NSSO Household Ownership Holdings in India

Report No. 491(59/18.1/4)

Household Ownership Holdings
in India, 2003

NSS 59th Round
(January–December 2003)

National Sample Survey Organisation
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation
Government of India
November 2006

Preface
The Land and Livestock Holdings survey carried out in the 59th round (January-December 2003)
by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) is the sixth in the series of similar surveys
conducted so far. The objective of these surveys has been to generate basic quantitative
information on the agrarian structure of the country, which is relevant to formulation of sound
land policy. In the 59th round, information on various aspects of ownership and operational
holdings was collected for both rural and urban areas. Particulars of land owned, land leased out
and leased in, and types and terms of lease were collected for study of ownership of holdings.
For the operational holdings, data were collected on size, composition, tenurial form, land use,
extent of irrigation, fragmentation of holding, drainage facilities and other related aspects. An
inventory of livestock owned by the household on the date of survey was also collected.
The present report is the last of four reports planned to be brought out on the basis of data
collected from the Land and Livestock Holdings Survey. The earlier reports deal with number,
size distribution, and other aspects of operational holdings, and ownership of livestock. The
present report deals with household ownership holdings during the year 2003. It presents
different facets of the household ownership holdings and shows the estimates of land owned,
land leased in and leased out, the types and terms of lease and different patterns of land use
classified according to sizes of the ownership holdings.
Like all regular NSS surveys, the geographical domain of the present survey covered practically
the whole of India. Information was collected from a sample of 52,265 rural households and
29,893 urban households spread ove r 6,638 villages and 3,764 urban blocks through personal
interviews. Each sample household was visited twice during the period of survey with a gap of
four to eight months.
Chapter One of this report serves as the introduction. Chapter Two explains the concepts and
definitions adopted in the survey. Chapter Three summarises the major findings of the survey on
household ownership holdings. It also briefly traces the changing aspects of household
ownership holdings and their size distributions over the last four decades. Appendix A gives the
detailed survey estimates at State/UT and all-India level. Appendix B explains the sample design
and estimation procedure used for the survey. The schedules of enquiry used in Visit 1 and
Visit 2 of the survey are given in Appendix C.
The Survey Design and Research Division of the NSSO undertook the development of survey
methodology and survey instruments as well as drafting of the report. The fieldwork was carried
out by the Field Operations Division of NSSO while the data processing and tabulation work
was handled by the Data Processing Division of NSSO. The Coordination and Publication
Division of NSSO coordinated various activities pertaining to the survey.
I am thankful to the Chairman and the Members of the Working Group for the NSS 59th round
for their valuable guidance at various phases of work from designing of the schedules of enquiry
to the preparation of this report. I am also thankful to the Chairman and the Members of the then
Governing Council of NSSO, for providing technical guidance at various stages of survey work.
I hope, the report will be useful to the planners and policy makers.
Comments and suggestions from readers will be most welcome.

New Delhi Vishnu Kumar
November 2006 Director General and Chief Executive Officer
National Sample Survey Organisation

NSS Report No. 491: Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003

Highlights

Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003
• The estimated total area owned by the households in the rural sector during the year 2003
was 107.23 million hectares. The corresponding area in the urban sector was 7.21 million
hectares only.

• About 10% of the rural households were reported to be landless, i.e. owning land either nil or
less than 0.002 ha. The corresponding urban share was 49%.

• The per-household average area of land owned in the rural sector for the year 2003 came to
0.725 ha, about 27% less than the corresponding figure in 1992.

• The average area of land owned per household in the rural sector was highest in Rajasthan
(2.077 ha) and lowest in Kerala (0.234 ha).

• The percentage of landless households in the rural sector was highest in Sikkim (31%),
followed by Arunachal Pradesh (22%), Maharashtra (18%) and Tamil Nadu (17%).

• The share of marginal holdings (area less than or equal to 1.000 ha) in the rural areas was
80% in the year 2003 compared to 72% in 1992 and 67% in 1982.

• In the rural areas, the share of land owned by different social groups was 11% for ST, 9% for
SC, 44% for OBC and 36% for Others. The per-household land area owned by them was
0.767 ha, 0.304 ha, 0.758 ha and 1.003 ha respectively.

• Of the total land area under ownership holding in the rural sector, 15% constituted of sand,
21% of loam, 7% of silt, 41% of light clay and 13% of heavy clay.

• In the rural sector about 2.8% households reported leasing out of land while 11.5%
households reported leasing in of land. Among the households leasing in, 40% contracted for
share of produce, 31% for fixed rent in cash and 15% for fixed rent in kind.

i

Contents
Page no.

… Highlights i

Chapter One Introduction 1– 2

Chapter Two Concepts and Definitions 3– 8

Chapter Three Summary of Findings 9 – 31

Appendix A Detailed Tables A-1 – A-307

Appendix B Sample Design and Estimation Procedure B-1 – B-11

Appendix C Facsimile of Schedule 18.1 C-1 – C-14

Appendix A

Table No. Title Page

1R/1U Per 1000 distribution of households and average area owned by size class of A-1 – A-27
ownership holding separately for each social group (Rural / Urban)

2R/2U Per 1000 distribution of households reporting leasing-out of land and A-28 – A-54
average area of such land per reporting household by size class of
ownership holding for each social group (Rural / Urban)
3R/3U Per 1000 distribution of households reporting leasing-in of land and A-55 – A-81
average area of such land per reporting household by size class of
ownership holding for each social group (Rural / Urban)

4R/4U Per 1000 distribution of households by size class of holding of owned land A-82 – A-83
other than homestead (Rural / Urban)
5R/5U Average area (ha) per household by size class of holding of owned land A-84 – A-85
other than homestead (Rural / Urban)

6R Per 1000 distribution of households over household type for each size class A-86 – A-100
of ownership holding (Rural)

7R Percentage distribution of area owned by type of land for each size class of A-101 – A-129
ownership holding (Rural)
8R Proportions of households leasing in land of specific types among A-130 – A-158
households leasing in land and average area of land leased in by type
(Rural)

ii

Appendix A (contd.)
Table No. Title Page

9R Number per 1000 of households reporting leasing-in of land (excluding A-159 – A-187
homestead) by terms of lease for each size class of ownership holding
(Rural)

10R Number per 1000 of households reporting leasing-in of land (excluding A-188 – A-202
homestead) by type of lessor for each size class of ownership holding
(Rural)

11R Number per 1000 of households reporting land (excluding homestead) A-203 – A-217
possessed but not owned by type of possession for each size class of
ownership holding (Rural)

12R Average area of land (excluding homestead) possessed but not owned A-218 – A-232
per household reporting such land for each type of possession by size class
of ownership holding (Rural)

13R Percentage distribution of area leased out (excluding homestead) by terms A-233– A-261
of lease for each size class of ownership holding (Rural)

14R Percentage distribution of area leased in (excluding homestead) by terms of A-262 – A-290
lease for each size class of ownership holding (Rural)

15R/15U Average household size by broad size class of household ownership A-291 – A-292
holding (Rural / Urban)

16R Per 1000 distribution of plots by soil type for each size class of ownership A-293 – A307
holding (Rural)

iii

Chapter One

Introduction
1.0 The survey on Land and Livestock Holdings carried out in the 59th round (January-
December 2003) of the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) is the sixth in
the series of similar surveys conducted by the NSSO. The objective of these surveys has
been to generate basic quantitative information on the agrarian structure of the country,
which is relevant to land policy. The first survey on land holdings was taken up by the
NSS in its 8th round (July 1954 - April 1955) as part of the World Agricultural Census
initiated by the Food & Agricultural Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations. In this
survey, information on agricultural holdings was collected primarily to meet the
requirements of the FAO. In addition, information on household ownership holdings was
collected to provide the policy framers with the much-needed data for formulating land
reforms policy for the country. A similar survey was conducted again in the 16th (July
1960-August 1961) and 17th (September 1961-July 1962) rounds of the NSS as a part of
the World Agricultural Census Programme of 1960. Since then, NSSO has been regularly
conducting land holding surveys every ten years or so. The third land holdings survey of
NSSO during its 26 th round (July 1971-June 1972), was conducted simultaneously with a
survey on Debt and Investment at the instance of the Reserve Bank of India. Since then,
this has been a regular feature of the rounds in which land and livestock holdings surveys
have been conducted: the 37th round (January-December 1982), the 48th round (January-
December 1992), and the present one.

1.1 In this round, 6760 villages formed the Central sample (surveyed by NSSO field -
officials) in the rural sector. Of these, 6638 villages were ultimately surveyed. In the
urban sector, the allocation for the Central sample was 3824 Urban Frame Survey (UFS)
blocks of which 3764 were surveyed. This report is based on the estimates obtained from
the Central sample alone. Eight households were selected for survey from each sample
village and urban block. The actual number of households surveyed was 52,265 in the
rural sector and 29,893 in the urban sector. The Central sample covered the whole of the
Indian Union except (i) Leh (Ladakh) and Kargil districts of Jammu & Kashmir, (ii)
interior villages of Nagaland situated beyond five kilometres of any bus route and (iii)
villages in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which remain inaccessible throughout the year.

1.2 There were four subjects of enquiry in the 59th round of NSS: Land and Livestock
Holdings (Sch.18.1), Debt and Investment (Sch.18.2), Consumer Expenditure (Sch.1.0),
and Situation Assessment Survey of Farmers (Sch.33). Only the Situation Assessment
Survey was restricted to rural India; the others covered both rural and urban areas of the
country. The survey period of the 59th round was from January to December, 2003. With
the exception of consumer expenditure, all the enquiries required two visits to each
sample household for collection of data: one during January to August, 2003 (visit 1) and
the other during September to December 2003, (visit 2). Accordingly, each sample first
stage unit (village or block) was visited twice by the investigator to whom it was allotted.

1

Canvassing of the listing schedule (Sch. 0.0) and selection of the sample households was
carried out in the visit 1 only. The survey period was further divided into two sub-rounds.
Sub-round 1 consisted of the first half of the period of each visit while sub-round 2
consisted of the remaining period. Equal number of sample FSU’s were allotted to each
sub-round and an FSU was normally surveyed in the sub-round to which it was allotted.
Because of arduous field conditions, this restriction was not strictly enforced in Andaman
and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, and rural areas of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland.
1.3 Besides household and demographic characteristics, information on various aspects
of ownership and operational holdings had been collected in this survey in both rural and
urban sectors. Particulars of land and livestock owned, land leased out and leased in,
types and terms of lease, major types of land use, soil types etc. formed the main body of
information for study in this survey.
1.4 The present report is the last of a series of four reports being brought out on the
basis of the Land and Livestock Holdings Survey. The first report dealt with livestock
ownership and the next two reports with number, area and other aspects of operational
land holdings. The present report deals with the Household Ownership Holdings during
the period 2003. It presents different facets of the household ownership holdings and
shows the estimates of land owned, land leased in and land leased out, and also the types
and terms of lease etc classified according to sizes of the ownership holdings of the
households. The data on land owned, leased in and leased out by the household were
collected only in visit 1. Therefore, the results presented in this report are based on the
data collected during visit 1.
1.5 Detailed estimates at State and Union Territory level are presented in Appendix A
of the report. The sample design and estimation procedure are explained at length in
Appendix B. A facsimile of the schedule of enquiry (Schedule 18.1) is included as
Appendix C. Concepts and definitions followed in the survey are set out in Chapter Two
and the results of the survey are presented in brief in Chapter Three: Summary of
Findings.
1.6 Since estimates based on very small samples may not be reliable, it was decided to
release State-level estimates if the total number of sample households for the State was at
least 300 in the rural as well as in the urban sector. As a consequence, for the Tables 1 to
16 in Appendix A, separate figures for the States of Delhi and Goa, and for all the UT’s,
could not be brought out in the rural sector. Similarly, for the urban sector, separate
figures for the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya,
Nagaland, Sikkim and Uttaranchal, as well as for all the UT’s, could not be brought out.
However, figures for all the UT’s have been clubbed and shown under the head ‘Group of
UT’s’ in both rural and urban sectors. It may be noted that data from all the States and
UT’s have been used in building up of all- India estimates.

2

Chapter Two

Concepts and Definitions
2.0 Before discussion on the main findings on Household Ownership Holdings, the
concepts and definitions of different terms used in the survey are given below:
2.1 Household: A group of persons normally living together and taking food from a
common kitchen constitutes a household. By "normally" is meant, temporary visitors are
excluded while temporary stay-aways are included. Thus, a son or a daughter residing in a
hostel for studies is excluded from the household of his/her parents, but a resident employee or
resident domestic servant or paying guest (but not just a tenant in the house) is included in the
employer’s/host's household. "Living together" is usually given more importance than
"sharing food from a common kitchen" in drawing the boundaries of a household in case the
two criteria are in conflict. However, in other cases, a person taking food with his family but
sleeping elsewhere (say, in a shop or a different house) due to space shortage or otherwise, the
household formed by such a person's family members is taken to include the person also. Each
inmate of a mess, hotel, boarding and lodging house, hostel, etc. is considered as a
single- member household except that a family living in such an establishment is considered
as one household only. Under-trial prisoners in jails, indoor patients in hospitals and nursing
homes are excluded from listing therein, but such persons are taken into consideration for
listing in their original households. However, floating population without any normal
residence, foreign nationals and their domestic servants, persons in barracks of military and
paramilitary forces, and members of an orphanage or rescue home or ashram or vagrant house
are excluded at the time of listing of households.
2.2 Household size: The size of a household is the total number of persons, normally living
in the household.
2.3 Agricultural production: The extended definition of agricultural production adopted
in the survey includes in addition to crop production, activities allied to agriculture that are
intensive in the use of land such as growing of fruits, grapes, nuts, seeds, tree nurseries
(except those of forest trees), bulbs, vegetables and flowers both in the open and in glass
houses; production of coffee, tea, cocoa, rubber, forest production in parcels of land which
form part of the enumeration holding and production of livestock and livestock products,
poultry and poultry products, fish, honey, rabbits, fur-bearing animals, and silk-worm
cocoons.

2.4 Ownership of land: (i) A plot of land was considered to be owned by a household if
permanent heritable possession, with or without the right to transfer the title was vested in a
member or members of the household. Land held in owner-like possession under long-term
(30-99 years) lease or assignment was also considered as land owned. Thus, in determining
the ownership of a plot of land two basic concepts were involved, namely,

(a) Land owned by the household, i.e., land on which the household had the right of
permanent heritable possession with or without the right to transfer the title, e.g.,
pattadars, bhumidars, jenmons, bhumi-swamis, rayat sithibans, etc. A plot of land may
3

be leased out to others by the owner without losing the right of permanent heritable
possession.

(b) Land held under special conditions such that the holder did not possess the title of
ownership but had the right to long-term possession of the land (for example, land
possessed under perpetual lease, hereditary tenure and long-term lease for 30-99 years)
was considered as being held under owner-like possession. In States where land reform
legislation has provided for full proprietorship to erstwhile tenants, the latter were
considered as having owner- like possession, even if they had not paid the full
compensation.

(ii) Sometimes a plot may be possessed by a tribal in accordance with traditional tribal
rights from local chieftains or village/district council. Again, a plot may be occupied by a
tenant for which the right of ownership vests in the community. In both the cases, the tribal
or other individual (tenant) was taken as owner, for in all such cases, the holder had the
owner- like possession of land in question.

2.5 Household ownership holding: A household ownership holding includes all plots (or
parts of plot) of land owned or held in owner-like possession under a long-term lease or
assignment by a member of the household, whether the land is cultivatable or not. Thus a
household ownership holding may include, besides cultivatable land, areas under forest,
barren and unculturable land, cultivatable waste land, land put to non-agricultural uses (viz.
house sties, roads etc.), land growing miscellaneous tree crops, etc.

2.6 Lease of land: (i) Land given to others on rent or free by owner of the land without
surrendering the right of permanent heritable title is defined as land leased out. It is defined
as land leased in if it is taken by a household on rent or f without any right of permanent
ree
or heritable possession. The lease contract may be written or oral.
(ii) Sometimes orchards and plantations are given to others for harvesting the produce for
which the owner receives a payment in cash or kind. Such transactions were not treated as
“lease” for the purpose of the survey.
2.7 Otherwise possessed land: This was understood to mean all public or institutional
land possessed by the household without title of ownership or occupancy right. The
possession was without the consent of the owner. Private land (i.e., land owned by the
household sector) possessed by a household without title of ownership and occupancy right
was not included in this category. All private land encroached upon by the household was
treated as leased- in land.
2.8 Homestead land: (i) Homestead of a household was defined as the dwelling house of
the household together with the courtyard, compound, garden, out-house, place of worship,
family graveyard, guest house, shop, workshop and offices for running household
enterprises, tanks, wells, latrines, drains and boundary walls annexed to the dwelling house.
All land coming under homestead was defined as homestead land.

(ii) Homestead may constitute only a part of a plot. Sometimes, gardens, orchards or
plantations, though adjacent to the homestead and lying within the boundary walls, may be
located on a clearly distinct piece of land. In such cases, land under garden, orchard or
plantation was not considered as homestead land.

4

2.9 Land possessed: Land possessed by the household is obtained by summing the land
areas (in hectares) for plots owned, leased in and otherwise possessed by the household and
then subtracting the land area leased out by the household.
2.10 Land use: The classification for land use was based on the usual status of the land
and was meant for classifying land owned and land leased-in as on date of survey. The
definitions of various uses of land relevant for the survey are given below:
2.10.1 Forest: This included all area actually under forest or land so classified under any
legal enactment or administered as forest, whether state owned or private. If any portion of
such land was not actually wooded but put to raising of field crops, it was treated under net
sown area and not under forest. All area under social and farm forestry will be included in
this class.

2.10.2 Net sown area: For a particular season, this consists of area sown with field crops
and area under orchards and plantations counting only once the area sown more than once in
the same season. The net sown area defined above has been further classified into area
under orchards, plantations and seasonal crops.
(i) Orchards: A piece of land put to production of horticulture crops, viz. fruits, nuts, dates,
grapes etc. (other than those treated as plantation crops), was regarded as an orchard, if it
was at least 0.10 hectare in size or had at least 12 trees planted on it. In the case of such fruit
trees where distance between the trees was quite large, say more than six meters, as in the
case mangoes, the orchard was defined according to the minimum number of 12 trees
planted in it. In case, where the distance was less than six meters as in the case of bananas,
papayas, grape vines etc., the orchard was defined on the basis of the minimum area of
1/10th of an hectare.
(ii) Plantation: Area devoted to production of plantation crops, viz. tea, coffee, cashew
nut, pepper, coconut, cardamom, rubber, cocoa, arecanut, oil palm,, clove and nutmeg, was
treated as area under plantation. The size restriction given for orchards was also applicable
for plantations for the purpose of the survey.
(iii) Area under seasonal crop: All land under net sown area not coming under orchards or
plantations was taken as area under seasonal crops.
Sometimes, net sown area consists of a piece of land put to a combination of the above three
uses. In such cases, the use to which the major area of the piece of land was put was treated
as the ‘use’ of the piece of land.
2.10.3 Current fallow: This comprises cultivable area which is kept fallow during the
current agricultural year. If any seedling area in the current agricultural year is not cropped
again in the same year, it is also treated as current fallow.
2.10.4 Other fallow: All pieces of land which were taken up for cultivation in the past,
but are temporarily out of cultivation for a period of more than one agricultural year but not
more than five years, including the current agricultural year, are classified under other
fallow.
2.10.5 Land put to non-agricultural uses: This included all land occupied by buildings,
path etc. or under water (tanks, wells, canals etc.) and land put to uses other than agricultural
uses. For the purpose of this survey, this class of land was further divided into two classes.
5

(a) Water bodies: All land which are perennially under water was defined as water
bodies, provided that no crop was raised on them.
(b) Other non-agricultural uses: All land put to other non-agricultural uses. Viz.
buildings, roads, railways, paths etc. were classified under land put to other non-
agricultural uses.
2.10.6 Other uses: This included all land coming under rest of the classes of standard
nine-fold classification, viz., “culturable waste”, “miscellaneous tree crops and groves not
included in net sown area”, “permanent pastures and other grazing land” and “barren and
unculturable waste”.
2.10.7 Drainage facilities: A plot of land was considered to have drainage facility if there
existed some method of removal of excess water from the surface of land, from the upper
layers of soil or sub-soil by artificial means for the purpose of making (a) non-producing wet
land productive and (b) producing wet land more productive. Natural drainage, i.e. normal
outflow of excess water from the plot of land by virtue of its position, was not considered as
drainage facility.
2.11 Irrigation: Irrigation was considered as a device of purposively providing land with
water, other than rain water, by artificial means for crop production.
2.12 Terms of lease: The various terms of lease on which the area was leased out to the
lessee households were:
(1) For fixed money (2) for fixed produce (3) for share of produce (4) for service contract
(5) for share of produce together with other terms (6) under usufructuary mortagage (7) from
relatives under no specified terms and (8) under other terms.
It may be noted here that leasehold under crop-sharing basis meant that the owner of land
received a stipulated share of the produce but he did not participate in the work nor did he
manage or direct or organize the agricultural operations on the plot of land which he had
leased out. Leasehold under service contract meant that an employer gave some land to an
employee for cultivation in lieu of the services provided by him under the condition that the
land could be retained so long as the employee continued to serve the employer and no other
specific terms of lease was contracted. The term by which the mortgagor retained the
ownership of land till the foreclosure of the deed but the possession of the land was
transferred to the mortgagee would be considered as leasing-out under usufructuary
mortgage. Sometimes land owned by a household is looked after and used by a close
relative. For example, a person staying away from his village may own a piece of land in the
village which is looked after and used by his brother’s household. All such land owned by
the household but looked after and used by some relative’s household, under no contract of
payment of any kind to the owner, was treated as leasing-out to ‘relatives under no specified
terms’. Lease on terms other than those specified for types (1) to (7) stated above was
treated as ‘under other terms’. All rent free leases, other than those from ‘relatives under no
specified terms’ was treated as lease ‘under other terms’.
2.13 Crop seasons (Kharif and Rabi): Generally, the agricultural year is divided into
two main crop seasons, Kharif and Rabi. The crop season is identified by the months of
harvesting of the crop during the year. In a broad sense, crops which are harvested in the
period from July to December are known as Kharif crops, while Rabi crops are those which
are harvested during January to June. For the purpose of the survey, Kharif season included
6

both early Kharif (i.e. autumn) and late Kharif (i.e. winter). Similarly, the Rabi season
included both Rabi and Zaid Rabi (i.e. summer). The harvesting months of the early Kharif
and the late Kharif seasons may extend over July to October and November to January,
respectively. Again, the crops of Rabi and Zaid Rabi seasons may be harvested during
December to April and May to July, respectively. However, there may be further departure
from this general rule in case of some crops grown in certain regions. Therefore, the general
policy is to ascertain the crop season from the farmer who has harvested the crop. As a
general guideline, the crop seasons for some principal crops are given as shown below:

crop season crop season
Rice Kharif,Rabi (summer) Sugarcane Kharif
Wheat Rabi Sesamum Kharif, Rabi
Jowar Kharif, Rabi Groundnut Kharif
Bazra Kharif Linseed Rabi
Maize Kharif Castor Kharif
Ragi Kharif Cotton Kharif
Barley Rabi Tobacco Kharif
Gram Rabi Jute Kharif

However, it was ensured that all the crops, whether principal or not, grown during the
agricultural year 2002-03 were duly considered in either Kharif or Rabi season. For land
without crop, July to December 2002 was treated as Kharif season and January to June 2003,
as Rabi season.
2.14 Social group: There are in all four social groups, namely, scheduled caste, scheduled
tribe, other backward class and others. Those who do not come under any one of the first three
social groups are assigned to ‘others’ meant to cover all other categories. In case different
members of a household belong to different social groups, the group to which the head of the
household belongs is considered as the ‘social group’ of the household.
2.15 Number of villages and blocks surveyed: Table A shows, State/UT-wise, the
number of villages/blocks allotted for survey and the number actually surveyed, and the
number of sample households in which Schedule 18.1 was canvassed. It may be noted that 93
sample villages falling in disturbed areas – 77 in Jammu & Kashmir and 16 in Assam – could
not be surveyed. Apart from this, 29 villages – 8 in Tamil Nadu, 2 in Arunachal Pradesh and
19 in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands – became casualty as they could not be surveyed within
the deadline set for Visit 1. Similarly, 60 urban blocks – 47 falling in disturbed areas of Jammu
and Kashmir, 8 in Arunachal Pradesh and 5 in Tamil Nadu could not be surveyed.

7

Table A: Number of villages/blocks allotted and surveyed and number of
households s urveyed
no. of villages no. of blocks sample households
State/UT
allotted surveyed allotted surveyed rural urban
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Andhra Pradesh 432 432 244 244 3431 1946
Arunachal Pradesh 68 66 36 28 523 224
Assam 296 280 64 64 2200 512
Bihar 504 504 88 88 3980 704
Chhattisgarh 140 140 52 52 1098 415
Delhi 12 12 188 8 90 1417
Goa 12 12 16 16 96 128
Gujarat 172 172 160 160 1343 1270
Haryana 120 120 72 72 930 576
Himachal Pradesh 148 148 24 24 1152 192
Jammu & Kashmir 196 119 100 53 919 415
Jharkhand 180 180 76 76 1417 604
Karnataka 256 256 196 196 2025 1556
Kerala 300 300 152 152 2230 1215
Madhya Pradesh 312 312 168 168 2454 1327
Maharashtra 424 424 424 424 3328 3361
Manipur 124 124 60 60 989 480
Meghalaya 92 92 36 36 731 288
Mizoram 68 68 68 68 536 544
Nagaland 48 48 16 16 384 128
Orissa 244 244 64 64 1939 511
Punjab 164 164 124 124 1291 990
Rajasthan 336 336 152 152 2638 1207
Sikkim 72 72 16 16 576 128
Tamil Nadu 412 404 408 403 3208 3221
Tripura 128 128 40 40 1024 320
Uttar Pradesh 852 852 336 336 6765 2668
Uttaranchal 56 56 32 32 416 256
West Bengal 504 504 296 296 4012 2363
A & N Islands 36 17 28 28 124 223
Chandigarh 8 8 28 28 64 224
Dadra & N. Haveli 16 16 8 8 128 64
Daman & Diu 8 8 8 8 64 64
Lakshadweep 8 8 8 8 64 64
Pondicherry 12 12 36 36 96 288
All-India 6760 6638 3824 3764 52265 29893

8

Chapter Three

Summary of Findings
3.0 The objective of the Land and Livestock Holdings Survey of 2003 was to assess
various aspects of land ownership holdings and operational holdings – the latter with
reference to the agricultural year 2002-03 – as well as livestock ownership across operational
land holding size classes in both rural and urban sectors of the country. Data collected in this
survey included particulars of land owned, land leased out and leased in, types and terms of
lease, and the stock of cattle, buffalo, poultry and other livestock on the date of survey,
besides information on household characteristics such as religion, social group, occupation
and industry, and demographic characteristics of the members of the households.
3.0.1 The present report brings out various facets of the household ownership holdings of
the country in both rural and urban sectors. It covers different aspects of ownership holdings
in terms of alternative uses to which land is put, types and terms of lease, and their variation
over size classes of ownership holdings. It also brings out the estimates of area under
household ownership holdings, average size of holding, the number and proportion of
landless households etc. The detailed results of the report are shown in Tables 1 to 16 of
Appendix A. Some important findings emerging from the survey on household ownership
holdings are described in this chapter. The findings are organised as follows:
§ Household ownership of land
§ Composition of ownership holdings by social group
§ Land use pattern in ownership holdings
§ Incidence and extent of tenancy of land

3.1 Household ownership of land
3.1.1 Land, with permanent heritable possession, with or without right to transfer the title,
was considered as owned land. The land held in owner- like possession under a long-term
lease or assignment (e.g. village land possessed by a tribal household as per traditional tribal
rights or community land customarily operated by a tenant for a long period) was also treated
as land owned. A household ownership holding includes all plots (or parts of plot) of land
owned by a member of the household, whether the land is cultivatable or not. Thus a
household ownership holding may include, besides cultivatable land, areas under forest,
barren and unculturable land, cultivatable waste land, land put to non-agricultural uses (viz.
house sites, roads etc.), land growing miscellaneous tree crops, etc.

3.1.2 The estimates of area under household ownership holdings, average size of holding,
and number and proportion of landless households are presented in Statement 1. Households
owning no land or land less than 0.002 hectares are termed as landless households. The
estimated area owned by the rural households was 107.23 million hectares (mha) and that
owned by the urban households was 7.21 million hectares. The share of urban households in
the total land ownership was only 6.3%. The average size of rural holdings was 0.725
hectare and that of urban holdings was 0.130 hectare. For the households excluding the
landless households, these averages turned out as 0.806 and 0.252 hectare in the rural and
urban areas respectively. A large number of households owned practically no land or a very

9

small holding. While 10% of the rural households were reported to be landless, in the urban
sector the share was almost 49%. In absolute terms, about 15 million households were found
to be landless in rural India.

Statement 1: Estimated total area and average area owned, and propo rtion of
landless households in rural and urban areas
All-India
item rural urban
(1) (2) (3)
1. estimated no. of households (’000) 147,838 55,508

2. estimated no. of landless households (’000) 14,836 26,928
2.1 percentage of landless households 10.0 48.5

3. estimated total area owned (’000 ha) 107,228 7,212

4. average area owned per household (ha)
a) including landless households 0.725 0.130
b) excluding landless households 0.806 0.252

3.1.1 Trends in household ownership of land: all India

3.1.1.1 Data on ownership of land are being collected regularly by the NSSO since its 8th
round (1954-55). So far, including the present one, six land holding surveys have been
conducted. The results of these surveys contribute a fairly comparable set of data over quite
a long period of time. For the NSS 8th round, a plot of land was considered to be owned by a
member of the household only if he/she held it with permanent heritable possession, with or
without right to transfer the title. The coverage of owned land remained unaltered through
the rounds, except for one change introduced in the definition of owned land. The land held
in owner-like possession under a long-term lease or assignment became a part of the land
owned by the household since the 17th round (1961-62). In that round the terms ‘assignment’
or ‘long-term lease’ covered only those given by the Government. In the 26th round (1971-
72), owner- like possession was elaborated to cover the following types of possession as well:

(a) land held under perpetual basis, hereditary tenure and long-term lease
(ranging from 30 to 99 years),
(b) land held by tribals under traditional right from local chieftains, village
councils or district councils,
(c) land held by tena nts who were granted full proprietary rights by the
government under land reforms legislation, and
(d) land held by tenants while ownership rights were with the community.

These types of possession, however, account for a very small share of area owned. But for
the coverage of owner-like possession, the coverage of the term ‘ownership’ has remained
unaltered since the 26th round.

10

3.1.1.2 The basic estimates relating to ownership of land obtained from the above surveys
are given in Statement 2. The estimates for the rural sector are discussed here. The sizes of
the samples on which the estimates are based are also provided in the statement. It may be
observed that the total area owned (128.7 mha), as estimated in 1961-62, had fallen to 119.6
mha in 1971-72 – a fall of about 7 percent. The 1982 survey estimate of 119.7 mha of land
under the ownership of rural households was quite close to the estimate of 1971-72. The
definition of ownership of land remaining the same for the surveys of 1961-62, 1971-72 and
1982, there is no apparent reason for the decrease in area owned except that some rural land
might have been merged in urban land due to urbanisation over the years.

Statement 2: Changes in household ownership of land during 1961-62 to 2003
All-India Rural
1961-62 1971-72 1982 1992 2003
item (17th (26th (37th (48th (59th
round) round) round) round) round)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1. Estimated area
128,734 119,636 119,736 117,354 107,228
owned (000 ha)
2. Average area owned per
household (ha)
(a) including landless households 1.78 1.53 1.28 1.01 0.73
(b) excluding landless households 2.01 1.69 1.44 1.14 0.81
3. Percentage of landless
11.7% 9.6% 11.3% 11.3% 10.0%
households
4. Number of sample villages 3486 4547 3692 4231 6638
5. Number of sample households 53138 35947 29089 33289 52265

3.1.1.3 Figure 1 below shows the average area owned per ho usehold in hectares, when (i)
landless households are included, as well as when (ii) landless households are excluded.

Fig. 1: Average area owned per household (ha)

2.5

2
Av. area (ha)

1.5

1

0.5

0
1961-62 1971-72 1982 1992 2003
Year
Av. area- including landless households Av. area -excluding landless households

3.1.1.4 Statement 2 reveals no significant change in the percentage of landless households
since 1961-62, except that it was slightly lower (10%) in 1971-72 as well as in 2003. With
the progressive increase in the number of rural households, decline in average area owned is

11

inevitable. The increasing pressure of rural population on the limited land base is reflected in
the steady decline in the average area owned per household over the years. In 1961-62, the
average area owned per household was 1.78 hectares. Gradually and steadily, it came down
to 0.73 hectare in 2003. Excluding the landless households, the average area owned was
estimated to be 0.81 hectare in 2003, which is nearly 40% of the estimate (2.01 hectares)
obtained in 1961-62.

3.1.2 Changes in the pattern of distribution of ownership holdings : all-India

3.1.2.1 To examine whether there has been any significant change in the agrarian structure,
apart from the observed decline in average size of holdings, it is necessary to study the nature
and extent of temporal variations in the size distribution of ownership holdings. Statement 3
gives the cumulative percentage distribution of rural households and area owned by size class
of ownership holdings from all the Land Holding Surveys of NSS since 1961-62. It is seen
from the statement that the broad, highly skewed nature of size-distribution of ownership
holdings has by and large, remained unchanged over time, notwithstanding the progressively
downward shift in the distribution. The size distribution of ownership holdings in India is
characterized by predominance of landless households and marginal ho lders. During 2003,
the marginal holdings (less than or equal to 1 ha) and the landless (below 0.002 ha)
constituted about 80% of the rural households but owned only 23% of total area. The medium
(owning 4 to 10 hectares of land) and large holders (owning more than 10 hectares of land)
accounted for only 3.6% of the households but had a combined share of about 35% in the
total land owned by all households in 2003. Gini’s coefficient of concentration of ownership
of land holdings, computed on the basis of data for the size classes shown in Statement 3,
came to about 0.73, 0.71, 0.71, 0.71 and 0.74 in 1961-62, 1971-72, 1982, 1992 and 2003
respectively. The Lorenz curves drawn for the five years are shown in Figures 2.1 to 2.5.

Statement 3: Cumulative percentage distribution of households and area owned over
size classes of household ownership holding in different NSS rounds
All-India Rural
1961-62 1971-72 1982 1992 2003
size class of
(17th round) (26th round) (37th round) (48th round) (59th round)
household
% of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of
ownership house- area house- area house- area house- area house- area
holdings (ha.) holds owned holds owned holds owned holds owned holds owned
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
below 0.002 11.68 0.00 9.64 0.00 11.33 0.00 11.25 0.00 10.04 0.01
below 0.21 37.90 0.54 37.42 0.69 39.93 0.90 42.40 1.31 50.60 2.08
below 0.41 44.21 1.59 44.87 2.07 48.21 2.75 51.36 3.80 60.15 5.83
below 1.01 66.06 7.59 62.62 9.76 66.64 12.22 71.88 16.93 79.67 23.02

below 2.01 75.22 19.98 78.11 24.44 81.34 28.71 85.30 35.52 90.48 43.40
below 3.01 83.51 31.55 86.00 37.14 88.61 42.55 91.86 50.90 94.76 57.21
below 4.01 88.08 40.52 90.00 46.36 92.12 52.09 94.58 60.10 96.51 65.37
below 6.01 93.17 54.49 94.67 60.93 96.02 66.73 97.39 73.33 98.38 77.46

below 8.01 95.64 64.15 96.71 70.19 97.66 75.55 98.50 80.74 99.14 84.44
below 10.01 97.15 71.75 97.88 77.09 98.57 81.99 99.12 86.17 99.47 88.45
below 12.01 98.01 77.08 98.55 81.89 99.00 85.73 99.40 89.18 99.63 90.83
below 20.01 99.40 88.87 99.59 92.14 99.76 94.57 99.85 95.69 99.90 97.02

all sizes 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Gini’s coeff. of
0.73 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.74
concentration

12

Fig 2.1: Lorenz curve for 1961-62 Fig 2.2: Lorenz curve for 1971-72
All-India (Rural) All-India (Rural)

100 100
Cumulative percentage

90 90
80 80
of area owned

of area owned
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 50 100 0 50 100
Cumulative percentage Cumulative percentage
of households of households

Fig 2.3: Lorenz curve for 1982
All-India (Rural)
All-India (Rural)

100


100
80
of area owned

80
of area owned

60 60
40 40

20 20

0 0
0 50 100 0 50 100
Cumulative percentage Cumulative percentage
of households of households

All-India (Rural)

100
of area owned

80

60

40

20

0
0 50 100
of households

13

3.1.2.2 Over a period of four decades since 1961-62, the size distribution of ownership
holdings has progressively shifted downwards. The proportion of marginal holders has risen
from 66% in 1961-62 to 80% in 2003 and the proportion of small holders (owning 1 to 2
hectares), has increased from 9% to 11%. This rise in the proportion of marginal and small
holders has been accompanied by a steady decline in the proportion of medium and large
holders.

3.1.2.3 Figure 3 shows the percentage of households and area owned by households
belonging to different size classes of ownership holding.

Fig 3: Percentages of households and area owned for different
size classes of ownership holding

25.00

20.00
percentage

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
nil

2

5

0
0

0
0

0

0
0

0

0
.00

0

0
00

00

.00
20

50
04

00

00
00

00

00
.00

.00
<0

2-.

2.0
0-.

0-.
5-.

12
-4.

-8.
-2.

-3.

-6.
0-1

-10
.00

.04

.20
.00

>=
00

00

0-1
00

00

00
.50

00
3.0

6.0
1.0

2.0

4.0

.00
8.0

10

size of ownership holding (ha)

Percentage of households Percentage of area owned

3.1.3 Household ownership of land: inter-State comparison

3.1.3.1 The average size of ownership holdings and percentage of landless households for
different States are given in Statement 4 for rural India. For the States, the average area
owned per household varied over a wide range, with Kerala showing the lowest value (0.23
ha) and Rajasthan reporting the highest (2.08 ha). Besides Kerala, Tripura (0.26 ha), West
Bengal (0.30 ha), Tamil Nadu (0.34 ha), Uttaranchal (0.37 ha) and Bihar (0.38 ha) were the
States that reported an average area less than 0.40 hectare. The national average was 0.73
ha. In addition to Rajasthan, six more States reported average holding size exceeding one
hectare. They were Madhya Pradesh (1.31 ha), Arunachal Pradesh (1.17 ha), Mizoram (1.11
ha), Chhattisgarh (1.06 ha), and Maharashtra and Gujarat (both 1.02 ha).

14

Statement 4: State-wise average size of household ownership holdings
and percentage of landless households, 2003
Rural
average area (ha)
percentage of
average area (ha) owned per
State landless
owned per household household excl.
households
landless households
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Andhra Pradesh 0.620 14.33 0.724
Arunachal Pradesh 1.173 21.59 1.496
Assam 0.551 8.05 0.599
Bihar 0.376 7.60 0.407
Chhattisgarh 1.064 12.09 1.210
Gujarat 1.016 13.60 1.176
Haryana 0.833 9.21 0.917
Himachal Pradesh 0.560 15.00 0.659
Jammu & Kashmir 0.794 3.29 0.821
Jharkhand 0.560 4.80 0.588
Karnataka 0.979 14.09 1.140
Kerala 0.234 4.80 0.246
Madhya Pradesh 1.310 12.05 1.490
Maharashtra 1.021 17.66 1.240
Manipur 0.498 2.68 0.512
Meghalaya 0.891 6.70 0.955
Mizoram 1.113 2.34 1.140
Nagaland 0.909 8.02 0.980
Orissa 0.483 9.56 0.534
Punjab 0.838 4.57 0.878
Rajasthan 2.077 5.65 2.201
Sikkim 0.447 30.67 0.645
Tamil Nadu 0.338 16.55 0.405
Tripura 0.259 8.69 0.284
Uttar Pradesh 0.618 3.82 0.643
Uttaranchal 0.371 10.64 0.415
West Bengal 0.295 6.15 0.314
Group of UTs 0.193 40.25 0.323
all-India 0.725 10.04 0.806

3.1.3.2 The average size discussed so far is based on all households, including the landless.
When we exclude landless households in calculating the average holding size per household,
Karnataka is added to the list of seven States mentioned in paragraph 3.1.3.1, having average
holding size exceeding 1 hectare.

15

3.1.3.3 The all-India proportion of landless households was 10.0%. The proportion was
much larger in the Group of UTs (40%) and Sikkim (31%). Apart from these, landlessness
was high in Arunachal Pradesh (22%), Maharashtra (18%), Tamil Nadu (17%) and Himachal
Pradesh (15%).

3.1.3.4 Figure 4 shows the percentage of landless households in 19 major States.

Fig 4: Percentage of landless households in 19 major States

18

16
Percentage of landless households

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0
HAR
AP

ASM

PUN

INDIA
J&K

JHK

MAH

RAJ
BHR

CHH

KTK

KRL

TN
ORS
MP
GUJ

HP

UP

WB

State

Abbreviations used for State names in Figure 4 are listed below:
AP Andhra Pradesh J&K Jammu & Kashmir PUN Punjab
ASM Assam JHK Jharkhand RAJ Rajasthan
BHR Bihar KTK Karnataka TN Tamil Nadu
CHH Chhattisgarh KRL Kerala UP Uttar Pradesh
GUJ Gujarat MP Madhya Pradesh WB West Bengal
HAR Haryana MAH Maharashtra
HP Himachal Pradesh ORS Orissa

16

Statement 5: Pe rcentage distribution of households and area owned over five broad classes in 17 major States for 2003,
1992, 1982 and 1971-72
Rural
percentage of of households percentage of area owned
State year mar- semi- mar- semi-
small medium large all small medium large all
ginal medium ginal medium
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

2003 82.70 9.10 5.30 2.60 0.50 100 21.87 19.95 21.16 22.91 14.05 100
ANDHRA
PRADESH 1992 76.41 12.35 7.46 3.38 0.39 100 21.30 22.44 24.15 24.06 8.06 100
1982 67.49 14.03 10.01 6.69 1.78 100 11.26 15.29 20.70 29.83 22.92 100
1971-72 65.30 13.65 11.22 7.57 2.26 100 9.92 13.16 21.19 30.15 25.58 100

2003 81.80 14.20 3.60 0.50 0.00 100 44.42 34.87 16.36 4.32 0.00 100
ASSAM 1992 77.69 14.82 6.29 1.13 0.08 100 38.05 29.07 23.06 8.53 1.29 100
1982 66.69 22.00 9.34 1.87 0.09 100 24.53 34.81 27.67 11.50 1.48 100
1971-72 69.58 18.20 9.73 2.38 0.11 100 22.15 30.22 30.79 15.20 1.64 100

2003 89.40 7.10 2.70 0.70 0.10 100 42.07 25.29 18.53 9.56 4.63 100
BIHAR1 1992 80.56 11.10 6.00 2.14 0.20 100 28.58 23.84 24.45 18.68 4.44 100
1982 76.55 12.42 7.79 2.82 0.31 100 23.96 22.91 27.02 20.22 5.90 100
1971-72 71.71 15.11 9.15 3.66 0.37 100 18.20 23.43 28.07 23.63 6.67 100

2003 73.30 11.90 7.20 6.50 1.00 100 13.60 16.05 18.96 39.12 12.28 100
GUJARAT 1992 63.33 15.18 12.19 7.62 1.67 100 9.55 15.44 24.78 31.99 18.24 100
1982 57.25 13.61 14.98 11.45 2.70 100 6.66 10.78 22.63 39.45 20.49 100
1971-72 52.25 15.24 13.63 13.80 5.08 100 4.53 9.94 16.73 36.15 32.65 100

2003 77.20 9.80 7.70 4.90 0.40 100 13.15 15.83 24.62 34.14 12.26 100
HARYANA 1992 59.04 13.49 18.19 8.53 0.77 100 7.96 13.43 33.54 37.17 7.91 100
1982 56.84 15.49 13.31 12.48 1.88 100 5.04 13.44 21.58 44.90 15.05 100
1971-72 63.90 8.95 11.67 13.00 2.48 100 4.63 7.43 18.95 46.93 22.06 100

2003 83.70 11.50 4.10 0.50 0.10 100 43.80 28.02 19.77 6.45 2.03 100
HIMACHAL 1992 79.17 11.55 6.43 2.58 0.25 100 34.99 20.35 21.57 18.50 4.60 100
PRADESH 1982 61.98 19.37 12.37 6.09 0.18 100 20.94 23.09 26.04 27.82 2.11 100
1971-72 61.19 20.92 12.18 5.20 0.51 100 21.22 23.43 25.92 23.12 6.31 100
1
includes Jharkhand

17

Statement 5 (contd.): Percentage distribution of households and area owned over five broad classes in 17 major States for
2003, 1992, 1982 and 1971-72
Rural
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

2003 77.50 15.00 5.60 1.70 0.20 100 36.26 25.49 19.54 11.12 7.58 100
JAMMU &
KASHMIR 1992 63.40 23.88 9.85 2.88 0.00 100 25.52 33.40 25.84 15.23 0.00 100
1982 67.15 20.50 10.78 2.05 0.03 100 28.13 30.29 28.70 12.56 0.32 100
1971-72 59.18 29.20 10.00 1.62 0.00 100 27.41 39.33 25.20 8.06 0.00 100

2003 71.00 14.10 8.80 5.40 0.70 100 16.65 19.45 23.18 29.52 11.20 100
KARNATAKA 1992 58.72 18.27 14.95 6.58 1.48 100 11.05 18.35 27.82 26.62 16.16 100
1982 54.41 16.82 16.82 9.28 2.66 100 6.21 13.56 25.40 31.45 23.38 100
1971-72 50.94 16.27 18.13 11.85 2.81 100 5.74 11.81 24.84 35.19 22.42 100

2003 95.30 3.50 0.90 0.30 0.00 100 60.72 21.13 10.78 7.16 0.00 100
KERALA 1992 92.66 5.32 1.66 0.34 0.02 100 54.51 24.19 14.32 6.33 0.66 100
1982 90.67 6.07 2.52 0.69 0.05 100 45.74 23.51 19.11 10.06 1.59 100
1971-72 88.69 7.32 3.00 0.91 0.08 100 40.88 24.32 19.95 11.89 2.96 100

2003 61.70 18.00 12.10 7.10 1.10 100 11.61 19.07 25.80 31.25 12.29 100
MADHYA
PRADESH 2 1992 52.38 19.19 16.20 10.34 1.88 100 7.61 15.49 24.97 35.38 16.57 100
1982 48.77 16.24 18.24 13.76 2.99 100 4.99 11.08 24.30 37.93 21.72 100
1971-72 40.26 16.96 20.72 17.20 4.86 100 3.34 9.16 21.36 37.80 28.34 100

2003 69.00 13.10 12.00 5.10 0.80 100 12.38 17.57 30.88 27.35 11.78 100
MAHARASHTRA 1992 59.47 14.19 15.14 9.14 2.05 100 7.02 12.61 25.54 33.43 21.41 100
1982 54.89 14.96 14.83 11.83 3.50 100 4.65 10.90 20.82 36.23 27.40 100
1971-72 48.36 14.94 16.28 14.99 5.43 100 3.48 8.59 18.34 35.45 34.14 100

2003 85.50 9.70 3.70 0.90 0.10 100 41.52 27.06 19.72 9.98 1.78 100
ORISSA 1992 75.15 14.42 7.34 2.40 0.12 100 26.37 27.16 25.99 18.08 2.40 100
1982 66.06 20.84 9.31 3.42 0.37 100 19.88 29.73 25.04 19.50 5.84 100
1971-72 68.94 18.08 9.04 3.52 0.42 100 20.45 26.95 25.88 20.72 6.00 100
2
includes Chhattisgarh

18

Statement 5 (contd.): Percentage distribution of households and area owned over five broad classes in 17 major States for
2003, 1992, 1982 and 1971-72
Rural
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

2003 76.30 9.50 7.90 5.10 1.00 100 9.16 15.63 25.30 34.50 15.31 100
PUNJAB 1992 69.63 9.98 12.21 7.11 1.08 100 7.18 12.35 30.21 38.04 12.22 100
1982 66.87 10.08 11.61 9.94 1.47 100 5.59 10.76 22.87 42.23 18.56 100
1971-72 67.50 8.37 12.71 9.19 2.23 100 4.47 8.87 25.06 37.96 23.64 100

2003 55.20 16.50 14.00 10.10 4.10 100 9.26 11.19 18.61 28.40 32.52 100
RAJASTHAN 1992 44.50 18.53 17.71 13.89 5.37 100 5.42 10.04 18.90 31.55 34.10 100
1982 37.08 16.23 20.07 19.60 6.53 100 3.63 7.29 17.29 35.19 36.59 100
1971-72 26.96 19.87 20.49 22.63 10.05 100 2.03 6.78 13.15 32.89 45.15 100

2003 90.10 5.70 2.90 1.20 0.00 100 33.21 23.10 22.09 20.57 1.23 100
TAMIL NADU 1992 87.13 8.01 3.81 0.92 1.11 100 33.28 26.24 24.15 12.15 4.18 100
1982 81.85 10.89 4.95 2.16 0.16 100 23.57 27.24 23.53 20.94 4.71 100
1971-72 73.13 11.39 6.75 3.00 0.46 100 20.23 21.84 25.21 22.97 9.75 100

2003 81.00 12.30 4.80 1.60 0.10 100 34.89 27.38 20.74 14.65 2.34 100
UTTAR
PRADESH 3 1992 74.40 14.73 7.92 2.76 0.21 100 27.42 24.88 25.82 18.14 3.73 100
1982 67.95 17.38 10.23 4.06 0.37 100 20.36 24.08 28.11 22.25 5.18 100
1971-72 65.58 18.60 10.84 4.49 0.49 100 17.49 24.65 27.94 23.85 6.07 100

2003 92.06 5.70 1.40 0.20 0.00 100 58.23 25.71 11.88 4.02 0.00 100
WEST BENGAL 1992 85.88 9.48 3.94 0.71 0.00 100 41.29 28.11 22.98 7.62 0.00 100
1982 81.60 11.50 5.54 1.28 0.08 100 30.33 28.77 27.23 12.12 1.54 100
1971-72 77.62 12.64 7.30 2.39 0.05 100 27.28 25.69 27.72 18.61 0.70 100

2003 79.60 10.80 6.00 3.00 0.60 100 23.05 20.38 21.98 23.08 11.55 100
ALL-INDIA 1992 71.88 13.42 9.28 4.54 0.88 100 16.93 18.59 24.58 26.07 13.83 100
1982 66.64 14.70 10.78 6.45 1.42 100 12.22 16.49 23.58 29.83 18.07 100
1971-72 62.62 15.49 11.94 7.83 2.12 100 9.76 14.68 21.92 30.73 22.91 100
3
includes Uttaranchal

19

3.1.4 Changes in the distribution of ownership holdings: inter-State comparison
3.1.4.1 Statement 5 gives the percentage distributions of households and area owned by
broad size-class or “category” of holding in 17 major States and all-India for the years 2003,
1992, 1982 and 1971-72, as obtained from the NSS 59th , 48th , 37th and 28th round Land
Holding Surveys respectively. The size classes of the detailed classification have been
merged to form 5 broad size classes or categories along the lines adopted in the Agricultural
Census of India. The 5 broad size classes are as fo llows:

category of size
holding

marginal less than or equal to 1.000 hectares
small more than 1.000 but less than or equal to 2.000 hectare
semi- medium more than 2.000 but less than or equal to 4.000 hectares
medium more than 4.000 but less than or equal to 10.000 hectares
large more than 10.000 hectares

3.1.4.2 Considering the country as a whole, the large and medium holdings, at the top 10 per
cent bracket, owned 54% of the total land in 1971-72, their share declining to 35% in 2003
while their proportion declined to 4%. At the bottom, the proportion of marginal holdings
increased from 63% in 1971-72 to 80% per cent in 2003, while the proportion of area under
marginal holdings rose from about 10% in 1971-72 to 23% in 2003. In fact, the proportion of
marginal holdings to total number of holdings increased in all the States during the last
decade. An increasing trend in the percentage of area owned by marginal households is also
observed in all the major States. The decline in the shares of the top three classes, both in
number and area of ownership holdings, is noticeable in practically all the major States,
though the pace may vary.

3.1.4.3 The general feature that emerges from the distributions given in Statement 5 is that
there is a rise in the percentage of households in the lowest category, and a decline in the
percentage of households in the categories of semi- medium and upwards. Only in respect of
the small and semi- medium holders can some amount of inter-State variation, both in
magnitude and direction of change be observed. There is no doubt that a declining trend is
present in the proportion of small holders in all the States. The proportion of area under
small holdings reveals much more varying trends over the states. Assam, Bihar, Gujarat,
Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh
reported perceptible rise in proportion of area under small holdings during the period 1992 to
2003. This was in contrast to the trend observed in the proportion of small holdings. In the
proportion of area under semi- medium holdings, on the other hand, increased marginally in
Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra only. The impact of population growth is evident from the
nature of the temporal variations in the pattern of distribution of ownership holdings observed
for all the major States.

3.1.4.4 The results presented in Statement 6 below reveal that the percentage of landless
households as estimated by the present (2003) survey (10 per cent) is not ve ry different from
the estimated proportion for 1971-72, more than three decades ago. However, both the 37th
and the 48th round surveys (estimates for 1982 and 1992) gave a higher estimate, namely,
11.3 per cent.
20

Statement 6: Changes in proportion of landless households
Rural
percentage of landless households
State 1971-72 1982 1992 2003

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Andhra Pradesh 7.0 11.9 11.9 14.3
Assam 25.0 7.5 13.4 8.1
Bihar1 4.3 4.1 8.6 7.6

Gujarat 13.4 16.8 16.3 13.6
Haryana 11.9 6.1 3.7 9.2
Himachal Pradesh 4.4 7.7 10.4 15.0

Jammu & Kashmir 1.0 6.8 2.8 3.3
Karnataka 12.5 13.7 10.0 14.1
Kerala 15.7 12.8 8.4 4.8

Madhya Pradesh 2 9.6 14.4 15.2 12.1
Maharashtra 10.4 21.2 19.6 17.7
Orissa 10.6 7.7 13.8 9.6

Punjab 7.1 6.4 5.9 4.6
Rajasthan 2.9 8.1 6.4 5.7
Tamil Nadu 17.0 19.1 17.9 16.6

Uttar Pradesh3 4.6 4.9 4.9 3.8
West Bengal 9.8 16.2 11.0 6.2
all India 9.6 11.3 11.3 10.0
1 2 3
includes Jharkhand includes Chhattisgarh includes Uttaranchal

3.1.5 Per capita ownership holding: all India
3.1.5.1 Statement 7 gives average size of holding per household, average household size and
per capita holding by size class of ownership holdings, at the all-India level. It is seen that
the overall average of household size was 5.0 and the per capita holding was about 0.15
hectare. For the size classes below 2.00 hectare, size of holding per household was close to
the mid-point of the size class. In the higher size classes, it was found to be closer to the
lower limit. It was 6.0 hectares for the size class ‘5.00-7.50’, 8.5 hectares for the size class
‘7.50-10.00’ and 31.0 hectares for the open-ended class ’20.00 & above’.

3.1.5.2 It is seen that the average household size increases steadily from 3.3 for the ‘nil’
class to 11.3 for the highest class ‘20.00 & above’. The per capita ho lding, therefore,
increases at a much slower rate than the average household holding over the size classes.

21

Statement 7: Average household size and per capita holding by size class of
ownership holding, 2003
All-India Rural
size class of average holding average per capita
ownership per household household holding
holding (ha) (ha) size (ha)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
nil 0 3.3 0
less than 0.002 0.002 4.0 0.00
0.002 - 0.005 0.004 4.3 0.00
0.005 - 0.040 0.015. 4.7 0.00
0.040 - 0.500 0.251 5.0 0.05
0.500 - 1.000 0.734 5.4 0.14
1.000 - 2.000 1.366 5.7 0.24
2.000 - 3.000 2.344 6.0 0.39
3.000 - 4.000 3.385 6.2 0.54
4.000 - 5.000 4.393 6.8 0.65
5.000 - 7.500 6.040 7.0 0.87
7.500 - 10.000 8.502 7.1 1.19
10.000 - 20.000 13.484 8.2 1.65
20.000 & above 31.047 11.3 2.75
all sizes 0.725 5.0 0.15

3.2 Number and area of ownership holdings by social group
3.2.1 Statement 8 provides estimates generated from the present survey of the absolute and
percentage distribution of households and of total area owned over different social groups, as
well as average area owned by households of different social groups, separately for rural and
urban sectors at all-India level. The State-wise details are shown in Tables 1R and 1U of
Appendix A.

3.2.2 It is observed that in the rural sector, 10.6% households belonged to ST, 21.6% to
SC, 41.6% to OBC and 26.3% to Others. The corresponding shares of land owned were
11.2% for ST, 9.0% for SC, 43.5% for OBC and 36.3% for Others. That is, in the context of
ownership of land, SC community fared worse in comparison with other social groups. This
fact is clearer when we compare average area owned per househo ld belonging to different
social groups. It is observed that average area owned per household was the lowest at 0.304
ha for SC, followed by 0.758 ha for OBC, 0.767 ha for ST, 1.003 ha for Others and 0.725 ha
for all social groups taken together.

22

Statement 8: Distribution of households and land owned, and average area of land
owned per household, by social group, 2003
All-India Rural
characteristic ST SC OBC Others all*
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1. estimated no. of hhs (in 000) 15592 31908 61513 38816 147838
2. percentage of hhs 10.55 21.58 41.61 26.26 100.00
3. total area of land (in 000 ha) 11952 9692 46652 38938 107228
4. percentage area of land owned 11.15 9.04 43.51 36.30 100.00
5. average area (ha) owned per
0.767 0.304 0.758 1.003 0.725
household

*includes cases of social group not recorded

All-India Urban
characteristic ST SC OBC Others all*
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1. estimated no. of hhs (in 000) 1616 8350 19133 26407 55508
2. percentage of hhs 2.91 15.04 34.47 47.57 100.00
3. total area of land (in 000 ha) 235 344 2652 3982 7212
4. percentage area of land owned 3.25 4.76 36.77 55.21 100.00
5. average area (ha) owned per
0.145 0.041 0.139 0.151 0.130
household

*includes cases of social group not recorded

3.2.3 In the urban sector, the percentages of households belonging to ST, SC, OBC, and
Others were 2.9%, 15.0%, 34.5% and 47.6% respectively. The corresponding percentages of
area of land owned were 3.3%, 4.8%, 36.8% and 55.2% respectively. The per-household
ownership of land also came to about 0.145 ha for ST, 0.041 for SC, 0.139 ha for OBC and
0.151 ha for Others, while it was 0.130 ha for all households in the urban sector. That is, in
respect of ownership of land, the SC community was behind other social groups in the urban
sector also. Figure 5 below shows average area of land owned per household belonging to
different social groups.

23

NSSO Household Ownership Holdings in India

NSSO Household Ownership Holdings in India

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

More from CSISA

More from CSISA (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

NSSO Household Ownership Holdings in India