CHAPTER III
LANDOWNERSHIP AND TENANCY 1858-1901
After 1857, the area of south-east Punjab was re-organized. In February 1858, when the Act of 1858 No. 38 was passed, this region was separated from the regulation districts and joined to the Punjab under the administration of Sir John Lawrence. With this Act, the British Crown directly assumed the administration of this region. A Chief Commissioner at the Provincial level, assisted by a Financial Commissioner and Secretaries, organized the administrative arrangements under the crown; three upper Secretaries, a Registrar and a Mir Munshi assisted the Revenue Secretaries. At the local level, the administration was organized by a Division Officer, assisted by an Administrator for the maintenance of Peace, Health and Education Officers, and assisted by a Tehsildar. At the village level, there were the villages Lumbardars, Patwaris and Chowkidars.
The British government devolved a new administrative system in the field of revenue, justice, and education and alike which suited their colonial designs the most. Obviously, an administrative system like that, when imposed arbitrarily, had to be unpopular with the people .
Agriculture was the oldest and perhaps the largest important occupation of the people of south-east Punjab. It was the chief means of livelihood for the people of the south-east Punjab. Agriculture being the only major occupation, a large number of people, somehow or the other, were either associated with it or were dependent on it. The rural sector of the region had two main categories of landowners and tenants whose combination produced the maximum food-grains in the fields. Here is the detail description of landownership & tenancy and their relations existing in the late 19th century in the south-east Punjab.
The government stand was that from the earliest times, public assessment had never been fixed and according to established usage and system, ‘the rulers have exercised a discretionary and despotic authority’, and the tenants and cultivators of the soil have been exposed to rapacity and oppression’. The British Government had, therefore, decided that in order ‘to induce the cultivators to feel secure and extend their efforts, a three years settlement was made with them which was to be later followed by a second, for the same period and then by one of four years. The British, therefore, manipulated the practice of earlier times to consolidate their position and loot the resources of this region.
The British introduced a new land revenue policy in the south-east Punjab which was quite different from the ‘Permanent Settlement’ known as ‘Zamindari system’ and the ‘Ryotwari system’ implemented earlier in Bengal and Madras Presidencies respectively. The land tenure system introduced here was called the ‘Mahalwari system’ i.e. the settlement was concluded with the Mahal meaning the estates or the cluster of eight to ten villages. The villages were held ‘jointly and severally responsible for the payment of revenue. Though, theoretically, the land revenue was collected from the joint holders’ of the village communities, practically, the shares of revenue dues from each individual peasant were determined and collected separately. Land revenue was fixed arbitrarily and was generally hall at the total produce, or even more. The farmers were neither consulted nor their consent obtained in any way .
Due to the diversity of forms of landholding and the region-wide differences in the socio–economic level, the agrarian system was extremely complicated in the south-east Punjab. However, an endeavor is here made to note the general features which determined the key elements of land-ownership and tenancy.
LAND OWNERSHIP
Land ownership means proprietary rights of land or the tenures of land. It basically determined the nature of agrarian relations. Before the British occupied this land, there were no records of rights in land, and peasants cultivated land individually. But their rights over the land were defined and limited by the social structure of the village communities. The British first made records of rights in land and the main object of the British was to obtain a record of liability for revenue which depended wholly upon cultivating possession . But the British went further than this. They preserved, as a rule, though not always with entire success, the distinction between owner and tenant; but instead of recording each constituent household of the proprietary body as entitled to a fractional share in the village and as holding in cultivating possession the land cultivated by its members or by tenants whom they had settled, the British treated and recorded it as absolute owner of this and other land occupied by tenants which they had settled and entered as common property of the village only such land as was either uncultivated or was held by tenants who had been settled by the village in general or by one of its sub divisions.
Before the British rule, the breaking up of land gave the cultivator a right to hold that land undisturbed so long as he paid the revenue on it, but gave him no further rights, and that it gave him this much whether he was an owner or not . In every single village, the rights were regulated by shares, and not by possession, though individual cultivated and paid revenue on areas quite independent of their shares. But this division did not confer any proprietary right in the land so held.
After the advent of the British in south-east Punjab, they observed that the largest important occupation of the people was agriculture and land revenue was the main source & income for the government. The public assessment upon land had never been fixed and according to established usage and custom, the rulers have exercised their discretionary and despotic authority. The tenants and cultivators of the soil had been exploited to rapacity and oppression. The Government had, therefore, decided to make the policy of settlement and decided the type of land tenure developed in each region.
The salient features of the settlement policy of the south-east Punjab had a proper field survey with the results embodied in a field map and register, a full enquiry into the rights and liability of all persons having an interest in the soil, and the records of these rights and liabilities in permanent register. The settlement in the south-eastern region was Mahalwari, for example, the assessment unit was an 'estate' or groups of holdings owned under one title, for example, by a single owner or by a community or a proprietary body .
The tenures of the south-east Punjab were classified into four categories:
(1) Zamindari
(2) Pattiadir
(3) Bhaichara
(4) Mixed or imperfect Pattidari or Baichara.
The zamindari was possessed with full proprietary right by a single owner; pattidari was meant to cover cases in which land was divided and held 'in severalty' by different proprietors according to ancestral or customary shares; and in bhaichara, land was held 'in severalty' without reference to any ancestral or customary shares. In the fourth or mixed bhaichara/pattidari, the lands are held partly in severalty and partly in common, the measure of right in common land being the amount of the share or extent of the land held in severalty. In the pattidari tenure, each share was regulated by the revenue payable; in the bhaichara tenure the revenue payable regulated the share.
In the 1870s and 1880s the tenure of land in Delhi district was not complex. The tenure of land in Delhi district was not complex. Of the 810 villages in the Delhi district, nearly twelve percent was of zamindari, 41 percent was of pattidari, and 46 percent of bhaichara tenure. In Karnal District, of the 833 villages classified, for the purpose of settlement, 7 percent were of zamindari and 93 percent of mixed or imperperfect pattidari or bhaichara. In Hissar district also, three classes of village tenures existed as 25 percent of zamindari, 15 pattidari and 60 bhaiachara. In Gudah, Fazilka and Khadar land in Sirsa district as 358 totals, 85 percent of zamindari, 14 pattidari and 1 of bhaichara. In Gurgaon district, out of 1233 total villages, there was of 13 percent of zamindari, nearly 1 percent of pattidari, 26 of bhaichara and 60 percent of mixed or imperperfect.
Table: 3.1
Land Tenure System in the South-East Punjab in 1870-1890
Disrict Zamindari Pattidari Bhaichara Mixed
Delhi 12 41 46 —
Karnal 7 — — 93
Hissar 25 15 60 —
Sirsa 85 14 — —
Gurgaon 13 1 26 60
On the whole, zamindari dominated in Sirsa 85 percent, was about 25 percent in Hissar while Gurgaon and Delhi, had just 12-13 percent zamindari, Karnal had the lowest proportion at 7 percent. About 40 percent tenures were pattidari in Delhi with Hissar and Sirsa about 14 percent. Bhaichara was most prominent in Hissar 60 percent, followed by Delhi 46 percent and Gurgaon with 26 percent. Mixed tenure was almost wholly found in Karnal and Gurgaon with 93 and 60 percent respectively Table 3.1.
In the Hisar and Rohtak district, the few ‘Zamindari’ villages were also of the north-western type–i.e., villages originally formed by individuals who had become landlords. In other villages, there were groups consisting of the owners of older proprietary rights mixed with new settlers when formed ‘Bhaichara’ bodies – with the least possible reference to the original meaning of the term.
In karnal district, the villages were classified, for the purpose of settlement, in following categories: 64 Zamindari, 22 pattidariand 250 Bhaichara. In Hissar district also, three classes of village tenures existed as shown in the Table 3.2.
Table 3.2
Tehsil No. of Village Zamindari Pattidari Bhaichara
Bhiwani 133 8 27 98
Hansi 138 23 17 98
Hissar 137 42 17 78
Fatehabad 260 95 39 126
Total 668 168 100 400
The tenure in Sirsa district was, for the most part, Zamindari. In Gudahtaluka, the tenure of Zamindari was the principal one. The Table 3.3 shows three types of tenures in Sirsa district also.
Table 3.3
Area Total tenure Zamindari Pattidari Bhaiyachara
Godah 149 122 26 1
Fazilka 129 117 10 2
Khaddar Land 80 67 13 Nil
Though the Pattidari village were not numerous, yet the majority of them were Sikh Jat estates, the origon of division being traced to dissensions among co- shares. In Pattidari estates, 18 were held by Sikh Jat, 4 by mohammadan and 4 by different castes in Gudah alone.
The portion of the Karnal district immediately adjoining the Jamna River was part of the ceded territory. Along with some other districts some portion like Ambala were held under merely political control. The actual management being placed in the hands of grantess, chiefs and Jagirdars. In this region, the grant of Karnal Pargana to the Mandal family under the title of an ‘Istimrari’ or Perfectual grant (i.e. not liable to revocation) had given to some legal difficulties.