Графични страници
PDF файл


of the malsoozar: since he retained his official allowances Lkcturk

« , /. 1V

and gains, after he had absorbed those of the old malgoozar. —

In the first place he retained the surplus revenue after Surplus


paying to Government the amount contracted for. I have

pointed out already that this source of profit, originally

yielding little, grew afterwards when the zemindar was

unchecked, to be a substantial item. The zemindar's Settlement

with Govern

settlement with Government was generally an annual one, ment but might be made for a term of years.2 The zemindar's settlement with the ryots was always annual.3 His settlement with Government was based upon the hus- The hustabood. tabood, a comparative statement of the value of the land, prepared by the canoongoes, and originally founded upon Todar Mull's investigations. For reasons already touched upon this was probably revised much less frequently than the zemindar's estimate for assessing his ryots. The original assessment upon the footing of the hustabood, as derived from Todar Mull's settlement, was called the assul toomar jumma; but in later times abwabs, or extra assessments, were incorporated with it, although it still bore the same name, and was treated as the original assessment.4 These abwabs were however kept separate in the canoongoes' accounts; and there were other abwabs imposed from time to time, after the assul jumma had ceased to be considered sufficiently elastic to include them. The zemindar having settlement thus settled with Government the amount of revenue upon m e ry° the footing now described, he proceeded just before the

1 Rouse's Dissertations, 295. Fifth Report, Vol I, 360. Orissa, Vol. II, 28. Land Tenure by a Civilian, 42, 59, 70. 'Land Tenure by a Civilian, 47. Fifth Report, Vol. I, 19. • Land Tenure by a Civilian, 65, 66. 4 Ib., 47, 59.

[blocks in formation]

rains to distribute this assessment amongst the cultivators. He was bound to demand from them only sufficient to meet the Government revenue and such allowances as were payable by the ryots. Even thus the assessment upon the ryots would be at higher rates than the assessment upon the zemindar; provided he was held bound, as in modern times he was, to bear himself the loss arising from any ordinary failure of crops and from outstanding loans, and to yield the stipulated amount of revenue notwithstanding. And in this way a door was opened for the zemindar's exactions by necessitating a difference between the ryot's and the zemindar's assessments. But he added also his own exactions, included under the head of sewaee,1 before distributing the burden of assessment amongst the cultivators. There were two modes in which the enhanced assessment was fixed according to Mr. Shore (afterwards Lord Teignmouth and Governor-General of India). One of these was to add the subsequent abwabs and the exactions by the zemindar (calculated at so much a month, or so much in the rupee,) to the assul or original rate, and then to distribute this according to the quantity and quality of land held by the ryots, or the estimated or actual crop. The other mode was to assess at a fixed rate for the beegah, whatever might be the crop, which rate included the chief items of exaction or extra assessment.2 The zemindar was however to some extent controlled in his assessment by custom; which required that the rates usually paid by the village should be adhered to, at least in form. Those rates were well known, and registers of them were kept by the putwarries and canoongoes in records called village and pergunnah reyTHE KHAMAR, LAND. 113


Modes of en-
hancing the
ryot's rent.



1 Land Tenure by a Civilian, 59. 'Fifth Report, Vol.1, 140.

bundees.1 Nevertheless, the zemindar ultimately contrived Lkcturk

to extract the main portion of his profit from the surplus of

his receipts beyond the jumma he paid. And in this he was still further assisted when he settled with Government for a term of years; and when consequently his yearly settlements with the ryots could not at all be expected to be at the same rates as he paid to Government.2 The rates were settled with the cultivators through the headman of the village in many cases; but there appear to have been cultivators who did not form part of any village organization, aad with these probably the zemindar could deal untrammelled, at least by the village reybundees.3

The zemindar's stipulated payment being in full discharge The khamar of the revenue of his district, and he being empowered in his capacity of Government representative to authorize the cultivation of waste land (khamar) or fallow (bunjer) within his district, the revenue derived from such land came to belong to him as part of the revenue of his zemindary. If he cultivated such land by himself or his servants, he took the whole of the benefit: if he permitted the villagers to cultivate, he took such revenue as was payable for it.4 The revenue for the khamar land when cultivated by others was generally received by the zemindar in kind and amounted to half the produce.' We thus see the primitive

1 Haringtoa's Analysis, Vol. III, 324. Land Tenure by a Civilian, 59.

'Orissa, Vol. I, 54, 55; Vol. II, 232.

» Ib., Vol. II, 232, 245.

4 Harington's Analysis, Vol. IlI, 340, 343, 363. Lind Tenure by a Civilian, 42, 60, 69. Patton's Asiatic Monarchies, 158. Orissa, Vol. I, 54, 55; Vol. II, 232. Rouse's Dissertations, 293, 294. Wilson's Glossary " khamar." Directions for Revenue Officers, 4.

• Fifth Report, Vol. I, 140. Harington's Analysis, Vol. IlI, 346, 422. Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 72.



Lkcture method of paying revenue reverted to when the primitive

1 conditions were restored: the cultivator would naturally

under such conditions—when tilling land whose productive qualities had not been experienced,—hesitate to contract for a money payment, but would prefer to divide the risk by paying in kind.

Remissions of We have seen that the headman of the village held a small portion of his land discharged of revenue, and the rest at a lower rate than the body of the villagers. And the village officers similarly in some cases held small portions of their land free of revenue. Such remissions of revenue are of the same nature as jageers, and this was a mode of remuneration extensively practised in Bengal and Behar.1 Consequently, we find the zemindar enjoying the same privilege of exemption from revenue of part of the land cultivated by himself; and of paying a reduced rate upon

Neej-jote and the rest of his land2 The land cultivated by him was called his khoodkasht, seer or neej-jote land: and the revenue remitted was called his seer nankar or nankar3 (subsistence); names which were also applied to the lands themselves in respect of which the remission was made: such lands are frequently spoken of as nankar lands, and sometimes language is used which would seem to imply that such lands are held by some peculiar tenure. I have, in thus describing the nankar or seer nankar as in reality a remission of revenue only, given what seems to me the result of the conflicting authorities; but as there is considerable variation amongst them, and as the point is one of some importance as showing the true position of

1 Fifth Report, Vol. I, 341. Baillie's Land Tax, xliv.
* Land Tenure by a Civilian, 60, 69.
'lb. Haringtou's Analysis, Vol. II, 65.


the zemindar, I shall shortly state the various opinions which Lkcturk
I have met with. It is a point of importance because, from —
the zemindar's possession of a portion of land within his
zemindary free of revenue, the inference has sometimes
been drawn that the whole soil of the zemindary is his;
and that he has, when letting out the rest, reserved this
portion for himself, in the same way as the lord of the
manor reserved his demesne lands. He is considered, from
this point of view, as paying revenue for the whole zemin-
dary, and not as exempt in respect of this particular
portion; as having been free to keep in his own hands, or
to let to others the whole; and as having chosen to let the
remainder, reserving a small portion for his own cultivation.
The possession of nankar land has therefore been relied
upon as a strong mark of proprietorship with respect to
the whole zemindary. Of course, this view is quite incon-
sistent with the account I have given, and indeed is only
an inference from the fact of direct possession; none of the
authorities give the smallest support to this particular
inference, and this will be more clearly brought out by a
comparison of them. Mr. Shore speaks of nankar as "a
portion of the land or its produce assigned to the zemindar
for his immediate use and subsistence:'" and again as "an
established provision under the name of nankar, included
under the head of muzkoorat, after completing his annual
engagements for the revenue. It was not sufficient for his
subsistence; and it was still less a fund for the accumula-
tion of property, nor can the permanent appropriation of
the fund itself be reconciled to the idea of a fluctuating
office."2 In these passages the two different modes of pro-

1 Htirington's Analysis, Vol. III, 234.
• lb., 239.

« ПредишнаНапред »