The ultimate aim of any modern corporate is growth with profit maximization. Growth is the first and foremost characteristic of nature and its products which include modern societies with all their industrial, agricultural and service sectors and above all the research organizations to cater to the needs of primary, secondary and tertiary sectors. Governed by the laws of the universe and nature, societies, markets and above all human life are in the constant churn of development in the realm of creativity and innovativeness.

This paper attempts to study the changes in the pattern of land distribution in India and particularly in Orissa during the period 1970-71 to 1995-96. The findings of this study reveal that the marginal and semi-medium farmers are gaining in importance at the expense of small, medium and large farmers owning operated holdings in the country. The author further states that land reform has succeeded in Orissa in reducing the concentration of large holdings, but the main beneficiaries are middle-scale farmers. This paper suggests that there should be proper distribution of surplus land among the landless following strict implementation of the ceiling laws, since increasing landlessness causes a serious problem for the ruling class and the society at large. The author believes that as our agrarian institutions are biased to large-scale farmers, there is necessity to gear these institutions towards the marginal and small farmers, who have been increasing continuously.

Considering the poor agrarian economy of India, land is believed to be the most important asset of the farmers. Having the characteristics of maintaining its capital value and offering more security, the changes in land holding status reflect more accurately than the other indices like relative prosperity or destitution, political power and prestige and economic hegemony of various classes of Indian farmers in the society.Of the six aspects of agrarian structure, the first four deal with the quantitative aspects and the latter two are concerned with the qualitative aspects. Again within the first four aspects, tenure type deals with tenancy and the rest deals with land distribution.

While discussing land distribution, inequality of land distribution is an important determinant of overall inequality in the economy. The impression given by evidence on land is that there is strong proof of expropriation, but inequality in land ownership does not appear to have increased. There are a number of possible ways of reconciling this apparent contradiction between a steady level of inequality in the data and well-documented reports of alienation. Firstly, people displaced may have become landless, and therefore be omitted from the agricultural census data. However, what data is available on landlessness does not appear to confirm this. It is possible that some of the new landless may have migrated outside the state in search of work. Secondly, tribal people who have been displaced may have become illegal occupants of other lands.