« ПредишнаНапред »
THE STATE SHARE OF THE PRODUCE.
village officers had to be paid ; that is the deduction had to be made for muzkoorat, including nankar, and amounting theoretically to one-tenth. These deductions, as already pointed out, were to meet the whole cost of collection.' Mr. Shore gives two different opinions : his earlier opinion is that Government took one-third, but his later opinion puts the Government share at from one-half to three-fifths.3 Mr. Elphinstone says one-third is a moderate assessment, and that the full share is one-half.* Mr. Grant says the proportion taken was one-fourth, which he considers moderate. It is said that in the havillies, that is the lands under direct Government management, the State share was two-fifths of the gross produce of paddy (or nunjah) lands, which was taken in kind; and out of this share payments were made to village servants, charitable and religious purposes and public works: that a lower rate was charged on dry grain (punjah) and taken in money, but varying with the produce; and that a fixed money rent was taken on lands yielding the best kind of produce and on garden lands, and this rate was lower than that for the punjah lands. In the Madras Presidency, except Malabar and Canara, the Government share is stated to have been from two-fifths to three-fifths of the gross produce of paddy land, this assessment being paid in kind after certain deductions made before the grain was threshed. The assessment for dry grain in the same districts was paid
Fifth Report, Vol. I, 19, 362, 367.
in cash at a fixed rate or varying with the produce. In the LECTURE Northern Circars the ryot is stated to have retained only one-sixth, or at most one-fifth, under Mahomedan rule:: but in Canara half,' and in Malabar two-thirds.* In Dindigul, after deducting 64 per cent. for the village officers, the gross produce was divided equally between the cultivator and the State.5
It is evident that no general statement as to the proportion taken by the State can be hazarded; the rate varying from the moderate assessments of Hindoo times to the extreme Mahomedan claim of from one-half to three-fifths. In Behar many villages were assessed at half or even nine-. sixteenths of the gross produce, paid in kind on the buttai principle. On the whole, we come to the conclusion that the proportion taken by the Mahomedans was in later times very much greater than the original Hindoo rate, and that it everywhere tended to increase, and in some parts it increased until the cultivators were left with the barest possible subsistence, which the greed of rulers and zemindars was still eager to diminish. Under such circumstances the value of the ryot's holding was scarcely appreciable, and the only valuable right in the land was the right to receive the revenue; a right of which the zemindar, as the result of the struggle between himself and the State, retained the main benefit.
Fifth Report, Vol. II, 571, 699.
THE PAYMENT OF REVENUE: ASSIGNMENTS OF
Payment of revenue-Payment originally in kind-Mode of ascertaining share to
be paid-Payment in kind fell into disuse—Remedies for non-paymentApplication of the revenue-Jageers-Lakhiraj-Milk-Practice of assigning revenue very ancient-Growth of jageers- These grants usually of revenge and not of land-Zemindar's rights in jageer lands-Milk and muddud-mash grants-Altumghas-Jageers-Purposes for which jageers were granted—The jageer now hereditary and alienable-The conditional jageer-The unconditional jageer-Yetool-Powers and liabilities of the jageerdar-Dues to zemindars and the State—The Nizam's and Lord Clive's jageers—Tunkas—The sunnud-Seyurghal grants-Ayma grants-Malgoozary aymas-Enams and mauniums-Chakeran grants-Pykes-Services-Ghatwals-Power to resume grant-Alienations of revenue by zemindars--Allowances in the muzkooratDewusthan-Zemindars made very extensive alienations of revenue-Khewut -Rights in land-Express law-Custom - The Hindoo system one of joint property-Want of market for land and of marketable value_ The soil itself not claimed by any one--The sovereign's claim to the soil-The zemindar's
claim to the soil—The cultivator's claim to the soil. Payment of We have now to consider the mode in which the revenue revenue.
was paid and the means of enforcing payment. This, with some description of the rights arising out of the distribution and application of the revenue, will conclude my account of the Mahomedan period.
We have seen that Akbar's attempt to substitute a ginally in kind.
money payment for a payment in kind was not universally successful; and it was particularly in Bengal that it obtained only a partial acceptance. The revenue long continued, and to the present time still continues in many parts, to be paid in kind by the cultivator. But when the zemindar was employed, it was his duty to convert the
share of the State into money: and, when a contract for Lecture revenue was made with him, it was made in money.' This was, as we have seen, estimated upon an assul or original rate, primarily intended to apply to the cultivators direct, which had been determined in the modes I have before described, modes which come under the general description of nussuk or valuation The ryots, as I have said, long continued to pay in Mode of ascer
taining share kind. And they continued also, as in Behar in modern to be paid. times, to pay on the buttai system, rendering half the gross produce in kind. There were several modes in which the division was made, whatever the shares might be in which the produce was divided. In the method called agore or lang buttai, the crops were divided when on the threshing-floor; while in that called khet buttai, a portion of the field was measured off, and its produce allotted as the Government share. Again, when a valuation or estimate of the growing crop was made it was called kunkoot or danabundi. Sometimes this valuation was made by cutting a portion when ripe, threshing and weighing it, and forming an estimate thereupon. These were all ancient methods which have continued to be practised.* But the equal division of the actual crop between zemindar and ryot was at one time more common than at present. The practice still prevails in the zemin
"Harington's Analysis, Vol. III, 323. · Fifth Report, Vol. I, 20. • Ayeen Akbery, Vol. I, 381 ; Vol. II, 9. * Ib., Vol. I, 377 to 379. Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 73. s Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 73. Harington's Analysis, Vol. III, 324.
Payment in kind fell into disuse.
LECTURE dar's khamar lands, that is, lands originally waste and
brought into cultivation under his auspices."
The method of payment in kind was early considered oppressive to the ryots, as well as prejudicial to Government.? It fell gradually into disuse; and it is no doubt now more common in Bengal for the ryot to pay in
money, although the other method still survives. Remedies for When the payment was in kind, the Government retained non-payment.
a lien upon the crop, and the cultivator was not allowed to cut or remove it until the Government claim was satisfied. When a money payment was contracted for, the remedy for non-payment was imprisonment;5 or, as we have seen in the case of the zemindar, forfeiture or sale. The remedy by sale appears not to have prevailed in some parts of the country; and to have been sparingly practised in all parts. One reason was that land, at least the ryot's interest in it, was scarcely saleable, having hardly any appreciable value. But sale for arrears of revenue is stated to have been in use to some extent in Orissa and all over Bengal; and it is suggested that this practice may have given rise to the power of alienation. The method practised was that the holder of the interest to be sold purported to sell voluntarily in order to enable him to pay
1 Fifth Report, Vol. I, 140, 164. Harington's Analysis, Vol. II, 65; Vol. III, 422. Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 73.
· Fifth Report, Vol. II, 25.
3 Ib., Vol. I, 140. Harington's Analysis, Vol. III, 422. Land Tenure by a Civilian, 79. The Great Rent Case, B. L. R., Supp. Vol., 254.
• Thomason's Selections, 128, 184.
5 Orissa, Vol. II, 237. Evidence of Mr. Alexander before the Select Committee of the House of Commons (1832), 1533.
Harington's Analysis, Vol. III, 306.