Contested Property Norms: Changing Property Relations

There have been a few disputes in which competing claims are based on two different property norms (four cases were found to have taken place in 2012-2013). I argue that these contestations over land and the way in which the dispute processes have evolved show that the social norms of owning land are being increasingly challenged within the community.

One of these cases, involving Pratik Dewan and Jibon, was coming to an end during my fieldwork. Jibon’s father received the allotment of the disputed land in the Pakistani period. However, he never cultivated that land and migrated to another village before the Shanti Bahini era (before 1976/77). The land (lowland) was jungle or forested when Pratik’s father took possession of it. Pratik’s family cleared the forest, and had owned and cultivated that land for three generations at the time of my research. Recently, Jibon’s son had come back to Chakmachari and claimed ownership over the land, based on its legal title. Pratik refused to give

99 _{The CHT 1900 Act mentions that customs of hill communities are to be given priority in family matters and the}

Chakma norms stipulates that a father can give property to his daughters if he wants.

100 _{Shanti Bahini was organized in 1973 as an armed wing of JSS. ‘Shanti bahini period or amol’ is often mentioned}

134

back the land because his father had worked hard to make the land cultivable. Krishna (85) and his wife Tungolata (who first told me about the dispute case) thought that Pratik’s land claim was legitimate. Tungolata (75) said, “If Jibon’s father at least cleared the land or cultivated it for once, his grandson could have made a claim now.”

According to Pratik, the land was fallow; the Headman allocated the land to his father and told him to obtain a formal allotment for the land. His father went to the Ramgarh Land office twice, but could not complete the allotment process because their papers were damaged by the fire accident. His claim was based on having paid tax (jum) and possessed the land for all those years. The Headman endorsed Pratik’s claim over the land; however, he told Pratik, ‘They (Jibon’s son) have document for that land. What can you do about it? Give them some money, buy up the land and settle the case.’ After a few bichar meetings the dispute was settled by negotiating over the amount of money Pratik had to pay to Jibon’s son. Pratik bought the land for 70,000 taka, which was one third of its market price. The negotiated price reflects that Pratik’s right based on a social norm has been recognised; however, the right of the formal title holder could not be undermined.

In another case, in 2012, Satya Dewan’s homestead plot, which had been occupied by his family for 40 years, was claimed by Din Dewan who owned the land with title. Din Dewan said the land was recorded in his father’s name, who used to keep cattle on that land. Satya’s family started to live on the land with Din’s father’s consent. Din did not claim back the land or tell Satya to move out, because they both belonged to the same lineage. He asked for money to settle the matter. Satya bought the land from Din paying half the market price and a land mutation process was conducted at the office. In another similar case, the Headman took back the land that his father gave to Krishna’s son for building a home. Krishna’s son was given the land as landless and he had possessed the land for a long time, but the Headman told Krishna’s son to move out. Krishna’s son was dispossessed and left the village.

These cases of competing claims based on different norms of ownership are decided through negotiation, illustrating that land ownership and rules (legal and social) are negotiable. The negotiation and dispute process depends on the social relations and economic position of the disputants. As Krishna’s son was not a close relative of the Headman and was poor (he did not have the money to buy), he had to give up the land he was given based on social norms. Krishna and his son were also not in a position to influence decision in their favour challenging Headman’s claim in bichar meeting if they called for any. When making legitimacy claims, rules also become mixed. For instance, Pratik’s made a claim over land, formally owned by Jibon, saying they have paid tax and also had a receipt.

In the literature (D.Roy 2004, C.K. Roy 2010, S.K.Chakma 2012), by focusing on the Headman’s role of allocating jum land based on traditional norms, the Headman is presented as the institution that is upholding the customary law of owning land. However, these cases show as a

135

formal authority, the Headman lends legitimacy to legal claims when land contestation involves legal versus customary norm-based claims, although at the village level, there was the expectation that he would endorse the social norms of owning land. For instance, Tungalata thought that the Headman should tell Jibon’s sons to ‘go away’ and not to make claim. Instead, the Headman considered Jibon’s land claim based on a legal title valid. He also supported Pratik’s claim based on social norms and in the end settled the case through negotiation over price. In this case, discrepancy in some villagers’ expectations and the headman’s decision points to the existence of contradictory property systems -Chakma property norms and formal property norms. The discrepancy arises because, as traditional authority the Headman recognises property relations based on social norms as traditional authority, but he also contradicts and subverts social norms of land ownership when it is challenged by a legal title owner. Since these kinds of dispute are being raised in increasing numbers, the conflicting norms based on two different property systems as well as perceived incongruity in the Headman’s role, who is viewed as custodian of traditional norms but who is actually appointed as the state’s agent to formalise property rights, are becoming apparent. He, also surpassed customary norms of land ownership by claiming a land plot based on having legal title which was possessed by Krishna’s son.

The increase of such disputes suggest that Chakma social norms are being contested within the community, showing that property relations are also gradually changing.

5.7.5 Land Disputes Occurring from Government Allotment of Land