Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/241

Rh case be registered in one name only, and the act of registration annuls all the interests of all other persons, except the registered owner, in the holding. Thereafter the owner cannot divide the plot, but must, so long as he owns it, keep it entire. He may sell, mortgage or otherwise dispose of it as an entire unit, but may not dispose of part of it or do anything that might result in splitting up the holding. On the death of the holder, if he has not disposed of the land by will, it will devolve upon a single heir. If the provisions of the bill are contravened (for instance, if the holder mortgage a part of his holding and the mortgagee obtains a decree for possession), the collector is empowered to send a certificate to the court, and the court will set aside its decree or order. The collector may also evict the person in wrongful possession. When a plot has once been constituted an economic holding, the registration cannot be cancelled except with the consent of the collector: the grounds on which cancellation will be allowed, will be laid down by rule, and it is proposed that it shall be permitted chiefly in cases where economic considerations indicate that it is expedient.

6. There is some difficulty in framing provision to secure the integrity of the holding in spite of existing law and custom in favor of the sub-division of land. As will be seen, the above scheme aims at effecting the object in view by giving the registered owner an exclusive interest in the holding at the outset; by preventing the sub-division of the holding by transfer inter vivos or by will or by the operation of law; and by preventing sub-division in the case of the owner's death intestate. Each of these provisions appears essential to the success of the bill. With regard to the first, it may be said that wherever two or more persons are interested (whether jointly or otherwise) in a holding there is a probability that at some time the holders will desire to divide the land. The necessity for the second provision seems obvious; but it may be observed that in order to prevent partition the holding must not be permitted to become joint property or coparcenary property according to Hindu law. With regard to the third, there is considerable difficulty. If the operation of any law under which property is divided on an intestate succession is excluded, some rule of succession to take its place must be devised. Hindu and Muhomedan law, the Indian Succession Act, 1865, and the Parsi Intestate Succession Act 1865, all contemplate the division of immoveable property on succession. The Hindu law, indeed recognizes impartible property, but the principles governing the succession to such property do not appear to be sufficiently clear for application to agricultural holdings, in connection with which it is desirable to prevent litigation as far as possible. Moreover as an