On the 109th birth anniversary of former Karnataka chief minister D. Devaraj Urs, chief minister Siddaramaiah announced his government’s intention to restore Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. These provisions, which barred non-agriculturists from purchasing farmland, were removed by the previous Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in 2020 to liberalise landholdings.
Siddaramaiah criticised these changes saying that they were benefiting vested interests and undermining the protection given to farmers. As the Congress government prepares to reintroduce these provisions, the question arises: Will this move truly protect Karnataka’s farmers, or could it reintroduce the challenges of the past?
Historical context and the case for repeal
Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, were inserted in 1974 to prevent individuals with substantial non-agricultural income from acquiring agricultural land. Although intended to protect genuine farmers, these sections inadvertently became tools for corruption, with local revenue officials exploiting them. As former revenue minister R. Ashoka acknowledged, the law “did not benefit anyone except officials who used it as a tool for harassing people.”
Moreover, despite 83,171 cases involving more than two lakh acres being filed, the government was unable to recover even 1% of the lands, leaving vast tracts in legal limbo. Therefore, the removal was intended to simplify land transactions and encourage investment in agriculture, which was seen as crucial for revitalising the sector.
Siddaramaiah’s critique
In 2020, the then Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Siddaramaiah, vehemently criticised these amendments, accusing the government of being “hand in glove with corporate bodies and housing societies.” He expressed concerns that the amendments would lead to the loss of farmland worth Rs 50,000 crore, as vast tracts of agricultural land would be transferred from small farmers to wealthy non-agriculturists and corporations.
Siddaramaiah argued that this would displace small and marginal farmers, exacerbate the agrarian crisis, and prioritise corporate interests over the welfare of Karnataka’s rural population. He added that the move would only further widen the socio-economic gap in rural Karnataka.
Supporters see a gateway to innovation
Supporters of the ordinance, such as advocates Anandita Srinivasan and Anirudh Shenoy, argue that it could enable investments in agriculture by those who are capable of bringing innovative technologies into farming. They assert that fears of agricultural lands being diverted for non-agricultural purposes are unfounded, given the stringent procedures still in place for conversion of agricultural land under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and change of land use under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.
A complex landscape
The debate over these land reforms is complicated by the historical actions of both the major political parties. While Siddaramaiah condemned the 2020 amendments, it’s noteworthy that during his tenure as chief minister in 2015, the Congress government amended Section 79A to raise the income limit for non-agriculturists acquiring land — a move which was opposed by the BJP, arguing that it would “only help real estate businesses acquire more land around cities in the state.” This highlights the complex and often contradictory nature of land reform debates in Karnataka.
Furthermore, the Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha (KRRS) has expressed concerns over the 2020 amendment. They underlined that it could negatively impact agriculture and food security by enabling corporate land acquisition. Meanwhile, activists Basawa Prasad Kunale and Soundarya Iyer have warned that these reforms might disproportionately affect marginalised communities, including Dalits and Adivasis, who already face significant landlessness and socio-economic challenges.
Economic impacts
The proposed reinstatement of these sections also raises broader economic concerns. While the government may argue that these provisions are necessary to protect farmers, there is a risk they could exacerbate existing inequalities in the agricultural sector. By restricting land ownership, these laws might limit farmers’ ability to leverage their land for financial gain or attract investment in modern farming practices. It is all the more concerning in a drought-hit state like Karnataka, where the agricultural sector is already under significant strain.
A call for comprehensive reform
Karnataka’s agricultural sector is in crisis, as evidenced by rising debt and farmer suicides, which reflect deeper systemic issues. Rather than simply reinstating Sections 79A and 79B, the Karnataka government should focus on comprehensive reforms that address the underlying issues facing the agricultural sector.
These reforms should include measures to improve access to credit, provide better infrastructure, and support the adoption of modern farming techniques. Additionally, any new regulation should be designed to enhance transparency and reduce the opportunities for corruption that plagued the previous implementation of these sections.
Furthermore, before taking any step to reintroduce these provisions, the government must conduct a scientific study to assess the actual impacts of the 2020 amendment. Establishing a committee of experts in agriculture, economics, and law could help ensure that any decisions are grounded in evidence. Engaging in a broad-based dialogue with stakeholders — including farmers, economists, and legal experts — would further ensure that the resulting policies are both effective and equitable. By adopting a holistic and evidence-based approach, the government can create a more sustainable and prosperous agricultural sector that benefits Karnataka’s farmers. As Shakespeare wisely noted, ‘What’s past is prologue,’ reminding us that today’s decisions are not made in a vacuum but are shaped by the legacies of the past.
Jehosh Paul is a lawyer and research consultant. He holds an LLM in Law and Development from the Azim Premji University, Bengaluru.
