etc.

66

system (putting aside exceptional cases of local Zamindārs and Chiefs), the Government officers allow no "middleman," but deal with each raiyat direct. The holdings are surveyed in unalterable blocks or compartments, each is assessed on its own merits, and each holder has to pay his own separate revenue. The occupier, though he may relinquish his privilege, is permanent occupant" as long as he makes no default; but Government remains the owner. The only general exception is where the land has been recognised as "inām "—that is, is held on one of the many forms of exemption from revenue-payment, for service, charitable, or religious purposes, The holders of "inām "always own the land ;* so that if a Staterent or revenue is not leviable (or if only some fixed annual fee is taken, which does not materially alter the case), Government has no further interest, as landlord, in the holding-the land is "alienated." In all other cases, the ordinary villages of raiyats. under their Patel or headman, are "Government villages." When, therefore, in Gujarāt there were certain estates or overlord interests which were not "alienated " lands, and yet could not be treated exactly like "Government villages," or groups of such, every difference as to the mode in which the particular estate was dealt with-whether it was subjected to survey and assessment or not; whether the assessment was in the lump, or regularly made from field to field; whether the Governinent could interfere to manage the estate so as to free it from debt; whether it introduced village-accountants or not-gave ground for reckoning a different form of tenure to be shown in the revenue-records. But they were still regarded as--in some sense-" Government lands," because they paid revenue to the Treasury. Had these estates been in the N. W. Provinces, they would have at once been demarcated en bloc, and only such interior survey of villages made as was necessary; the revenue would have been assessed uniformly in one sum for the whole, on the basis of a certain proportion of the calculated total rental profits: the chief would have signed an engagement as "landlord," and would have been so recorded. If there were sub-shares, the co-sharers would have been protected by record, as to the extent and locale of each share, and the proportion of the revenue-total each was liable for.†

In Bombay the earlier idea that the Talukdārs were temporary leaseholders of Government lands had a great influence. It was partly due to the designation given by the Moslem rulers, expressive of the fact that the

* It would take me away from the object of this paper to explain why this is so: for in Bengal and the N. W. Provinces it by no means always happened that the enjoyer of The revenue-privilege was also owner of the land, though he became so, by gradual growth, in certain instances.

+ When (as usually in Gujarat) the original estate had been actually partitioned into a number of shares con-isting each of a single village, and even each village had its own body of sub-sharers, it would have been (in the N.W. Provinces) a question of fact whether any principal chief retained a general title over the whole estate; if he had, he would have been landlord, and a "sub-settlement" would have been made with the villages, showing what each was to pay to the State and to the Tālukdār. If such overlord right appeared rather shadowy, the Tālukdār might have received a certain cash allowanceso much per cent. of the Revenue - but the villages would have been treated as so many independent joint-bodies, in direct relation, as joint-proprietors and revenue-payers, with the State.

estates were in a state of dependence (ta'alluq). But there was another reason. There is a certain ambiguity which has always attached to the use of the term "lease" in India: it may signify a legal document by which a "tenant" is empowered to hold land; but it is also commonly used to signify an engagement to pay the land-revenue for a certain tract of land, which is entered into by the person who "holds the settlement," as the phrase is. Wherever that person is a contractor only, then the tenure is analogous (at any rate) to a leasehold under Government: but where (as in most cases) the person who engages for the revenue is the (de facto) owner of the land, "lease" simply means the revenue-engagement for the period of settlement; it has no effect on, or reference to, the landholder's right or interest in the soil.

It happened that, in Gujarat, the different classes of Talukdar, Mewāsi, and Kasbāti, etc., were under various circumstances differently treated.* When the Hon. Mountstuart Elphinstone became Governor, he had some familiarity with the Bengal provinces: and under his orders in 1821-24 the distinctions alluded to were abolished; the compulsorily introduced village accountants were withdrawn, and the fact that the Talukdārs, Mewāsi Chiefs, etc., were proprietors was recognised. But it was still the custom to make the Talukdārs sign "leases" (ie., revenue-engagements) for the payments they had to make. And these, moreover, were assessed at twothirds of the "assets" or landlord-share of the produce.† For some 30 years the payments underwent no change: but when in 1853 the system of "survey-settlement" became established and put in practice, the old feeling that such lands, not being "inām" or "alienated," must be "Government" lands liable to detailed survey and assessment, revived. I should explain that the leases spoken of-though for some years they did not increase the demand-were only issued for a term of years; and it became the custom to take the opportunity of renewals, to add clauses requiring this or that duty from the holder: and at last these documents were found to contain so many conditions and restrictions, that, as they

For example, the Chunwāl estates had been placed under some special control in consequence of the Chief's misconduct in 1819. The Kasbātis of Dholka have been variously dealt with; sometimes village accountants were imposed, sometimes not. The Mewasi Chiefs again were not included in the orders taking 70 per cent. revenue presently spoken of, nor were they surveyed; their revenue was fixed in a lump sum on estimate of former payments, and so on. Each kind of "tenure" was regarded as different, when the revenue-management was different.

+ It was originally the case in Bengal that 70 per cent. was deemed a proper proportion to be paid to the State in connection with the older theory of the “Zamindār” as farmer of the revenue. But in the N.W. Provinces and elsewhere, when the real proprietary character of the settlement-holders was recognised, the proportion was reduced to 50 per cent.; and even then the "assets" (or rental income) were so calculated that the revenue charge did not really amount to anything like one-half of the landlord's actual receipts or profits. Only when the settlement was offered to a mere middleman contractor, it was still thought that to take 70 per cent. of the rents, and leave him 30 per cent. for his profit, was equitable. Such a rule was quite inapplicable to persons whose real proprietary connection with the land had been established for generations: and the Tālukdārs were certainly unjustly treated in being asked to pay so much—it was distinctly in derogation of their prescriptive ownership.

stood, they gave colour to, if they did not justify, the conclusion that the signatory landholders were mere "lessees." The character of the document had, in fact, changed from a mere revenue-engagement to one affecting the title. Of course the Tālukdārs did not understand what they were signing: strong in their justifiable belief in their long possession and their hereditary title as de facto owners (though their independent ruling position had long. passed away), they signed what was put before them as a form required by the Administration. The time soon came when what with the pressure of the now regular revenue-demand, the partition of their lands to afford subsistence to widows, cadets, and relations, and their own improvidence also, the "estates" became hopelessly encumbered. The Civil Courts were then moved by the creditors to give decrees against them; and having regard to the historical and hereditary position of the holders, they had no hesitation in treating the lands as the property of the debtors, and ordering them to be sold in execution. But if, on the revenue officer's theory, the Tālukdārs were only "lessees," the land was not theirs, and could not be sold.* In this dilemma the Government law-officers were consulted, and they very naturally as English lawyers, knowing nothing of the real origin, growth, and history of the tenures, or, perhaps preferring the English-law view of the matter, that a "lessee" could not dispute his landlord's title, arrived at the conclusion-on the terms of the leases themselves-that the lands were "Government" lands on a leasehold tenure. In 1862, Bombay Act VI. was passed with a view to adjust matters: it applied only to the Grasiya Chiefs or Talukdārs of Ahmadābād. The preamble to this Act is curious: it was probably intended to cut the Gordian knot. We can read between the lines the feeling that, though in the abstract, the conclusion as to the Talukdārs being only lessees of State property might be (as indeed it was) historically untenable, and also under the circumstances (e.g., Mr. Elphinstone's orders of 1821) wholly inequitable, the fact remained that the holders had long continued to put their names or seals, without objection, to "leases" containing certain terms: and the hardship of the case would disappear if the existence of the leases were made use of only to prevent the sale of the lands, and (on certain terms) to enable Government to declare, for the future, the full-ownership of the holders. This, in effect, is what was done. The Act sets forth that "the tālukdāri estates are now‡

...

* "Whole villages, and fields, were put up to auction," says the author of the Ahmadābād Gazetteer, "and knocked down for a trifle to the creditors or their agents. . . . If the Talukdārs were only leaseholders, the creditor's security was almost worthless. If, on the other hand, the Tālukdārs were proprietors, their estates would be sold at nominal prices, and attempts of the buyers to take possession would probably end in a breach of the peace.”

It is interesting to observe that exactly the same conclusion might have been formulated in Bengal—at least, in regard to all that class of Zamindats who had held under the terms of the usual official sanad, which most certainly did not countenance the idea that the manager was the owner of the land. But the Governor-General, determined on the policy of recognising private property, ignored the sanads, and had regard to the de facto, hereditary, and (at the time) long continued possession and virtual proprietary enjoyment, and declared the Zamindars full proprietors. In Bombay the influence of the principle that the State ought to be owner worked the other way.

The italics, of course, are mine.

held only on leasehold tenure, terminable at the pleasure of Government," that therefore the lands "could not and cannot be lawfully charged, encumbered, or alienated." It allows the estates to be taken under official management (for the purpose of freeing them from debt) for a period of not more than 20 years. At the end of the term the estate is released, and “the tālukdār shall be the absolute proprietor of his said landed-estate as regards succession to, and possession, management, and transfer of the same." At first the Talukdar was protected from the consequences of this unrestricted property by getting him to enter into an express agreement that he would not alienate revenue-paying land. The Bombay Act VI. of 1862 (for Ahmadābād) is superseded (in effect) by Act VI. of 1888, which applies not only to the Talukdārs of Ahmadābād, but also to similar estates in Kaira, Panch Mahāls, and Bharoch: nor is it limited to “Tālukdārī” lands so called; it includes the estate of any Thakur, Mewasi Chief, or Kasbāti, or one with the subordinate title of Naik ;* so that all these estates are now legally on the same footing. They are landlord-estates, subject to the payment of revenue, like other estates elsewhere. † No further proceedings can be taken under the Act of 1862, but action must be under the Act of 1888, and a Revenue-Survey can now be lawfully made where required; and certain parts of the Revenue Code (Act V. of 1879) apply: there is also a regular procedure for partition. The Act also expressly disables the owner from alienating any part of the estate with effect beyond his own life-time :-except a special official sanction has been obtained. (This does not apply to those arrangements made for liquidating debts under the Act of 1881, Sections 24, 28, etc.)

It is only necessary briefly to add that laws were afterwards made for the relief of estates in Kairā, and Bharoch (only) first in 1871, then in 1877, and finally in 1881. The latter (Act XXI. of 1881) is still in force, the former Acts (all but certain provisions) being repealed.

"

These remarks apply to those "estates" which the chiefs retained as “Tālukdārs,” “Mewāsis,” etc.; but historically we have to take account of certain remnants of estates once held, which it will be remembered were "resumed" under the Moslem Governments, leaving only fragments under the denomination of "wāntā" lands: some of them still remain ; but are not reckoned (necessarily) as “Tālukdārī " estates. If they consist of isolated fields, they merely become revenue-free or "inām plots (on paying a quit-rent). Sometimes they are in larger groups, probably paying a fixed tribute, and these may be distinguished as "udhadjamabandi" lands. Col. Anderson wrote in 1872-73, that it "was common to find one half of a village paying revenue, and the other "wāntā "—defined by some fixed boundary, such as a road or stream, the village site itself being also divided. No holder of "wantā " had any written title; the

* The account given in Bombay Gazetteer, vol. iv., was written, it should be remembered, before 1881. Neither the old nor the present Act says anything about primogeniture; it is a question of family and loca! custom.

† And that is calculated at 50 per cent. of the "assets.”

These Acts, for reasons which it is not necessary to go into, were passed in the Legislative Council of India.

number and area of such holdings were allowed on the ground of tradition and possession, as set down in the earliest records of British rule. In the same way where a salami or quit-rent is paid the amount has been fixed on the basis of old custom only.

It remains, having stated the modern legal position of the estates, to give some illustrations of the actual character of the Tālukdāri, Mewāsi, Kasbāti, and Māliki estates.

Talukdārī and Mewäsi Estates.

Estates bearing these designations are found in the Viramgaon, Dholkā, Dindhukā, and Goghā subdivisions of Ahmadābād, and some (Mewǎsi) in Prantij and Modāsa. It may be interesting to arrange the several estates in a short table, giving in one view the number of villages subject to the tenure, and the clan or class of owners in each case.

It may be noted that in the returns the titles "grāsiyā" and "bhūmiyā” are still entered, and when the estate is of a single village, or a share in one, the estate-holder is called "gameți." The Koli or Koli-Rajput chiefs (e.g., in the Chunwal) have the title of Thakorda.*

It is curious to notice that the converts are still distinguished as "molsalām" which, I suppose, is no longer regarded as a term of reproach against their ancestors. In the outlying Prāntij tālukā (not shown in the table) there are thirty-seven villages of "Mewasi" chiefs, and four in Modāsa.

* In the "Rāsmālā " the word is usually written Thākurrā, as if a diminutive of Thakur.