IV.

LECTURE method of paying revenue reverted to when the primitive 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

revenue.

nankar.

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 land. The land cultivated by him was called his khoodkasht, seer or neej-jote land: and the revenue remitted was called his seer nankar or nankar (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

' Fifth Report, Vol. I, 341. Baillie's Land Tax, xliv.

* Land Tenure by a Civilian, 60, 69.

3 Ib. Harington's Analysis, Vol. II, 65.

the zemindar, I shall shortly state the various opinions which
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." In these passages the two different modes of pro-
'Harington's Analysis, Vol. III, 234.
Ib., 239.

2

LECTURE

IV.

IV.

LECTURE Viding for the nankar are referred to; in the one case a remission of revenue of the zemindar's own land being adopted; and in the other a deduction from the entire revenue payable. In an appendix to Mr. Shore's minute, the answers of some native authorities to questions put to them are inserted. In one of these it is said that "the principal zemindars received tithes and jageers according to their rank; whilst those of an inferior degree, in the event of their being obedient to the orders of Government, attentive to the improvement of their lands, and punctual in the payment of their revenues, received nankar proportionate to their exigencies; besides which they had no other allowance. The nankar was deducted from the revenue payable to Government. Afterwards, on the decline of the Empire, villages were granted for nankar in lieu of money." I have already pointed out that a jageer is essentially of the same character as nankar. The passage quoted refers to Behar, where jageers were more common, but where the zemindars seem originally to have received nankar in the shape of a deduction from the gross revenue; while in Bengal the other was the more usual mode of providing for the nankar. This authority treats nankar as a reward for the faithful performance of duties, the amount being regulated by the merit displayed by the zemindar, as well as by the extent of his zemindary. The Royroyan says that "the zemindars of the Soubah of Behar were allowed nankar lands and villages; dustoorat and malikhana in money, at the rate of from five to ten per cent. When the amount exceeded or fell short of these proportions, there

always existed some special reason for the deviation." And he speaks of these allowances as received "as the rights of proprietorship," and not for services rendered. Mr. Grant says that the zemindars have "certain specific allotments of landed property called nankar, or means of subsistence, included in their respective jurisdictions; such property being always of small comparative extent, seldom more than one-twentieth part of the whole zemindary, when rightfully held, and invariably annexed to the patent office of zemindar." This he considers to be a reward for the services performed by the zemindar, other than that of collecting the revenue, for which he says the zemindar received a russoom or commission of five per cent. deducted from the gross revenue. The result of these authorities is that nankar was a remuneration to the zemindar for the performance of his duties, and that it was originally deducted or remitted from the revenue; and, from the analogy of the desmookh's and headman's emoluments, and from the nature of the case, we may fairly infer, as is distinctly alleged by one authority, that the land as to which the revenue was remitted was land in the occupation of the zemindar; and that when he had no land of his own, the ryots were not dispossessed to furnish him with land, but a deduction from the revenue was allowed instead. This is further confirmed by the fact that the zemindars, when displaced or ejected, in some cases are said to have retained, and in other cases to have lost, their nankar :

' Harington's Analysis, Vol. III, 343.

' Ib., 344.

* Ib., 361.

Fifth Report, Vol. I, 360, 467, 475.

' Ib., Vol. II, 155. Colebrooke's Supplement, 239.

Land Tenure by a Civilian, 60, 69.

LECTURE

IV.

LECTURE
IV.

Extent of nankar.

they would naturally retain the land which yielded their nankar when it was their own land, but they would have to pay revenue; and this seems to be the explanation of the apparent conflict as to the loss of nankar on expulsion.

2

The nankar lands were the same as the saverums of the Northern Circars; and were dispersed in some cases through the zemindary, as was the case with the similar holdings by the predecessors of the zemindars. Sometimes the land was that immediately surrounding the zemindar's house. And sometimes it consisted of lands adapted for special crops, and supplying in the aggregate the chief requisites of life: thus the zemindar sometimes had one piece of revenue-free land for his rice, another for pasture, and so on for other products. Of his rights to fisheries and water I shall speak immediately. The amount of his nankar is variously estimated at from one to ten per cent.; but the better opinion seems to be that the nankar originally amounted to about five per cent. on the gross revenue; and the other allowances, by way of deduction from the revenue, to another five per cent.5 Besides these allowances there were certain deductions for expenses of collection, of which I shall speak hereafter. The zemindars as usual encroached upon the State in respect of their emoluments, and ultimately contrived to appropriate the

1 Fifth Report, Vol. 11, 7.

2 Ib., 7, 155.

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

Patton's Asiatic Monarchies, 157.

Rouse's Dissertations, 295. Baillie's Land Tax, xli. Harington's Analysis, Vol. II, 234; Vol. III, 234, 239, 244, 343, 344. Orissa, Vol. I, 54, 55; Vol. II, 232. Great Rent Case, B. L. R., Sup. Vol., 211. Fifth Report, Vol. I, 18, 157, 360, 475.