Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T14:49:49.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disputing ‘market value’: the Bombay Improvement Trust and the reshaping of a speculative land market in early twentieth-century Bombay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2020

Shabnum Tejani Open the ORCID record for Shabnum Tejani [Opens in a new window]
Shabnum Tejani*
Affiliation:
Department of History, SOAS University of London, Thornaugh Street, LondonWC1H OXG, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Urban expansion in the early twentieth century had a profound impact on India's urban land economies. Historians argue that in this period, urban India went through an increasing marketization of land and that improvement trusts had a significant hand in accelerating land speculation. In the case of Bombay, we still understand little of the relationship between the activities of the Bombay Improvement Trust and rising land values. The article examines key legal disputes around compensation for land acquired by the Trust for public purpose before and after World War I. Such cases show how the Trust and the judiciary shaped changing expectations around what comprised ‘market value’ and consequently became deeply involved in Bombay's land economy. Where officials had earlier resisted valuations that they believed encouraged speculation, after the 1920s the resolution of disputes incorporated future value as a legitimate and necessary part of the economy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Urban History , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , August 2021 , pp. 572 - 589
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Maharashtra State Archives (MSA), Legal Department, Suits, Bombay B-1/1 1907–10, compilation no. 116 of 1907, Reference in the Matter of Merwanji Muncherji Cama and another vs. Government of Bombay; 9 Bombay Law Reporter (Bom LR) 1232 (1907), In re: Land Acquisition Act, 1894, In re: Government of Bombay and Merwanji Muncherji Cama.

2 ‘Land acquisition, railway goods depot’, Times of India, 28 Nov. 1906.

3 Kidambi, P., The Making of an Indian Metropolis: Colonial Governance and Public Culture in Bombay, 1890–1920 (Aldershot, 2007)Google Scholar.

4 Haila, A., Urban Land Rent: Singapore as a Property State (Oxford, 2016)Google Scholar.

5 Birla, R., Stages of Capital: Law, Culture and Market Governance in Late Colonial India (Durham, NC, 2009), ch. 4Google Scholar.

6 Bhattacharyya, D., ‘Interwar housing speculation and rent profiteering in colonial Calcutta’, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East (CSSAAME), 36 (2016), 465–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 480.

7 Vanaik, A., Possessing the City: Property and Politics in Delhi, 1911–1947 (Oxford, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Dossal, M., Theatre of Conflict, City of Hope: Mumbai 1600 to Present Times (New Delhi, 2010), 4–13Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., 34–6.

10 Ibid., 42–4, 72 passim.

11 Ibid., 108. On land acquisition in the early colonial state, see Bhattacharyya, D., ‘History of eminent domain in colonial thought and legal practice’, Economic and Political Weekly, 50 (2015), 45–53Google Scholar.

12 Dobbin, C., Urban Leadership in Western India: Politics and Communities in Bombay City, 1840–1885 (Oxford, 1972), ch. 1Google Scholar.

13 Chandavarkar, R., The Origins of Industrial Capitalism in India: Business Strategies and the Working Classes in Bombay 1900–1940 (Cambridge, 1994), ch. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Dossal, M., Imperial Designs and Indian Realities: The Planning of Bombay City, 1845–1875 (Delhi, 1991), ch. 6Google Scholar.

15 Dossal, Theatre of Conflict, 133.

16 Hazareesingh, S., The Colonial City and the Challenge of Modernity: Urban Hegemonies and Civic Contestations in Bombay City, 1900–1925 (Hyderabad, 2007), 16Google Scholar.

17 Chandavarkar, Origins, 175–7.

18 Hazareesingh, Colonial City, 23–5.

19 Edwardes, S.M., Census of India 1901, Bombay (Town and Islands), parts IV, V and VI, vols. 10 and 11 (Bombay, 1901)Google Scholar.

20 On the Bombay Improvement Trust, see Kidambi, Indian Metropolis, ch. 4; Hazareesingh, Colonial City, ch. 1; Dossal, Theatre of Conflict, ch. 7.

21 Kidambi, Indian Metropolis, 74–5. In Bombay city, the government of Bombay acquired land on behalf of the Improvement Trust: see F.G. Hartnell Anderson, Manual of Land Acquisition for the Presidency of Bombay (Bombay, 1918), India Office Records (IOR), British Library (BL), 1.

22 On schemes to develop Dadar and Matunga, see Rao, N., House, but No Garden: Apartment Living in Bombay's Suburbs, 1898–1964 (Minneapolis, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the Cuffe Parade, Backbay and Colaba reclamation projects, see Prakash, G., Mumbai Fables (Princeton, 2010), ch. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Webb, C.A. and Webb, N.A., Valuation of Real Property: A Guide to the Principles of Valuation of Land and Buildings, etc. for Various Purposes (London, 1937)Google Scholar.

24 Beverley, E.L., ‘Urbanist expansions: planner-technocrats, patrimonial ethics and state development in Hyderabad’, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 36 (2013), 375–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bhattacharyya, ‘Interwar housing speculation’, 469–70; Vanaik., A. ‘Representing commodified space: maps, leases, auctions and “narrations” of property in Delhi, c. 1900–47’, Historical Research, 88 (2015), 314–32Google Scholar. The Indian trusts were modelled on urban development projects in Britain such as the Glasgow Improvement Trust: see Hazareesingh, S., ‘Colonial modernism and the flawed paradigms of urban renewal: uneven development in Bombay, 1900–25’, Urban History, 28 (2001), 235–55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

25 Kidambi, Indian Metropolis, 88; Hazareesingh, ‘Colonial modernism’, 241.

26 Bhattacharyya, ‘Interwar housing speculation’, 469–70.

27 For use of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 elsewhere, see Johnson, D.A., ‘Land acquisition, landlessness, and the building of New Delhi’, Radical History Review, 108 (2010), 91–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Hartnell Anderson, Manual, 38.

29 These included three ex-officio trustees; seven elected trustees of whom four were elected by the Municipal Corporation, one by the Bombay Chamber of Commerce, one by the Port Trust of Bombay and one by the Bombay Millowners Association; and three trustees and a chairman nominated by the government of Bombay. See Rao, House, but No Garden, notes to ch. 1, n. 8, 248.

30 Hazareesingh, Colonial City, 31–2, Kidambi, Indian Metropolis, 84–5.

31 On the housing crisis created by the Trust, see Kidambi, P., ‘Housing the poor in a colonial city: the Bombay Improvement Trust, 1898–1918’, Studies in History, 25 (2001), 57–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Native Newspaper Reports for the Bombay Presidency (NNRBP), Gujarati, 28 Apr. 1901.

33 Hazareesingh, Colonial City, 43–4.

34 Bombay Development Committee (Hill) Report, 1913–14, IOR, BL.

35 Ibid., submission from Abdul Hoosein Adamji Peerbhoy, 22 Nov. 1913, p. 86.

36 ‘Rents in Bombay’, Times of India, 16 Aug. 1907. This is a point the chairman of the Trust himself attested to: Hazareesingh, Colonial City, 44.

37 NNRBP, Bombay Samachar, 2 Jun. 1903.

38 Ibid., H.P. Mody to the special officer to the Committee for the Development of Bombay, Hill Report, 125–7.

39 Ibid., 127.

40 NNRBP, Bombay Samachar, 21 Aug. 1902.

41 NNRBP, Jam-e-Jamshed, 23 Jan. 1903.

42 Hill Report, submission from Vasantrao Dabholkar, 28 Nov. 1913, 106–8.

43 Ibid. See too Kidambi, Indian Metropolis, 86–7.

44 Hill Report, Dabholkar submission, 108.

45 NNRBP Bombay Samachar, 30 Jun. 1903.

46 Gupta, M.N., Land Acquisition Acts and Principles of Valuation (Calcutta, 1939), 126–9Google Scholar.

47 Ibid., 132.

48 Ibid., 132–3.

49 Ibid., 135.

50 Ibid., 135–6.

51 Ibid., 136.

52 On the rental method and other methods of valuing land, see MSA, Public Works Department, file ‘Lands: Bombay’, vol. 333, compilation no. 50 of 1904 (1904–09); Kidambi, Indian Metropolis, 86–7.

53 The hypothetical method is also explained in 10 Bom LR (1908) 907, Appeal from Original Civil, Government of Bombay vs. Merwanji Muncherji Cama. For other disputes on the valuation of land acquired by the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in the first decade of the twentieth century, see Indian Law Reports (ILR) 33 Bom 483 (1909), The Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay, vs. Jalbhoy Ardeshir Sett and Another; ILR 34 Bom 618 (1910), In the matter of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, Government of Bombay, vs. Esufali Salebhai; ILR 34 Bom 486 (1910) In the matter of Land Acquisition Act. In the matter of Government and Sukhanand Gurumukhrai and Another.

54 9 Bom LR (1907) 1232, In re: Government of Bombay and Merwanji Cama, 1236.

55 Ibid.

56 Ibid., 1237.

57 Rao, House, but No Garden, 35.

58 ILR 29 Bom (1905) 565, Anandrav Vinayak vs. Secretary of State for India in Council and Another.

59 9 Bom LR (1907) 1236.

60 Ibid., 1246.

61 Gupta, Land Acquisition Acts, 138.

62 Ibid., 138–9.

63 Ibid.

64 Historians agree on this point. See Kidambi, Indian Metropolis, 87; and Rao, House, but No Garden, 33.

65 9 Bom LR (1907) 1251.

66 Ibid., 1281.

67 Ibid., 1274

68 Ibid., 1232.

69 The Port Trust, like the Improvement Trust, had the jurisdiction to acquire land for public purpose.

70 10 Bom LR 701 (1907), In re: Dhanjibhoy Bomanji.

71 Ibid., 705.

72 Ibid.

73 Ibid., 706.

74 Rao, House, but No Garden, 32–3.

75 Ibid., 34.

76 10 Bom LR 907 (1908), 908–9.

77 ILR Bom (1909) 325, In re: Land Acquisition Act cause in the matter of 1. Government of Bombay, 2. Karim Tar Mahomed.

78 Ibid.

79 Ibid., 328.

80 Ibid.

81 Ibid.

82 Tomlinson, B.R., The Economic History of Modern India from 1860 to the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge, 2013), 114–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 Mitchell, T., Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity (Berkeley, 2002), 73–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84 On the introduction of Dyarchy, see Legg, S., ‘Dyarchy: democracy, autocracy and the scalar sovereignty of interwar India’, CSSAAME, 36 (2016), 44–65Google Scholar.

85 Kidambi, Indian Metropolis, 112; Rao, House, but No Garden, 25–7.

86 Hazareesingh, Colonial City, 105; Caru, V., ‘Circumstantial adjustments: the colonial state, the nationalist movements and rent control legislation (Bombay, 1918–1928)’, Le Mouvement Social, 1 (2013), 81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Registration Department Bombay Presidency, Annual Reports for 1918 and 1919, IOR, BL.

88 ‘Housing in Bombay: III landlords and tenants’, P.B. Joshi, Times of India, 1 Aug. 1919.

89 ‘Rack-renting in Bombay: a protest meeting’, Times of India, 13 Mar. 1918.

90 ‘Housing in Bombay: the people's hardship’, Times of India, 12 Aug. 1919. Bania and Bhatia are caste names for Gujarati merchant, trading or money-lending communities. Marwaris are a trading caste from Rajasthan. Borahs are a Muslim trading community from Gujarat.

91 Ibid.

92 Report of the Rent Enquiry Committee (Bombay, 1939), vol. I, 31.

93 Ibid., Oral Evidence, vol. III, 9–10.

94 Ibid., vol. I, 31.

95 Ibid., 34–8.

96 City of Bombay Improvement Trust, Annual Report for 1921–22, Appendix O-2, Scheme 53, case 1, paras. 6–7, IOR, BL.

97 Ibid.

98 V/24/3481, IOR. The Registration Department's Annual Report indicated that the average values of immovable property in Bombay fell by 54.3 per cent in 1921, a slump which continued into the 1920s.

99 V/24/3482 IOR. Registration Department Annual Report for the Bombay Presidency, 1922.

100 Ibid., 1924.

101 25 Bom LR (1923) 1182, Government of Bombay vs. Merwan Moondigar Aga. There were a number of disputes that debated how to deal with rising land values after the war. See, for instance, 24 Bom LR (1922) 471, Government of Bombay vs. N.H. Moos; 26 Bom LR (1924) 227, Government of Bombay vs. Ismail Ahmed Hafiz Moosa; 28 Bom LR (1925) 714, Land Acquisition Officer, Bandra vs. Gulam Hussein Ahmad Gomajee.

102 Four rupees and four annas. An anna was one sixteenth of a rupee.

103 25 Bom LR (1923) 1183.

104 Ibid., 1186.

105 Ibid., 1187.

106 Ibid., 1188.

107 Ibid., 1189.

108 Ibid.

109 Ibid.

110 ‘Estate market, slump in Bombay and its causes’, Times of India, 21 Jul. 1924.

111 ‘The right to profiteer’, Times of India, 8 Feb. 1923.

112 ‘The land market in Bombay, possibilities of confidence re-appearing’, Times of India, 6 Apr. 1926.

113 Ibid.