QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE REVENUE SYSTEM OF INDIA. 1. Question. By what tenure is land held in the provinces with which you are acquainted? Answer. In the provinces of Bengal, Behar, and part of Orissa (Midnapoor), land is now held by a class of persons called Zamindars i. e. landholders), who are entitled to perpetual hereditary possession, on condition of paying to government a certain revenue, fixed on their respective lands. This is termed the Zamindary system. But in the ceded and conquered provinces belonging to the Presidency of Fort William, no fixed agreement has yet been made with the Zamindars as to the amount of assessment. Consequently their estates are not in their own hands, but under the immediate management of government, and subject to fresh assessments from time to time at its discretion. In the Madras Presidency, the revenue is for the greater part, collected directly from the cultivators (called Ryots), by the government revenue officers, according to the rate fixed on the different descriptions of land in various situations. These cultivators may retain possession as long as they pay the revenue demanded from them. 4 2. Q. By what tenure was land held under the former government? A. Under the Mohammedan government, lands were held by hereditary right on the Zamindary system (though the revenue was sometimes arbitrarily increased); and the Zamindars were considered as having a right to their respective estates, so long as they paid the public revenue. They were at the same time responsible for any breach of the peace committed within the limits of their estates. In this manner many estates. some of which can yet be referred to, such as Vishnupoor, Nuddea, &c., continued in the same family for several centuries. 3. Q. Do persons of all religious sects hold by the same tenure ? A. No religious or other distinctions were observed under the former government in regard to the holding of land; at present, Europeans are interdicted by law from becoming proprietors of land, except within the jurisdiction of the British courts of law at the three presidencies, Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. 4. Q. Are the estates most usually large or small? A. In the Bengal presidency the estates are many of them considerable, and there are many others of various smaller dimensions; but in the Madras presidency, where the revenue is collected directly from the cultivators, the district is generally divided into small farms. 5. Q. Do the proprietors cultivate their own estates, or let them to tenants? A. To the best of my knowledge, almost all the land in the Bengal presidency is let out by the proprietors in farms, on a larger or smaller scale. 6. Q. On what terms are the farms rented? A. The farms are frequently rented by the Zamindar himself to cultivators, often on lease, for payment of a certain fixed rent, and frequently the Zamindar lets the whole, or a great part of his Zamindary to respectable individuals, who realize the rents from the cultivators according to the contracts previously made with them by the Zamindars, or subsequently by these middlemen. 7. Q. Does the ordinary rate of rent seem to press severely on the tenants? A. It is considered in theory that the cultivator pays half the produce to the landholder, out of which half, 10-11ths or 9-10ths constitute the revenue paid to Government, and 1-10th or 1-11th the net rent of the landholder. This half of the produce is a very heavy demand upon the cultivator, after he has borne the whole expense of seed and labour; but in practice, under the permanent settlement since 1793, the landholders have adopted every measure to raise the rents by means of the power put into their hands. 8. Q. Under the former government had the cultivator any right in the soil to cultivate in perpetuity on paying a fixed rent not subject to be increased? A. In former times Khud-Kasht Ryots (i. e. cultivators of the lands of their own village) were considered as having an absolute right to continue the possession of their lands in perpetuity on payment of a certain fixed rent, not liable to be increased. But under an arbitrary government, without any regular administration of justice, their acknowledged rights were often trampled upon. From a reference to the laws and the histories of the country, I believe that lands in India were individual property in ancient times. The right of property seems, however, to have been violated by the Mohammedan conquerors in practice; and when the British power succeeded that of the Mohammedans, the former naturally adopted and followed up the system which was found to be in force, and they established it both in theory and practice. 9. Q. Are the tenants now subjected to frequent increase of rent? A. At the time when the permanent settlement was fixed in Bengal (1793), government recognized the Zamindars (landholders) as having alone an unqualified proprietary right in the soil, but no such rights as belonging to the cultivators (Ryots). (Vide Regs. I and VIII of 1793, the foundation of the perpetual settlement.) But by Art. 2, S. 60 of Reg. VIII of 1793, government declared, that no one should cancel the Pattahs (i. e., the title deeds), fixing the rates of payments for the lands of the Khud-Kasht Ryots (peasants cultivating the lands of their own village), "except upon proof that they had been obtained by collusion," or "that the rents paid by them within the last three years had been below the Nirkh-bundee (general rate) of the Purgannah," (particular part of the district where the land is situated) or "that they had obtained collusive deductions," or "upon a general measurement of the Purgannah for the purpose of equalizing and correcting the assessment." In practice, however, under one or other of the preceding four conditions, the landholders (Zamindars), through their local influence and intrigues, easily succeeded in completely setting aside the rights, even of the Khud-Kasht cultivators, and increased their rents. 10. Q. In what manner was the revenue assessed by Government upon each estate, and upon what principle at the time of the permanent settlement? A. In the province of Bengal at the time of the permanent settlement, (in 1793) the amount of the revenue which had been paid on each estate (Zamindari) in the preceding year was taken as a standard of assessment, subject to certain modifications. Estates (Taaluks) which had paid a revenue directly to Government for the twelve years previous without fluctuation, were to be assessed at that rate, and the principle of that assessment was considered to be nearly one-half of the gross produce. In Behar and other places the gross amount of the rents arising from an estate was fixed upon as the rate of government assessment, allowing, however, a deduction of ten per cent. to the landholder (Zamindar), in the name of proprietor's dues (Malikanah), and also something for the expense of collecting the rents, &c. In the upper provinces attached to the Bengal presidency, as before observed, no settlement has yet been concluded with the Zamindars (landholders). The estates (Zamindaris) are sometimes let out by government to the highest bidder, to farmers of revenue on leases of a few years, and in other cases the rents are collected from the cultivators by the government officers. 11. Q. On what principle do the proprietors of land regulate the rate of rent paid by the tenants? A. The different fields or plots of ground on an estate are classed into 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quality, and certain rates per bigah (a wellknown land measure in India) are affixed to them respectively, agreeable to the established rates in the district. These rates are considered as a standard in settling the rent to be paid by the cultivators. But as the precise quality of land is always liable to dispute, and fields may be classed in the first, second, third, or fourth quality according to the discretion of the Zamindars or government surveyors, and the measurement is also liable to variation through the ignorance, ill-will, or intentional errors of the measurers-there is in practice no fixed standard to afford security to the cultivators for the rate or amount of rent demandable from them, although such a standard is laid down in theory. 12. Q. Is the rent any specific proportion of the gross produce of the land? A. In theory the rent is estimated, as I before observed, at half the gross produce of the land; it is often increased however much beyond that amount by various means; but in places peculiarly subject to have the crops destroyed by sudden inundation, or any other casualty, villagers cultivate generally on condition of receiving half the gross produce and delivering the other half to the landlord (Zamindar). 13. Q. Is the rent paid in money, in agricultural produce, or in labour? A. The rent is generally paid in money, except under peculiar circumstances, when the agreement is to pay half the gross produce as rent. And it is sometimes paid by labour, when some of the villagers enter the service of the landlord (Zamindar) on condition of holding certain lands in lieu of their services. 14. Q. If in money or produce, at what period of the year, and in what proportion? A. The money rent is usually paid by monthly instalments, the heaviest payments being made when the harvest is realized: and the payment in produce is of course exclusively at that season. 15. Q. Is the revenue in many instances collected by government directly from the cultivators, and not from the proprietors, or any set of middlemen? A. Yes; very commonly in the Madras presidency, and sometimes in the ceded and conquered upper provinces, as above observed (Question 10). Also when lands advertised for sale, in order to realize arrears of revenue, do not find purchasers, they may remain temporarily in the hands of government. 16. Q. In the event of a proprietor or cultivator falling into arrear in his instalments of revenue, what means are adopted by the government for realizing it? A. Various modes have been adopted, but the usual mode now followed, with respect to landholders (Zamindars) is, that at the expiration of every third month of the revenue year, should any balance of revenue remain unpaid, the estate in arrear may be advertised for sale. 17. Q. Is the person of the proprietor liable to be arrested for the revenue? A. Should the arrear of revenue due not be realized by the sale of the estate, the person of the proprietor may be seized. 18. Q. What proportion of the revenue may fall into arrear in one year, or what proportion of the land may be subject to legal process by the public authorities for its recovery? A. Perhaps two-fifths, or one-half of the whole revenue are usually in arrear, on an average, taking the whole year round, and more than one-half of the estates are advertised for sale every year, but comparatively few are actually sold, as many of the proprietors contrive, when pressed by necessity, to raise the money by loan or otherwise. |