Journal of Global Resources

Volume 3

July 2016
Page 97-104
ISSN: 2395-3160 (Print), 2455-2445 (Online)

12
MANAGING THE COMMON LAND FOR LANDLESS DESTITUTE - AN EMPIRICAL STUDY
Mohd Sadiq Salman1 and Abdul Munir2
1

Post Doctoral Fellow (ICSSR),
Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India.
Email: msadiqsalman@gmail.com
2

Professor, Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India.
Email: abdulmunir.amu@gmail.com

Abstract: Land resource is the source of livelihood of majority of Indian population. The
landless earn their livelihood through informal employments and by utilizing Common Property
Resources (CPR), especially the Common Land Resources (CLR) for various economic gains.
Majority of landless people work as agricultural labour, labourer or get temporary employment
through NAREGA. They also utilize CLR to supplement their income. The present study is anattempt to analyze the distribution and temporal change in the CLR of Aligarh district since last
decade. The study further investigates the dependency of landless people over the CLR. The
study reveals that there is a decline in the CLR since last decade. The landless people areengaged in various informal economic activities during different parts of the year. The study
reveals that 67 per cent of the landless households utilize CLR for economic gains. The
maximum use of CLR was undertaken by those working as agricultural labourer, getting
employment through NAREGA or practicing livestock husbandry. The most preferred mode ofutilization was grazing and agro-forestry. The beneficiaries obtain up to 33 per cent of theirannual income from CLR. Thus, CLR were found to be significant in the sustenance of thelandless household and should be managed properly.
Key words: Landless, Sustenance, Common Land Resources (CLR), Grazing
Introduction
India is an agricultural country where a major part of its population lives in rural areas with
agriculture as the main economic activity. Thus the livelihood of the people is highly dependent
upon their land resource. The landless earn their livelihood through informal employment andsupplement their income from other sources. Due to continuous fragmentation of land overthe past generations the land holders have very small pieces of land and very few havemedium or large size of land holdings. Thus, the landless, marginal and small farmers
generally constitute more than half of the total households in a village. Thus the marginal andsmall farmers having insignificant land rely upon the “Common Property Resources” (CPR) for
their livelihood. The Common Land Resources (CLR) is the sub-category of CPR. The term“Common Land Resources” (CLR) is used to refer to property owned and defended by acommunity of resource users, to property owned by no one, and to property owned by agovernment to which the people have “common access” (Jodha N.S., 1986). It includes village
97

pastures, common grazing grounds, bush lands, threshing grounds, waste dumping places
uncultivable fields, waste lands and rangelands. The CLR in Indian Context have been
specified into five categories of land use/land cover viz. forest, pasture and grazing land,
cultivable wasteland, barren and uncultivated land and fallow lands other than current fallow(Salman M.S. and Munir A. ,2013). The CLR are common to all and no one has any exclusive
right upon. The forests provide timber, the pastures support the livestock of the farmers andthe uncultivated and barren lands are utilize for construction of houses, poultry farms, animalhusbandry and other uses.
The CLR in a village include the land administered by the village panchayat orcommunity including the land which lies within the formal boundary of the village (Jodha, N.S.,
1990, Arnold, J.E.M. and Stewart, W.C., 1991). Sometimes, there is a well-defined category ofland which referred to as panchayat grazing/pasture land and is known as gauchar, gochar,gairan and gomol in different agro climatic regions. Apart from that generally, there are somedemarcated areas in every village for various purposes and are accessible to all the villagers.
They are the areas allotted for processing of agricultural produce, storing of grains, otheragricultural produce, firewood, use for other household enterprise, for recreational or religious
purposes and to organize village fairs and marriages. Sometimes a portion of the land isallotted for periodic markets also. These all are constituents of CLR. The continuous
fragmentation of the land and increasing cost of production has rendered small pieces of land
to become uneconomical (Mohammad N., 2001). The increasing population has resulted inimmense pressure on the land resources of the country, specially the CLR (Jodha, N.S.,
1985).The CLR are a source of livelihood for the rural poor (Thomson et al. 2001). Thus,
landless people, marginal and small farmers generally utilize the CLR for various economic
gains (Munir, et al., 2008) and are one of the important sources of livelihood to the poor
households (Salman M.S., 2015).
The landless people are engaged in different economic activities for their sustenance.
The major occupation of the landless people is shop keeping, business, agricultural labour,
rickshaw puling, labour and other petty jobs. Due to low employment opportunities, highcompetition amongst them, increasing food prices and low remuneration of their work havemade them the most deprived section of the villages. The present study aims to understandthe role of CLR upon the sustenance of the landless households
Aims and Objectives
The present study has been undertaken with the following aims and objectives:
1) To analyze the spatial distribution and temporal change of CLR in study area.
2) To analyze the role of CLR in income of landless households.
Database and Methodology
The study is based on the primary data collected through field survey and secondary datacollected from various government sources. A village having accessibility and population
between 1000 to 3000 persons was selected for intensive field survey. Individual observationsof researcher were also considered. The study was undertaken in a sampled village Tejpur in
Jawan block of Aligarh district. All the landless households were surveyed and the village98pradhan (political head) was also interview. A questionnaire was used to generate the data
regarding social structure, occupation, income, income through CLR and utilization modes of
CLR. The secondary data was obtained from different government departments. The primarydata was thoroughly checked processed using simple statistical techniques and finally
represented using suitable maps, tables and diagrams.
Study Area
District Aligarh was selected for the present study. It lies between latitudes 27 o33’ N to 28o
11’N and between 77 o29’ E to 78o38’E longitudes in the central part of Ganga-Yamuna doab(interfluves) in western Uttar Pradesh. The district has a total area of 3696.94 Km2 with apopulation of 36, 73,849 persons (Census 2011). From administrative point of view, the district
is divided into 5 tehsils (sub division) and 12 developmental blocks which include 1211
villages. The Ganga, the Yamuna and the Kali are important rivers of the district. River Ganga
and Yamuna form the eastern and western boundaries of the district for small distance. The
soil of the district is alluvial in nature and mostly loamy in texture.
Figure 1: Study Area

Sampled Village: Tejpur
The study was conducted in Tejpur village in Jawan Sikandarpur Block of Aligarh district. It lies
at a distance of 19 kms. from Aligarh city and 2 kms. away from the Jawan Sikandarpur town
on Anupshahr Road. The total households in the villages were reported to be 300 having a
total population of 2,476 persons (fig.1). The main occupation of the people is agriculture andvery few are engaged in non agricultural activities. The total landholders in the village are 190
and the rest 110 are landless households. The main communities living in the village are
Hindus and Muslims. The various castes of Hindus present in the villages are Lodha Rajput,
Brahman, Kushwaha and Harijan.
99

Land Use Pattern and Spatio-temporal Analysis of CLR in Aligarh District
The major occupation of the people at Aligarh is agriculture thus; most of the area of the
district is under agricultural use. The net sown area was found to be 81.89 per cent during
2015. The next major part of the geographical area of the district after agriculture is devoted
for land put to non agricultural uses (11.05 per cent). The share of forests in the district is only
0.69 percent and the share of barren and cultivable wasteland and fallow lands is 1.59, 1.89
and 2.34 per cent respectively. The land under pastures and miscellaneous uses and undergroves is 0.47 and 0.09 percent respectively. The variation in the land use pattern was seen atblock level also.
Table 1 Block wise Temporal Change in Common Land Resources, Aligarh District (1995-2015)
Common Land Resources
Change in CLRName of(in Hectares)(1995-2015)
Block
1995
2005
2015
Area
Percentage
5520
2228
2112
-3408
-61.74
Akrabad(18.26)(8.55)(8.18)
3450
2399
1499
-1951
-56.55
Bijouli(13.56)(9.40)(6.02)
Jawan
5324
3254
2431
-2893
-54.34Sikandarpur(17.17)(10.71)(7.69)
3866
1953
1881
-1985
-51.35Chandaus(11.71)(5.90)(5.64)
1928
727
1045
-883
-45.80
Atrouli(6.71)(2.52)(3.83)
4476
2405
2566
-1910
-42.67
Dhanipur(16.15)(8.22)(8.53)
2539
1685
1516
-1023
-40.29Khair(7.65)(5.08)(4.74)
2957
1679
1776
-1181
-39.94Gangiri(8.44)(4.76)(5.11)
1089
678
770
-319
-29.29Iglas(4.18)(2.63)(3.02)
2577
2382
1962
-615
-23.86
Tappal(6.76)(6.24)(5.25)
1017
1264
957
-60
-5.90
Gonda
(3.52)(4.33)(3.28)
2822
1707
2658
-164
-5.81
Lodha
(10.52)(6.32)(9.71)
37565
22361
21173
-16392-43.64
Total Rural(10.31)(6.18)(5.89)
880
1337
1370
490
55.68
Total Urban(15.18)(17.09)(11.34)
Total
38445
24118
22543
-15902-41.36
District(10.39)(6.52)(6.07)
Source: Statistical booklet of Aligarh district (1995, 2005 and 2015)
Figures in brackets show percentage to total reported area

The total are under the CLR is calculated to be 6.07 per cent of the total geographicalarea of the district. It includes forests, pastures and grazing lands, cultivable wasteland, barren
and uncultivated lands and fallow lands other than current fallow. The CLR of Aligarh district
the largest share is occupied by wasteland (31.11 per cent) followed by barren land (26.19 per100

cent) and other fallow land (23.59 per cent) as shown in figure 2. The CLR have shown adeclining trend over the last decade. The CLR in Aligarh district have declined by 15,902
hectares i.e. from 38,445 hectares (10.39 per cent in) 1995 to 24,118 hectares (6.52 per cent)in 2005 to 22543 (6.07 per cent) in 2015. Thus, total decline in CLR was found to be -41.36
per cent. The maximum decline is seen in the blocks of Akrabad (-61.74 per cent) followed by
Bijauli (-56.55 per cent) and Jawan Sikandarpur (-54.34 per cent). All the blocks have shown adecline in CLR. The Lodha block has shown least decline by -5.81 per cent. The table 1
shows the block wise change of CLR in Aligarh district during last two decades.
Employment Structure of Landless Households
Most of the landless people in Tejpur village were found to earn their livelihood by working as
agricultural labourer but many other types of employment/occupations are also practiced bythem. Most of them earn their livelihood from two or three types of activities during different
periods of the year.
Table 2 Major Occupations of Landless Households in Tejpur Village (2014)
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Occupation/Employment
Migrated to other places
Shop Keeping
Rickshaw Pulling
Livestock HusbandryBusiness
Private Jobs
LabourAgricultural Labour
NAREGA
Other Occupation

Landless Households
Percentage
Numberto Total
12
10.90
8
7.27
17
15.45
23
20.90
11
10.00
4
3.63
56
50.90
47
42.72
39
35.45
13
11.81

Avg. Annual
Income (in Rs.)
75000
49680
48000
46500
45000
30000
23232
21600
14040
13980

Source: Field survey (2014)

The main reason for this switch over between different occupations is the nonavailability of permanent employment throughout the year. The easiest available employment
opportunity is to work as agricultural labourer but it is seasonal and remuneration is also less.
Thus, a large number of landless people were found to be seasonal migrants as and when
they get any better opportunity. They generally migrate to the nearby town of Aligarh. Most of
the households were found to be engaged in two three types of employment activities. A few
of them have migrated to Mumbai, Ludhiana and New Delhi for better livelihood. The table 2
shows the distribution of landless households into the major occupation/employment and theiraverage annual income.
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Common Land Resources Utilization:
The field survey of 110 household revealed that 70 per cent households (77 households) areusing CLR in some form. The maximum users of CLR are the landless people followed bymarginal and small farmers. They were found to utilize the CLR in various ways for economic
gains. Table 3 gives the landholding wise share of the respondents using the CLR undervarious modes. The respondents were found to utilize CLR’s for more than one purpose also.
Among the total 77 households utilizing CLR the most common mode of utilization was
101grazing (93.51 per cent) followed by social forestry (79.22 per cent), agro-forestry (72.73 percent), other uses (59.74 per cent) and crop cultivation (41.56 per cent). The other uses of CLR
included the use of CLR as manure pits, cemeteries, storage grounds, playgrounds, temporary
construction of sheds for animals, storage of fodder and agricultural produce etc.
Table 3 Annual Cost-Benefit Analysis of Common Land Resources Utilization
S. No.
12
34Mode of Utilization
Agro-forestry
Crop Cultivation
Grazing/Pasture
Other Uses

Average
Input(Rs./Hect.)
2500
7500
0
0

Average
Output(Rs./Hect.)
6930
18990
3100
2200

Average
Income(Rs./Hect.)
4430
11490
3100
2200

Benefit(in %)
177.20153.23100.00100.00Source: Field survey (2014)

The cost–benefit analysis for the CLR was undertaken considering the per hectare
input and output for different modes of utilization. Therefore, the percentages of profit fromvarious utilization modes of the CLR were also variable (table 3). The most profitable use of
CLR was agro-forestry followed by crop cultivation, grazing/pastures and other purposes. The
people utilizing CLR get benefit from 100 per cent to 177.20 per cent annually. This leads tocompetition among the resource users. Those who can invest a little amount prefer agroforestry and crop cultivation while the poorer households prefer to use CLR for grazing theiranimals or for other personal purposes because it requires no input costs.
CLR Share in Total Income:The income generated from the use of CLR is additional income over the income from different
source. In general, the landless households engaged in business, shop keeping, private job
and migrated to other places do not use CLR. The table 4 gives the share of CLR income of
the landless households. It is seen that in general the landless households obtain an average
21.53 per cent of their total annual income through CLR. The maximum share of CLR in total
income for people employed through NAREGA was maximum (32.95 per cent) followed bylivestock husbandry (26.00 per cent ), other occupation (22.33 per cent) agricultural labour(22.11 per cent), labour (19.52 per cent) and 12.57 per cent for people involved in rickshaw
pulling.
Table 4 Occupation wise Share of CLR Income in Total Average Annual Income of Landlesshouseholds Using CLR
Income of Landless Households (In Rs.)
S. No.

Category

12
3
4

NAREGA
Livestock Husbandry
Other Occupation
Agricultural Labour

5

Labour6
Rickshaw Pulling
Average Landless Households

Main
Occupation
14040
46500
13980
21600

CLR

Total

Share of
CLR Income(In %)

6900
16340
4020
6130

20940
62840
18000
27730

32.95
26.00
22.33
22.11

23232

5635

28867

19.52

48000
27892

6900
7654.167

54900
35546.17

12.57
21.53

Source: Field survey (2014)102

CLR Utilization and Emerging Problems
The share of landless households using CLR is 70 per cent. Among these households theshare of income from CLR amounts to an average of 21.53 per cent in total income. The
landless people are mainly using the CLR’s for grazing their animals. The users are also
engaged in agro-forestry, crop cultivation and other uses. They generally keep cattle andbuffaloes for domestic and business purposes. The landless people are sometimes evendependent upon the drought animals for their livelihood and utilize the CLR for grazing andpasture land to feed them. This also has an economic significance for the landless people. The
present study indicates that CLR have become an integral part of their livelihood due to theirdependency upon CLR for feeding their animals. The milk obtained from them is one of the
major sources of their daily income. They also use the cow dung as fuel. The declining quality
and size of CLR makes the landless people prone to loss of their livelihood.
The study reveals that there are many problems in managing these resources. The
common land resources have an open access to all. This has lead to the problem of its
preservation and management. There are no laws for those causing degradation or misuse of
these resources. Until the people are not punished for their undue activities and rampant use
there is a meager chance for the betterment of these resources. The people are unaware of
the environmental problems caused to degradation and depletion of the soil. They are not wellaware of the processes and factors which lead to loss of land resource. The people do notparticipate in the programs of land conservation. The lack of interest of the local people has anadverse effect on many government schemes of land reclamation, afforestation and soil
conservation. The common land resources are not given to the needy people and often
encroached upon by the wealthy and large farmers who do not care for its proper
management. There are many political issues related to the allotment, management andcontrol of the common land resources. Everyone who has a political influence tries to get thebenefit out of these common resources. Thus the proper management is lacking.
The CLR are declining. The decline in forest and grazing/pastures is much larger thanother categories of CLR. The landless people obtain their livelihood from utilizing them. With
the increasing population there is a threat to their degradation and extinction. Thus there is animmediate need to save them from degradation. The problems faced in managing CLR are
open access, ignorance, lack of suitable laws, social injustice and political problems. Therefore
proper survey, suitable laws, protection from encroachment and allocation of CLR to poor andlandless people is need of the time.
Considering the present situation of the need of preservation and management of CLR
and the problems associated with it there is an emergent need for thorough survey of the CLRby the government and formulation of laws regarding their protection. There is need to educate
people regarding conservation of the resources and environment with the help of mass media.
The local administration should be vigilant to check the encroachment upon CLR. This can beeasily done by involving the local people for protection of forests and pastures by giving someincentives. The poor and landless people should be allotted these lands for small period oftime. Sustainable use of CLR through agro-forestry should be encouraged to protect andconserve the CLR in the study area.The role of common land resources in the sustenance of103

the landless people is quiet evident. Thus, there is a need to manage these resources forproviding a better livelihood and economic benefit for its users. The management of theseresources will not only lead to social change and social harmony but also lead to sustainable
development.
References
1. Arnold, J.E.M. and Stewart, W.C. (1991) Common Property Resource Management inIndia, Oxford Forestry Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford.
2. Census of India (2011) Provisional Population Totals, Office of the Registrar Generaland Census Commissioner, India, Ministry of Home Affairs, 31st March
3. District Statistical Booklet, Aligarh (1995, 2005 and 2015), Directorate of Statistics andEconomics, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
4. Jodha, N.S. (1985) Population Growth and Decline in Common Property Resources in
Rajasthan, India, Population and Development Review, Vol. 11, No.2.
5. Jodha, N. S. (1986) Common Property Resources and Rural Poor in Dry Regions ofIndia, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.21 , No. 27 , pp.169–1181
6. Jodha, N.S. (1990) Depletion of Common Property Resources in India: Micro-Level
Evidence. in G. Mc Nicoll & M. Cain, (eds.) Rural Development And Population:
Institutions and Policy, New York, Oxford University Press
7. Mohammad, N. (2001) Perspectives in Agricultural Geography- Framework ofAgriculture, Vol. III, Concept Publishers, New Delhi.
8. Munir, A., Salman, M.S. & Taufique, M. (2008) Impact of Common Land Resources on
the Livelihood of Landless, Small and Marginal Farmers: A Study of Allahabad District,
The Geographer, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp.1-15.
9. Salman M. S. (2015) Impact of Common Land Resources In Sustainable Regional
Development: A Geographical Analysis, Forum Geografic, University of Craiova,
Department of Geography, ROMANIA,Vol.14 , Issue 1 (June 2015), pp. 75-83.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5775/fg.2067-4635.2015.179.i
10. Salman M.S. and Munir A. (2013) Common Land Resources-The Present Status andNeed for Their Conservation in North India in Developments in Soil Classification, Land
Use Planning and Policy Implications (Eds.) Shahid, Shabbir A. et. al. Dordrecht :SPRINGER PUBLICATION, NETHERLANDS, pp: 591-604.
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-5332-7_34
11. Thomson, T.B., Fredriksen, P and Sano, H.O. (2001) A livelihood perspective on
Natural Resource Management and Environment Change in Semi arid Tanzania,
Economic Geography, Vol. 77, No.1, pp. 34-39.

104