VI. pykes (or revenue police), athprohoris (eight-watch men)' LECTURE killadars (commanders of forts or garrisons), and others. In the Burdwan zemindary there were in recent times Pykes. about 2,400 pykes supported in this way, and employed under the orders of tannahdars in police duties: besides 19,000 zemindary pykes for revenue duties. The duties of these holders of chakeran lands were of three classes,— first, personal to the zemindar, as to collect his rents and to guard or escort treasure from the mofussil; second, common to the village community, as to keep watch at night, and to guard the harvests; and third, police duties, as to preserve the peace, and apprehend offenders under the tannahdar's orders, to report on crimes, to convey the public money to the sudder treasury and to serve as guides to travellers." It is obvious that all these duties were duties which in Hindoo times were performed by village servants, or the other servants of Government who were remunerated by revenue-free land. The service lands in Beerbhoom and Hooghly were hereditary but impartible. Some of these service tenures had a feudal stamp; such Services. as holding upon the service of bearing the sword of State, carrying the king's shield, umbrella or slippers.? Similar to the last class of revenue-free holdings are the Ghatwals. ghatwallee tenures (ghatwallah pass-keeper) granted on 'Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 34. 'Orissa, Vol. II, 216. 'Joykissen Mookerjee v. Collector of East Burdwan, 10 Moore's I. A., 16, at p. 18. 4 Ib., 43. Fifth Report, Vol. II, 12, 13. "Baillie's Land Tax, lxx. Hurlal Singh v. Jorawun Singh, 6 Sel. Rep., 169. 'Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 34. LECTURE Power to resume grant. condition of guarding the passes; which is specified as one of the purposes to which the khiraj may be applied.' These tenures are said to have originated in Beerbhoom, two-thirds of which was originally granted by Jaffier Khan, free of revenue, to Assidullah, an Afghan or Patan, and his tribe on condition of his guarding the frontier against the Hindoos of Jharcund. This grant was resumed by Cossim Ali, and the land included in the original grant was assessed." These tenures were, like the chakeran tenures, sometimes revenue free, and sometimes charged only with a nominal or reduced revenue. But they were all on condition of service. Also like the chakeran tenures of Beerbhoom and Hooghly the ghatwallee tenures in the same districts are impartible, and descend to the oldest or most capable member of the family: but the rest of the family are entitled to maintenance thereout.5 And generally they are said to be now hereditary.6 The question whether these tenures could be resumed has been much discussed. It is said that if the grant was a grant of land free of revenue, and not merely a grant of revenue, it could never be resumed; since it would be what is known in Mahomedan law as wukf: and if all the purposes Baillie's Land Tax, lxv. Ib. Fifth Report, Vol. I, 262, 294, 295. Rajah Lilanund Singh Bahadoor v. Government of Bengal, 6 Moore's I. A., 101, at p. 122. Fifth Report, Vol. I, 262, 295. * Rajah Lilanund Singh Bahadoor v. The Government, 2 B. L. R., A. C., 114, at p. 122. 5 Baillie's Land Tax, Ixx. Hurlal Singh v. Jorawun Singh, 6 Sel. Rep., 169. 6 Rajah Lilanund Singh Bahadoor v. The Government, 2 B. L. R., A. C., 114, at p. 122. VI. for which it was set apart failed, its produce must by LECTURE Mahomedan law be applied for the benefit of the poor: but if the grant was only of revenue the grantor need not renew the grant on a vacancy; and so might resume.' The latter alternative would seem to apply whether the grant of revenue was made by way of remission to those already entitled to the land or by way of assignment. And if the Government granted the land as waste or unoccupied land, it would follow that, although the land could not then be taken back, the remission of revenue might be discontinued, and the land assessed as was done by Cossim Ali. I shall hereafter refer more fully to the cases upon this subject. I may here mention two: in one it was held that in Kurruckpore, which is adjacent to Beerbhoom, the Government having dispensed with the services of the ghatwals, and taken an increased revenue from the zemindar, still the ghatwals could not be dispossessed from their lands by an auction-purchaser from the zemindar. This agrees with what is above suggested, since the Government resumed the revenue, but the ghatwals, it was held, could not be dispossessed, they being apparently in actual occupation of the land. It has further been held that, as the appointment of ghatwals rested with the zemindar, he need not appoint upon a vacancy. In the other case above referred to it was held, that where the tenure is not hereditary, but has been held for a long period on payment of a quit rent and on the performance of certain services, the zemindar having the right to appoint and dismiss the ghatwals, the tenure ' Baillie's Land Tax, lxvi, lxvii, lxviii, lxx. * Rajah Lilanund Singh Bahadoor v. Thakoor Munorunjun Singh, 13 B. L. R., 124. 'Mahdub Hossein v. Patasu Kumari, 1 B. L. R., A. C., 120. LECTURE Alienations of revenue by zemindars. ceased when from new arrangements made by Government with respect to the police the services became impracticable and unnecessary.' In the case in question the ghatwals were in possession and the zemindar sued for possession. It will be seen from the foregoing account that assignments of revenue existed to a considerable extent under Mahomedan rule. Land, in respect of which the whole revenue was assigned, and which consequently paid no revenue into the khalsa, was called lakhiraj or bazee zemeen." The assignments we have at present noticed were however only part of the alienations of revenue. We have already seen that certain deductions were allowed in the zemindary accounts with Government for various religious and charitable purposes. Out of these and similar items there grew ultimately very large deductions from the revenue, which were called in Behar kharidge jumma.3 It is obvious that the State alone could authorize assignments and alienations of the revenue; and, as we have seen, even the sovereign could only do so under certain limitations. Nevertheless, in the decay of Mahomedan rule, many other alienations were made besides those directly sanctioned by the State. But at first these unauthorised alienations were generally submitted to the sovereign for approval, and were then registered in the tun-dufter at Delhi. Thus the great chiefs and dependent princes sometimes made grants of revenue, and they generally sought for 'Rajah Neelanund Singh v. Nusseeb Singh, 6 W. R., 80. Rajah Lilanund Singh v. Kunhya Lall, 17 W. R., 315. Fifth Report, Vol. I, 36, 341, 343. Harington's Analysis, Vol. II, 65. • Fifth Report, Vol. II, 168. Land Tenure by a Civilian, 89. GRANTS OF REVENUE BY THE ZEMINDARS. 213 these the confirmation of the State. Again, when the zemindars had grown to be responsible contractors for the revenue, and the contract with them had come to be considered a separate matter from their assessments upon the ryots, they sometimes alienated portions of the revenue as derived from the ryots, but this did not affect their liability to the State; since the State could not be bound by such alienations unless afterwards confirmed. Nevertheless, being good against the zemindar, these assignments of revenue were not interfered with during the period of the zemindar's tenure. The zemindars also as representatives of Government made such alienations, but frequently to an extent far beyond their legitimate authority. Such remissions or assignments of revenue, made by the officers of Government, were called maafee in Behar, and the same term was applied to the lands held on service tenures with the benefit of such remissions; and grants for charitable purposes by such officers, including the zemindar in his official capacity, were called kheyrat.5 LECTURE the muzkoorat. And it was in this capacity that the small alienations Allowances in already referred to were allowed to the zemindar in the muzkoorat. These were chiefly for religious or charitable purposes, and many of them had been similarly allowed in Hindoo times. They appeared in the zemindar's accounts Steele's Deccan Castes, 206. Land Tenure by a Civilian, 118. Mahomed Akil v. Asadunnissa Bibee, 9 W. R., 1; Mukhurbanoo Deo v. Kostoora Koonwaree, 5 W. R., 215; Rungololl Deo v. Deputy Commissioner of Beerbhoom, Marsh., 117; W. R., F. B., 34, s. c. 239. Rickards' History of India, Vol. II, 233. Colebrooke's Supplement, |