theory and Practise,”Economic and political
weekly,vol.16,no.52,1981,p.135
6
 in advance. This coupled with the slow progress in land reform implementation due to a
decade-long political instability in the stage had paved the way for a massive process of
bogus land transfers. These transfers took the form of partition on paper or voluntary
transfers due to natural love and affection for which a provision existed until 1974 and
conversion of land into plantations. As a result of these bogus transfers , one of the
important objectives of land reforms ,that is ceiling on holdings and acquisition and
redistribution of surplus land was defeated.

Economic Impact of land reforms

Economic impact of land reforms essentially relates to the effects on productivity,

income, employment and investment .A defective tenure system stands in the way of
investment and there by productivity,income and employment. This is because in such a
case, the tenant is little incentive to increase his investment on land and there by
increase his output .Since a large share of any such increase will accrue to the
landowner. Again a high share of the produce taken by the landlord leaves the tenant
with a mere subsistence minimum with no margin for investment. Consequently the
tenant remains in a vicious circle of poverty.
The immediate impact of the land reforms was the improvement in the status of the
tenants,compensation to the tenants for improvements made by them on the landlord’s
property.4The restrictions placed upon the landlord on his power to evict the tenants
gave greater security to the tenants. In Travancore,early measures undertaken had a
salutary effect in the expansion of the cultivation.The security offered by the state
attracted foreign capital and gave an impetus to commercial investment.Consequently
plantations developed in Travancore.The opening up of plantations resulted in the
utilization of almost the whole of the arable areas in the highland regions of
Travancore.The flow of foreign capital into plantations opened up new opportunities for
agricultural and non-agricultural economic expansion.

Impact on Landlords

The agrarian reforms had a profound impact on the economic status on the landlords .
Prior to these reforms ,they were owners of large landed properties.These lands were
mostly cultivated by their tenants. After the reform measures, the landlord’s right of
measurement was placed on the same footing as that of the occupants.Land cultivated
through the tenants became the property of the tenants and the landlords were given

4) Jitendra Singh,Communist Rule In Kerala.New Delhi,Diwan Chand Indian Information

Center,1959,p.59
7
only limited area of land for self cultivation . They were made liable to full
assessment .The stipulation that the land must be self cultivated meant that they were
required to take personal interest in cultivation,something that was quite alien to the
landlords,especially the Brahmin landlords.This forced the landlord’s attitude toward
land to change .

Impact on Tenants

The immediate effect of the tenancy reforms was the improvement of the status of the
tenants.It was established that the absolute proprietary right in land is on the person
who carries on its cultivation. Consequently , the structure of ownership and operational
holdings significantly altered.The reform measures stopped the eviction of old tenants
for the creation of new ones with enhanced rate of rent,the forcing of old tenants
themselves to pay higher rents on fear of being evicted.No new tenancy has been
created after the reform measures were introduced.

Changes in the distribution of Holdings

The structure of distribution of cultivated holdings is of equal importance as the

abolishon of landlord-ism.By 1980 ,the land tribunals settled 99.64 percent of the
tenancy claims.99.06 percent of the kudikidappu cases and 95.3 percent of the ceiling
applications.From this it can be safely said that the evils of tenancy,which were rampant
in Kerala for a very long period, have been satisfactorily removed by land reform
measures.

Impact on Productivity

The most striking and potentially the most serious of all the trends in the rural tenancy of
Kerala in the period following the implementation of land reforms has been in
agricultural production itself.Until the 1970’s ,the area under cultivation as well as the
output of crops were growing at a reasonably rapid rate. Consequently there was an
increase of nearly 25 percent in the gross income from land between 1960-61and 1970-
71.Thereafter there has been no increase in either net or gross area sown.Production
continued to rise till 1974-75 but there has been a significant decline in output in some
major crops.Since then,with the result that the income from agriculture towards the end
of the decade was lower than at the beginning.

8
It is probable that the decline in growth of output in agriculture after 1970-71 was due to
a combination of circumstances,the non-availability of land for further extension of
cultivation even in the northern districts and the difficulties everywhere in raising the
yield per unit of cropped area on land that was either heavily dependant on rainfall
alone or could not be easily reached by reservoir based surface irrigation . Neither of
these can be traced to land reforms .The reform measures also helped to change the
land use pattern in Kerala.This has significance as it has resulted in the substitution of
higher value crops like coconut for rice.There has also been significant decrease in the
area under permanent pastures ,grazing lands and cultivable wastes.Further , during
the period under consideration,there was more thrust towards intensive and extensive
cultivation,mainly because of the limited availability of arable land.

Social Impact
Prior to the reform measures, the village was organized into two different institutions ,
the family with its dependents and the caste.The family whether Matriarchal or
patriarchal ,was composed of minimum three generations living together and shared
the family budget.In short status, custom,religion,family,locality and birth determined a
man’s means livelihood and activities.This social structure has operated against
economic development but the land measures smashed this social order, after which
nobody is tied to land and the reform measures also broke the joint family system . This
has considerably reduced the social influence of the janmies.

Impact of Land Reform Amendment Act on Kerala

Patrick Heller has noted that, “under certain conditions state and society can become
enmeshed in patterns of interaction that have positive sum outcomes.” 5 Heller writes
that Keralites have shown an “irresistible inclination to combine, associate and organize,
and to do so without the outbreaks of violent disorder that many scholars of developing
societies might predict.” He compares Kerala with Northern Italy and Putnam’s
explication of social capital. Heller considers land reforms as the “most notable result of
this symbiosis of class mobilization and state intervention,” one that was “implemented
on the strength of the coordination of legislative and administrative intervention with
local-level activism.”The spread of democracy has extended the scope and style of
claim making beyond formal interest representation. Not only that people have gained
greater autonomy and capacity to exercise their democratic rights, but also the
subordinate groups have been made visible in the public politics. According to him, “The
effectiveness of Kerala’s democratic institutions is best measured by the extent to which
they have successfully managed social and economic tensions” more than any other
state in India.
5) John Moolakkattu ,”Land Reforms and peaceful change in Kerala,”Peace
Review,vol.19,no.1,2007,p.92
9
Many former landlords, mainly Brahmins, had moved to education and emerged as
teachers and professionals, and thus integrated these classes into the economy in a
more productive way. Land reforms have, however, produced new tensions with the
former tenants now at odds with their agricultural laborers over wages, as well as
mechanization. One of the criticisms of land reforms was that it had not actually
transferred land to the actual tiller, the agricultural laborer.Herring thinks that this was
the conscious strategy adopted by the communists, and not the result of poor
implementation. The agricultural laborers were mainly drawn from the scheduled caste
pulaya community who were not a strong pressure group as such. But their case was
taken up through wage reforms, improvement of working conditions and the introduction
of pension schemes, among others. Another deficiency of the land reform was the
exclusion of women as beneficiaries.
Land reforms in Kerala could be legitimately cited as an instance of peaceful change
leading to decreases in wide disparities in land holdings.It adopted a political approach
to structural conflict by empowering the weak and addressing their demands through
state intervention. It was the culmination of the peasant struggles of nearly a century
and a half. In Kerala, the state used its democratic mandate and pushed through land
reforms accompanied by a process of peasant mobilization to reinforce its mandate.The
theory of state-society synergy worked well in terms of conflict management. Land
reform, as well as many other reforms in Kerala, were accompanied by widespread
discussion at all levels with the final form approximating the lowest common
denominator in most cases. The fact that the state has come to achieve greater
legitimacy within a state-in society framework enables it to function better as a mediator,
often using the resources at its command to manage conflicts.Land Reforms in Kerala
was the result of “a subtle reconciliation of revolutionary and constitutional roles.”

Summary and Conclusions

Now to summarize the above discussion: Of the there schemes envisaged by the Act of
1969 the first scheme has been effectively implemented. While this had had some
positive consequences such as the abolition of landlord-ism, at least in its traditional
sense and the emancipation of the tenants from their socio-economic subservience to
the landlord class, these have not ushered in an era of equality and social justice in land
ownership. For the agrarian structure in Kerala as a whole is still marked by glaring
inequalities in ownership and control of land.
Although the second scheme has also been effectively implemented it has had only
minimal impact on the agrarian structure because of the very narrow scope of the
scheme.

10
The third scheme has to be totally dismissed as a dismal failure. This was due to major
loopholes in the land reforms in Kerala from the beginning, the delay in implementation
of the ceiling provision of the Act of 1969 leading to large-scale fictitious transfers of
land for circumventing the ceiling laws and the political rankings with which land
reforms in Kerala had got infested from the beginning resulting in the enactment of the
Gift Deeds Bill.

Land in Kerala has already undergone minute sub-division and fragmentation as a

result of partition and population measure. Due to the acute scarcity of land, already
there has been an increasing struggle for living space, leave alone land for cultivation.
And considering the rate at which the price of land has been shooting up those who now
remain landless or are marginal holders may not find a chance in the future for
acquiring any land.
Further the Act should have contained provisions to confer ownership right on the
cultivating tenants for only that much of leased-in area which was well within the ceiling
limit, rather than first conferring ownership for all the leased-in holdings and then
proceeding to acquire the surplus land thereby giving ample opportunities for bogus
transfers. The Act should have also contained provisions to restrict ownership and
control of arable land to those who are full time cultivators capable of making maximum
ace of their family labour. In other words persons who have an assured and adequate
income from other sources should not have been allowed for owning larger areas of
land so that such holdings could have been redistributed to those who solely depend
on land for their living .
The expropriation of land and its redistribution are only a small part of a profound and
progressive land reform .As the ultimate aim of any land reform is the creation of an
improved and equitable system of agriculture. land reform should always be followed
by other measures. Therefore to make the present land reform effective in its
consequence the government has to take immediate steps to further reduce the
present holdings of the rich farmers to restrict ownership of arable land to those who are
totally dependent on agriculture for their living, to redistribute the surplus land to the
present non-beneficiaries, and to bring under compulsory collectivization all uneconomic
holdings ,a category to which may belong most of the present Holdings.6 In fact as
though anticipating the further subdivision and fragmentation of the land Holdings
consequent on the implementation of the present act. Another item on the government's
priority list should be the setting up of village industries for absorbing in gainful
employment the large army of villagers who cannot now make a living from land and
who have no alternative source of income.

6) Gireesh E and Harilal C C,”Land Reforms and Agrarian relations in the state of
Kerala,”Researchgate,,2014,p.347

11
 During the implementation at the present Act practically every village in Kerala had at
least half a dozen big landlords for whom even a paltry sum of compensation would
have made a fortune. As habits die hard, many of these landlords seem to have already
wasted these amounts in conspicuous consumption, ceremonies and celebration .If
these amounts were invested for productive purposes say, for setting up some village
industries, it would have not only improved the rural economy but also partially solved
the unemployment problem of many of the villagers by absorbing them in gainful
employment and even helped the hapless lot of dispossessed landlords for whom none
sheds a drop of tear now.
According to Prof.P.K. Michael Tharakan,“The land reforms needed to be understood
as a continuation of the process of changes in the land ownership in the erstwhile states
of Travancore, Kochi and Malabar taking place from the second half of the 19th
century.7 When we look at the event after 60 years we are not confining our gaze into
that particular event alone; we look at a series of developments that preceded the event
instead. In simple terms we needed to historicise the event and form a judgment.
Contrary to the expectations , land reforms failed to boost agriculture and food security
in the state.On the other hand, it enhanced absentee landlord-ism and a shift to non
agricultural occupations.8The nexus between castes and landlessness continues to
exist despite radical land reforms.The landlessness of dalits assumes importance , in a
context where they lack mobility options such as migration to west Asia unlike other
socially disadvantaged groups.Land reforms , unless they are backed by institutional
mechanisms that improve the access of the poor , would jeopardize the objective of
growth with equity . The recent struggles by landless dalits demanding land rights
perhaps better capture the underlying tensions in the much acclaimed land reforms of
Kerala.

7) P K Michael Tharakan,”Land Reforms reshaped state.”Deccan Chronicle,November

5,2016.
8) M A Oommen,”Reforms and the Kerala Model,”Economic and political
weekly,vol.43,no.2,2008,p.25

12
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1) E Gireesh and C C Harilal.”Land Reforms and Agrarian relations in the state of
Kerala.”Researchgate,,2014,pp.344-348.
2) “Land Reforms.”Kerala Government,keralagov.in/land-reforms.
3) Menon Achutan.”What happened in Kerala?”Communist Party Publication,1983.
4) Moolakkattu ,John.”Land Reforms and peaceful change in Kerala.”Peace
Review,vol.19,no.1,2007,pp.87-94.
5) Oommen,M A.”Reforms and the Kerala Model.”Economic and political
weekly,vol.43,no.2,2008,pp.22-25.
6) Radhakrishnan,P.”Land Reforms in Theory and Practise.”Economic and political
weekly,vol.16,no.52,1981,pp.129-137.
7) Singh,Jitendra.Communist Rule In Kerala.New Delhi,Diwan Chand Indian
Information Center,1959.
8) Tharakan,Michael P K.”Land Reforms reshaped state.”Deccan Chronicle,November
5,2016.

13