7.
THE PERMANENT SETTLEMENT
The Zamindar, as has been shown,
between
the
elsewhere.
enjoying
The
state and the Peasant economy
He was.
in fact,
in
advent
profound
of
the most powerful
the Company c i r c a n
attempts
to
rural
significant
Settlement
in
the
with the
district
district.
and
system
of
It is necessary
Permanent Settlement at work in Masulipatnam,
only the local
power.
implications of the settlement,
the
to
the
had
This impact was rendered
introduction
as
element,
social
restructure the revenue
impact on the Zamindari.
more
into the
intermediary
Masulipatnam
various kinds of economic, military and
consequent
the
was a crucial
a
all
Permanent
examine
the
to understand
not
but also to
seek
answers to larger questions regarding the impact of the Permanent
Settlement on the agrarian economy.
In
1765, when the British
acquired control of the
region,
they found the Circars in the possession of powerful men who
had
been
appointed by the pre colonial government to administer
the
revenues on their account, and as the country was already in
the
hands of powerful
intermediaries the situation rendered it neces1
sary for the Company to continue them in their offices.
Though
they were originally the revenue Collectors employed by the state
with
specific
political
powers and functions,
situation
taking
during the transition
Nizam's authority and that of the Company.
297
advantage
period
of
the
between
the
they entrenched their
position
politically,
increased
power
and position made
view Z a m i n d a n s as
Ihus
the actual
dars.
The
economically,
feudal
to pacify
the
militarily.
This
administrators
2
d i s t r i c t s and the Zamindars as R a j a h s .
situation made
desire
and
colonial
the C o m p a n y align with
the
them with minimum military
r e f l e c t e d the C o m p a n y ' s w e a k p o s i t i o n
in t h e
initial
Zamin-
force also
stages.
By
1795 the Court of Directors was able to order the disbandment
military followers of the Zamindars who were then left with
their traditional
The
men
as
in the Circars should be under their
some of the estates were
the
military
immediate orders.
of the climate was a great obstacle
were
well
Zamindans.
to
For this task,
as the
the
employing
country
equipped and were supported at much less expense
could be done by the Company,
small
But
located among hills and jungles
regular troops in repelling the depredations of the people
neighbouring
only
economic privileges.
Company in the beginning thought that all
unhealthiness
of
in the
peons
than
the Company thought of allowing
4
contingent of armed force to each Zamindar.
The Regulation of 1802 which
settlement
duced
evolved
introduced Permanent
in Masulipatnam district merely
in a more permanent
from
1765,
when the region came
298
Zamindari
formalized and
fnrm a revenue system which
under
the
a
had
introbeen
Company's
control.
It confirmed proprietary right in the Zamindari estates
on the existing Zamindars under a new contract.
proprietary
estates
in Haveli
lands,
the
It also
intended aim being
creation
of a new group of Zamindars in these Haveli
evidence
clearly
indicates
that all
retained by the existing Zamindari
the
spatial
distribution
Masulipatnam district.
dars
Zammulavayi,
only.
The
estates
and Zammulavayi
5
the existing Zamindars.
of
Bengal.
were
Map 7.1
Haveli
shows
estates
part of Charmahal,
Chintalapu-
Bezwada,
Mylavaram,
Munagala,
sons
system in the region was
it
Zamin-
is
Permanent Settlement was introduced in
1795 with certain objectives.
essentially
a
whig
notion
of
modeled
neces-
briefly review the objectives of Permanent Settlement
The
in
under the Permanent Settle-
lines similar to that of the Bengal Settlement,
sary to
The
estates
estates were conferred on the
As the Permanent Zamindari
the
lands.
and Medurgutta were given to the original
Nuzividu
on
families only.
instance,
ment, the estates of Devarakota,
di.
the Zamindari
of Zamindari and
For
created
Bengal
in
in
The Permanent Settlement which was
introduced a rule
of
property
for
6
Bengal which led to the creation of landed estates.
absolute
brought
property
in
the soil,
the
Permanent
into existence a demand and market for
299
By creating
Settlement
7
land.
had
300
Notions of Private Property in Land :
According
European
and
to Ainslee T.Embree.
one strand of
way of thinking about property came from the
legal codes of the Roman Empire.
idea
the
The
western
practices
characteristic
Roman
about property that became" rooted in the European mind
the concept of unqualified possession.
ence,
other
property
factors
also shaped
thesis
of social
Norman
conquest.
While this was one influ-
both
as well as actual practice.
British
thought
about
One of these was the
customs that emerged in England
syn-
following
The transfer of lands from the old
land
was the kings and that the people were
8
subjects but also his tenants.
In
the case of India,
the
owners
the followers of the conqueror made possible a legal theory
the
was
not
to
that
only
the idea of the king granting
his
lands
to tenants who became both territorial powers and eventually
the
supporters of Royal power was one of the organizing concepts that
the
British used for understanding Indian political
life.
tance
Political Philosophers like Voltaire
and
considered
as the best evidence of individual ownership.
The
social
inheriinher-
itable quality of the lands proved that they were the property of
the Zamindars,
a
Talukdars and others to whom they had descended by
long course of
inheritance.
made between the Zamindari
However a clear
distinction
9
tenure and the feudal tenure.
301
was
What
belief
was
that
the reason for the widespread acceptance
Indian rulers owned all
property
was
European
travellers
Mughal
unknown in India?
the
land and
that
According to Irfan
had given a mistaken account.
Lhe
because
the
landlords.
will,
concluded that there was no private property
Besides,
all
these European travellers as well as
private
the
Jagirs were transferable at the Emperor's
Europeans
the nature of Asian society.
India
with
the
Company
India.
the
In the pre colonial regimes
the Muslim conquest entirely new
practices
Islamic law and theory recognized private
rules
laws.
governing it had been
influenced by
Yet despite the long administration of Muslim
Islamic
concepts
.18
Indian soc i ety.
In
1802,
of
property made very
little
introducing the Permanent Settlement
in
difference
region
the Company tried to create a system of ownership in
on the assumption that this was the basis of
More
than the proprietary right
in
and
Byzantine
rule,
the
view
entered
property
Roman
the
in India.
officials were drawing upon an ancient and well articulated
of
the
Habib,
Jagirdars appeared to be the same as European
Sinu.=
of
the
to
in
land
a prosperous state.
in the soil the
Zamindars
were
given the right to collect the revenue on the soil, and for these
duties
they
were given certain fees
in the form of
Rusums
and
Saverams.
Under
holding the
the
Permanent Settlement the
land holders
land as hereditary tax officials were given
302
who
were
absolute
property
rights
considered
a
over these l a n d s .
Since private
n e c e s s i t y for m a t e r i a l p r o g r e s s ,
property
the
was
makers
of
P e r m a n e n t S e t t l e m e n t tried to c o n v e r t the e x i s t i n g h e r e d i t a r y tax
farmers
w h o had certain p r o p r i e t a r y r i g h t s into a
propertied
full
fledged
class.
E v e n the
P h y s i o c r a t s b e l i e v e d that an e f f i c i e n t ,
economi-
cal and just tax system should c o n s i s t of a single direct tax
a g r i c u l t u r a l rent.
Perhaps this w a s the reason why the Z a m i n d a r s
w e r e g i v e n the right to collect only the land r e v e n u e .
to
on
Previous
the P e r m a n e n t S e t t l e m e n t the pre colonial tax s y s t e m s w e r e
conglomeration
Because
the
of numerous t a x e s
w i t h o u t any d e f i n i t e
Z a m i n d a r s not only c o l l e c t e d land
levied m a n y other taxes like M o t u r f a ,
11
a n d otiier petty taxes.
Both
pattern.
taxes
but
Salt tax. C u s t o m s
s u p p o r t e r s and o p p o n e n t s of the
Permanent
w a s w h o the n a t i v e s w e r e w h o o w n e d the s o i l .
the
land
lords.
They e q u a t e d these
English
lord of the m a n o r .
viable
to vest these rights
Company
Collectors
landlords
with
as they felt that it w o u l d
the
not
be
in c u l t i v a t o r s w h o were a t t a c h e d
by
c u s t o m to the a u t h o r i t y of their m a s t e r s ;
ny felt,
duties,
The q u e s -
The
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were c o n v i n c e d that the h e r e d i t a r y tax
were
also
Settlement
a g r e e d that the soil of right b e l o n g e d to the n a t i v e s .
tion
a
this task.
12
s h o u l d be left to the n a t i v e m a s t e r s .
303
the C o m p a -
The
recognition
of the right of the
Zamindars
to
landed
property was the main principle on which the entire principle
Permanent Settlement ran.
be assured of
They thought that no government
its revenue unless
of
could
it was prepared to guarantee the
rights of proprietorship.
Elaborating the principle, Francis one
13
of the authors of the Permanent Settlement wrote:
Without private property there can be no public revenue.
I
mean
that
regular and permanent revenue on which
alone
a
wise
government ought to place its dependence.
Agency
can
never
supply the place of proprietorship because many,
of
the
principle duties of a proprietor are such as
an
agent
has no personal interest in performing.
It is not the mere
name of proprietor that will engage any man to perform these
duties
if he has no real security that is if he
does not
know once and for all how much he is to pay
to government
and be not assured that the remainder will be his own.
Principles of th* Permanent Settlement :
However
Settlement
there
was
one main difference
in Bengal and that
and
Haveli
nam
district on the other hand,
the
possessions and were
principal
Haveli
Bandar,
authority.
towns
lands
the Havel 1
In
Masulipat-
lands were
under the direct
In
Zamindars
part
of
management
of
They were situated
and military
mainly around
the
15
establishments.
The
principal
in the district were clustered around the towns
Eluru
were divided
16
ment.
Permanent
in the hands of the
14
lands as such did not exist at all.
ruling
the
introduced in Northern Circars.
Bengal nearly the whole region was
Company's
in
and Kondapalli.
But these
three
Haveli
into many small mootahs under the Permanent
304
of
lands
Settle-
Thus
the existence of Haveli
lands in the region
made
the
system different from that of Bengal. For instance, the existence
of Havel is raised questions about the mode and form of assessment
which
should come into effect in these parts.
The system
also
contributed to the evolution of a distinct agrarian structure.
Despite the natural advantage of having the most fertile and
populous
parcel
lands
in
the Haveli
property in Havel 1
strategical places the
decided
to
lands into small mootahs and grant a right
of
lands also.
Company
The Company probably evolved
the
system of proprietary estates to ensure the regular collection of
revenue
from
the
Havel 1
lands without
administrative machinery on its own.
to create a new group of land owners.
to
confer
on
the
Another idea behind it
was
mentioned
above,
much
The Company did not
the proprietary rights for the Havel 1
members of the traditional Zamindari
as
investing
families.
lands
intend
on
the
It hoped instead,
to sell their rights to persons
of
other
categor1es.
The
three
Kondapalli
was
principal
lands of
Bandar,
were divided into many small mootahs.
Eluru,
Bandar
and
estate
sub divided into Kaldindi consisting of 8 villages,
Pedanah
Tumidi,
- 17, Gudur - 52, Akulamannadu - 6, Inuguduru - 14.
Islands - 6, and Divi.
small
Haveli
mootahs
Pedapadu
- 8
and Kondapalli
Six
The pargana of Eluru was sub-divided into
of Eluru consisting of 8 villages,
Vasantavada consisted of
12.
14
Malakacherla with
17
villages.
305
Kovali
18
-
8.
villages
The
many
Company wanted to confer the proprietary rights
new people as possible.
large
led
parganas to one Zamindar.
to
But this policy of the
increased
these
were
scattered
throughout the
administrative problems.
lands
Company's
were
region
Company
Zamindars
small
and
Since the people who
traditional regional
as
lease
to many complications because these estates with such
jurisdictions
and
May be they were afraid
on
thus
bought
contrary
expectations, there were constant Zamindari
to
rivalries
the Zamindari estates no longer remained as compact
blocks.
Also with the sale of proprietary estates the Company brought for
18
the first time land to the market.
Table 7.1 shows the sale of
proprietary
estates
and the Zamindars who bought them
and
the
amount for which they bought.
Table : 7.1
Sale of Proprietary estates
Names of Estates
in Masulipatnam district
Name of Purchasers
MPs -
Kondapalli
Vallursamut
Gundur
Akulamannadu
Inuguduru
Pedanah
Six Islands
Vasireddi Venkatadri Naidu
Bommadevarah Naganna
Bommadevarah Naganna
Vasireddi Venkatadri Naidu
Vasireddi Venkatadri Naidu
Erlagadda Nageswar Naidu
Vasireddi Venkatadri Naidu
Amount
F - C
8.600-0-0
16,000-0-0
4,950-0-0
400-0-0
950-0-0
425-0-0
2.225-0-0
Source : Statement of the Zamindaris and Mootahs created under
Permanent Settlement, Mi seellaneous Records. v.15. p.58.
Many
price
the
of
these estates were bought by the
Zamindars
at
much above the permanent jumma fixed on these estates.
Permanent
Settlement
of 1802 the
306
Company
recognized
a
By
the
existing
Zamindars
of the region and even
Haveli
estates were placed on par with the
Though
the
alliance
tant.
individual permanently
of
was
expediency for the Company
a
the
impormade
Because of the experience prior to the
a proprietary right
assured
them
Settlement the Company wanted stable revenue
creating
of
19
Zamindars.
it was mainly the economic realities which
the settlement necessary.
single
former
factors shaped at the higher levels were also
However,
Permanent
proprietors
with the Zamindars to pacify
matter of necessity and political
ideological
the
and
by
in the soil and confirming it on
it
felt that the Company would
unalterable revenue under
any
a
be
circumstances.
The
thought that the new settlement would improve
the
20
revenue collections and also systematize the process.
land
Company
The
was
leading principles upon which the Permanent
based
Settlement
were the security of government with respect
to
revenues and the security and protection of its subjects.
ly,
under the Permanent Settlement,
First-
the land or the estate
the Zamindars would be the security to the government.
its
of
Secondly,
the
tax which each individual had to pay was fixed and also
the
21
time of payment, and manner of payment.
Another feature of the
1802 settlement was that
assessment.
the
rate
it prevented the enhancement of rent and
This centered around the fundamental principle
of rent and tenure should be fixed in
perpetuity
should be made unalterable under any circumstances.
307
that
and
Before
the
1802 settlement the Company
thought
that
Zamindars held their estates on very precarious tenure.
It
that as the revenue assessment was arbitrarily fixed the
to
the state fluctuated
considerably.
sequestration in case of even a partial
22
payment of Kist.
The
and
permanent proprietary right was
other
order
to
land
farming,
tion
and dispossession which had been
and
disquietude.
However,
and
give
the Company
This
right was not to
under
tenantry.
Zamindars
successors
revenue
a source
It was
punctual payment of peishkash.
would
and
a free hand
to
in
augmenta-
of
uncertainty
to
dependent on the
Default
assume
in
revenue
the
estate.
infringe upon the established
The government reserved to
25
over sources of revenue.
was
in the
this proprietary right according
Nicholas Dirks was not to be absolute.
proper
revenue
failure
extended to
holders and to their heirs
end the practices of tax
felt
The whole Zamindari
liable to
the
itself
rights
many
of
rights
So in order to rectify these faults the Board in its Regulation
of 1802 fixed the
tary
rights in the individuals.
the
jumma permanently and conferred
In case of default,
tion,
instead
whole estate being sequestered only a part of the
24
amounting to that value would be sequestered.
the
Company
thought that
it had left an
308
proprie-
By this
option
of
Zamindari
Regulato
the
Zarrundars
profit
to encourage cultivation and add the revenue to
as the assessment Mas fixed.
in the region,
But what actually
their
happened
in fact in the other Circars also was contrary
to
the Company's expectations.
Working of the Permanent Settlement
:
At the time of the Permanent Settlement. Devarakota
ari was assessed at Rs.
The Zamindar's share
was
Rs. 51.346 -3-2 and the government's share was Rs. 1.02,690.
The
Permanent
Karchulu
Assessment
forming
Zamindari
1,54,036-3-2.
Zamind-
on the estate was fixed with
part of the assessment.
Darbari karchulu formed
seemed to have varied from Rs.
25,000
in a
In
the
the
a huge amount.
15.000
good agricultural year.
Durbari
Devarakota
This
amount
in an ordinary year to
This amount was
collected
from the ryots by the Zamindars and was demanded from the
25
dars by the government in all seasons alike.
The
after
revenue
of the Zamindari
the Permanent Settlement that
for the
per
year.
years
is from 1800-1821 was
prof-
still
37,046 on an
The revenue decreased in the next twenty
that is from 1821 - 1842.
getting
Zamin-
twenty
itable as the Zamindar got a profit of Rs..
first
Rs.
average
one
years,
On the whole, though the Zamindari was
a profit of Rs.5,387 per year,
compared with figures of previous decades.
it
was
low
But from 1830 onwards
there was a deficit of Rs.10,716 to the Zamindari
in its
collections. The Zamindari was under the management of the
309
when
revenue
Court
of Wards from 1819 - 1871, as the Zamindar Mas a minor.
In
1851
though the estate came under the management of the Zamindar
the
estate was again attached to the government
nue
in
1852.
amounted to Rs.
amounted
to
Between 1851-1841,
the
for arrears of
balance
of
peishkash
2.77.886 - 6 - A and with the old debt the
For
26
Zamindari was put up for sale.
Rs.
5,17,688.
the liquidation
of
and take the proprietorship of the estate.
arrears
in conse-
in the prices of grains or any local causes
was necessary to make any temporary or permanent reduction
peishkash payable by this estate or any other estate
27
Cirears.
The Collector opined that,
deterioration.
suffered greater diminutions
in
the Devarakota Zamindari
its productiveness not by any sudden calamity
regular
the
The Board proposed to
make an enquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether
quence of the fall
total
this.
The Board had asked the Zamindar to pay the revenue
and
reve-
in the
Northern
had lost
but by the gradual
The prices of the produce
in the Devarakota than
Zamindaris of Northern Circars.
it
had
in any
not
other
But whatever be the cause of
its
impoverishment, whether to be found in the negligence or incapacity
ests,
while
of those who should have carefully
watched over
the fact remained that the deterioration had
the
estate
was
in
the
28
government.
310
hands
of
the
its
inter-
taken
place
officers
of
This
in
clearly shows the working of the Permanent
Settlement
the region. The Zamindari passed from one hand to the
thus making the settlement
ing and the management.
very
inconsistent
other,
both in its
Of four decades of Permanent
work-
Settlement
in the Zamindari of Devarakota, only for twenty years the
was
under the actual management of the Zamindar.
the
period for several
for
some
years
reasons,
system
under the Court of Wards and
after
two decades of
effective as the Company thought
Nicholas
Settlement
interests
"little
and
from
introduction
the authors
of the Zamindars
local warfare and
management and investment.
In short,
of
because
of
Zamindaris
were
Zamindar13
being
the
Zamind-
was
the
not
as
the principles of the
Permanent
redirection
whom
he
intrigue
of
the
called
the
to
agrarian
stability and a
in due course of time the same principles
trary to the expectations of the Company.
and
under
the Zamindars would become
the rural gentry,
sources of both local
29
flow of revenue.
But
estate,
This shows the
that there would be a
energies
kings"
its
later
of
it would be.
Dirks argued that,
thought
rest
the Company managed the
attached estates for arrears of revenue.
ari
The
estate
worked
For various
Settlement
put up for sale in parts and this
subdivided into many parts
and
steady
con-
reasons,
itself,
resulted
passing
the
in
into
different hands each time the estate was in arrears to the Compa-
311
ny.
This generally weakened and furthered the already
rating conditions
in the estates.
Under the Permanent Settlement
and Medurgutta
The
were granted to
Zamindari
Zamindar
consisted
Vellanki
Zamindar died, he
the Zamindari
Narasimha Rao.
left a will
managed
In
1806
and Vellanki
1811
because
of the family
divided between the two brothers.
Rama Rao
feuds
the
the
when
the
to
his
jointly',
50
One portion
was
consisted of
the
Lingala,
1 em village and 5/4 of
Inagadapa village. Totally,
consisted of
5-1/4
of Tirumalarao.
village,
Kakarla
and Ramanapathe Zamindari
villages and was placed under the
management
The other portion consisting of 1/4 of
Inagada-
the villages of Anumulanka, Kottapalli and the other
of Kakarla and Ramanapalem,
villages
half of
Zamindari
villages of Mallavaram,
half
by
bequeathing the Zamindari
Tirumalarao
Rao.
injunctions to give food and raiment to his widow.
In
pa
of Jammulavayi
Vellanki Venkata Narsimha
of six villages, all
Venkata
two brothers Vellanki
with
deterio-
was placed under
The widow of Vellanki
the two brothers
together
consisting
Venkata
jointly for
Tirumal Rao,
under the management
2-5/4
the management of Rama Rao.
Narasimha Rao. Ramanamma sued
maintenance
and obtained a
for five pagodas per month payable by them jointly.
death of Vellanki
of
51
But with the
his portion of the Zamindari
of the Collector.
312
decree
came
Regulations of 1802 Settlement :
The
Permanent
Settlement
which detailed
so
clearly
the
duties and ryots of the Zamindars failed to protect the interests
of the cultivators against the Zamindars.
Permanent
The supporters of the
Settlement believed that the settlement with the
ryot
was strictly the business of the Zamindars and not of the government.
The
government
could
agreements with his tenants.
sion of the
ly,
not limit the
Zamindar
For, that would amount to an
rights of property in the first instance.
no way belonged to government which,
policy
felt,
Second-
exertion
of
principle
the framers
carried a "vexatious scrutiny
power
upon the face of it".
and
Thus
an
on
his
inva-
to descend to the ryots was considered a business of
which
detail
of
grounds
as well as of administrative convenience Francis,
the framers of Permanent Settlement recommended the
of
what
Firminger called a laissez fare
Zamindar's relation with his ryots.
attitude
the
arbitrary
of
the
in
of
one
adoption
towards
the
The policy described land as
hereditary property of the Zamindar.
He held it by the
of the country on the tenure of paying a certain contribution
law
to
government.
When this condition was complied with, he was master
52
of the land to relet it to whom he thinks proper.
Pattah
should enter
of
land
Regulation
of 1802 specified that
into agreements with the
proprietors
inhabitants and cultivators
on the terms on which they respectively
313
the
occupied
such
lands
and should exchange their engagements called
the
Pattahs
33
and Muchalikas respectively.
These Pattahs included four
kinds
of engagements:
1.
for
the rent of village in gross sums of
money
specifying
the rent, the payment rate;
2.
for
rate
5.
for
a division of the produce of the lands
for
land
on which the money rent
is assessed
rights
lands
charged
Regulation
of
which
Zamindars,
agriculture.
just
so clearly defined
the
the
specific
powers
position
of
However, while guaranteeing the
the
the Talukdars and the
which no Zamindar would be permitted
According to the new settlement,
the
Zamind-
tenantry would be preserved in the enjoyment of all
rights
and
in the actual production process of
rights the government resolved that all
under
the
This left the various groups of cultivators at
mercy of the Zamindars.
ari
stating
no where specified the
cultivators and under tenants
showing
land measure in use;
with grain rent
34
quantity of grain to be rendered.
The
the
of cultivator's share;
rate of assessment according to the
4.
specifying
to
their
infringe.
the cultivating ryots though had
no property rights in the soil, did have a right of occupancy
the
they occupied and cultivated as long as
they
35
their share of revenue regularly.
This seems to indicate
the
lands
position of the different groups of cultivators remained
they were before the Permanent Settlement.
314
in
paid
that
as
Generally
of
by distraint,
rent from the ryots.
the Zamindars enforced the
payment
Zamindars always had recourse
to
dis-
traint of the property of the ryots without any reference to
Collector.
tions
For the Collector was not authorized by the
to interfere with the Zamindars.
left at the mercy of the Zamindars,
or
By this the
regula-
ryots
since there was no
legal action against the Zamindars
in case of
the
were
official
oppression
on
the ryots .
The Zamindars usually disposed of the property of the
ryots
so
distrained, by selling it to the merchants either by
private
or
public
produce
sale.
The ryots were left with very
little
after the Zamindar's share and various customary deductions
made.
Even supposing that
Zamindar's
it did leave little to the
were
ryot
imposed new taxes whenever they required money.
the
Under
the Permanent Settlement the Company made a provision that cultivators could get redress from Courts of Law.
But in practice,
it
was often out of reach of the cultivators.
In
and
the estates where the proprietors were
old
Zamindars the fear of personal
the
violence
deterred
ryots
from complaining.
ryots
submitted quietly to the loss, not from fear
injury
the
If they were new Zamindars,
the
even
of
then
personal
but from the well grounded fear of losing their cause
court.
easily
traditional
They knew that the
procure
witnesses
influence of the
to swear falsely and
315
Zamindar
also
in
would
would
be
supported
entirely
gained
by the fabricated accounts of the Karanams,
under
their
Zamindar
the authority of the Zamindars.
who
were
if
they
Even
cause it would be of no advantage to them
without transgressing any law would be able
as
to
the
harass
57
them in many ways and make their situation uncomfortable.
However the plan of 1776 did not rule out official
tion
altogether.
between
It
was not for the
the Zamindar and ryot
the terms of their contract.
mutual
it.
administration
in such a manner as
This was to be done by the
issue of a uniform
the
terms of the agreement which must be
58
both the parties.
The Permanent Settlement
failure
was
But
ty of the ryots the framers of the policy
no immediate solution
necessary could be
The
influence
to
their
enforce
pattah
con-
respected
the
by
its
failure
The word permanency was to extend to
jumma only and not to the details of the settlement.
requiring
come
has often been criticized for
to safe guard the interests of ryots.
easily explained.
to
But once this was decided to
satisfaction the government had to undertake
taining
to
interven-
the
The securi-
thought was a
problem
and any measures that might
be
59
introduced occasionally as abuses occurred.
exaction of revenue was felt as a far greater
hardship
by the land holders than the personal confinements or coercion to
which they were subjected under the pre colonial governments when
40
they failed to pay any part of the public dues.
316
In
the
district
where the land
revenue
was
permanently
settled and where the collections from the ryots were made by the
Zamindars
the cultivator was protected from enhanced demands
by
an appeal to the Collector under the provisions of Regulation
30
of
1802
and Regulation 5 of 1822.
decision also,
However, on
the
Collectors
the Zamindars could further appeal by formal proc41
ess to the C o u r t s of L a w .
Perhaps
this
long
process also deterred
c o m p l a i n i n g and also the lengthy procedures
reach
the
ryots
from
involved w e r e out
of
and the c u l t i v a t o r s could not afford most of the times
to
a t t e n d the courts leaving their work.
The
Zamindars,
ignoring the traditional custom,
introduce new rules to suit their need.
dar of D e v a r a k o t a ,
v a t i n g their s h a r e s .
on
Pumpkin
For instance,
tried
to
the Z a m i n -
A n k e n a i d u stopped the cultivators from c u l t i The Zamindar introduced new duties or rents
g a r d e n s (gummadi t h o t a l u ) ,
Brinjal
gardens
Bullocks
and
(vanga
thotalu),
goguputtalu, uncultivated lands.
channels.
The Zamindar in collaboration with the Aumeen Tadekon-
da Seshaiah who was a Brahmin, made the cultivators suffer.
water
The
cultivators unable to bear the violence deserted the villages and
42
took refuge in neighbouring taluks.
In
trict
examining the Permanent Settlement
it
in Masulipatnam
is essential to know what was the sort
317
of
dis-
permanency
that was established in the mode of assessment? and where was
it
established?
Under the Permanent Settlement all
waste
and arable were assessed in perpetuity with a fixed
revenue
the
lands in a Zamindari both
payable in all
land
permanently,
seasons.
For fixing the state demand
the government's share out of
produce of the land was first fixed.
each village but on all
land
the
on
total
Revenue was assessed not on
the villages of a Zamindari collectively.
The amount payable by the Zamindar to the government was unalterably
determined and on the condition of payment of this
sum
each Zamindar was vested with the proprietary right
soil
in his Zamindari area.
defined
of
the
The amount to be paid by each Zamin-
dar was calculated at two thirds of the half of the gross produce
of lands.
The other half being supposed to be the share paid
43
them by the cultivators.
Though
dars
the division of rights between the ryots and
remained undefined,
the Zamindars were given power
the
defaulters arrested through the agency of courts,
and
manage the defaulters' holdings.
recovered
further
sell
lease
Zaminto
to
means,
powers were given to the Zamindars to proceed either
the tenure of the defaulters if saleable, or to
holders
or tenants whose right of occupancy
44
payment of certain rents.
318
get
attach
When the arrears were
within the current revenue year by those
to
eject
depended
not
then
to
the
on
But the Regulation did not contain any remedy for the
against
the misuse of these powers by the Zamindars
ryots
except
the
order that the Zamindars were liable to prosecution for any undue
exactions practiced on the ryots.
In case of any dispute on
the
rates Muchalikas were the only specific statements with regard to
the
protection of ryots.
ingless,
because
Zamindars
at
the
But these Muchalikas were quite
level of the locality
power
of
was combined with the services of the Karanams who
in
most cases supported the Zamindars.
had
Thus the cultivators
to depend on the Karanams and go according to
since
the
mean-
their
they were a more powerful and immediate authority
cultivators at the village level
always
wishes
to
the
than even the Zamindar.
The Regulation of 1802 however strengthened the power of the
local
administrative machinery in the village.
Abolishing
the
offices of other revenue servants like Deshmukhs, Deshpandes.
Mazumdars
it
looked
after
shared
between
quantity
greatly strengthened the Karanam's
position.
the
of
registration of gross produce
the proprietors and
of grain so divided,
cultivators,
all
and
He
lands
recorded
the
fixed the rates of division,
and
also
recorded the extent of land cultivated, and the amount
of
45
money
collected, and the amount of
rent due.
As he was
the
sole revenue authority at the village
level
the cultivators
to depend on him heavily and also were at his mercy in
ing their economic transactions.
319
came
discharg-
With all these provisions the settlement of 1802 transformed
the customary relations that were existing between the
and
different groups of cultivations till then into
terms.
the
Zamindars
contractual
The regulating act while granting proprietary rights
soil
of
the
powers of the Zamindars and clearly specified their position
and
powers.
to the Zamindars successfully restricted most
in
Even
in the economic 9phere the assessment
exclusive and independent of all duties,
was
taxes and other
fixed
collec-
tions which were generally known under the denomination of Sayer.
In
return for his services the Zamindar received certain
fied
amount of emoluments
Thus
through
curtail
the
speci46
Saverams.
in the name of Rusums and
settlement of 1802 the Company
was
able
to
the power of the Zamindars successfully over a period
of
time while working with them.
Impact of tha Permanent Settlement :
However.
settlement
was
introduced with many hopes and guarantees the system did not
last
long
and
though
Zamindari
estates continued to pay the peishkash
shows
peishkash
for
sale
for
Though the first lapse occurred in 1815, within
decade of the introduction of the Permanent
other
7.2
permanent
ironically many Zamindaris were put up
various reasons.
a
the
number of the Zamindari
regularly.
320
estates,
Settlement,
many
regularly.
Table
which
their
paid
Table : 7.2
Zamindaris which paid the Paishkash Regularly
How many years the
jumma was regularly paid.
Name of Zamindaris
Permanent Jumma
MPs.
1. Nandigama
30,000
16 Years
2. Oevarakota
29,540
15
3. Bezwada
10.338
16
4. Mylavaram
5,200
16
5. Charmahal
34,820
13
6. Part of Zammulavayi and
Medurgutta
634
16
7.
- do -
634
16
8.
- do -
634
16
9.
- do -
925
16
10.Part of Zammulavayi and
Medurgutta
375
16
11.
- do -
375
16
12.
- do -
376
16
13.
- do -
189
15
1,396
15
208
16
1.285
16
139
16
18. Chintalapudi
3,300
15
19. Nidadavolu
6.000
16
28.000
16
14. Part of Zammulavayi
15. Part of Medurgutta
16. Munagala
17. Lingageri
20. Nuzividu
Source: Statement of the Zamindaris and Mootahs
created under
Permanent Settlement. Miscellaneous Records, v.15. p.22.
321
The
permanent
estates
1802
at
jumma sometimes was fixed very high
and some were under assessed.
For instance,
on
some
under
settlement the peishkash on the Charmahal estate was
Rs.1,21,870.
Sobanadri
refused
to take
the
fixed
Zamindar.
then
the
government
47
the estate on account of the Zamindari.
This was
the
leased
Rao
As the peishkash was too high,
the
it up and
estate which for arrears of revenue was put for sale in 181?
and
ultimately bought by the government for Rs.95,000.
But the other
estates
for
continued to pay their revenues regularly
mately
7.2
sixteen years
illustrates the
Company
estates.
Graphs
System for many years,
of the Company for several
some of the
7.1
and
of
the
land revenue demand and collections
in Masulipatnam district. Many of these
under the Zamindari
ment
in the Zamindari
approxi-
Zamindars being
reasons
estates
though
came under the manage-
like
lack of heirs
and
minors they were under the Court of
Wards.
The
granting
Court
to
responsibility
tors.
of
Wards
Collectors
intended to
introduce
a remuneration for
a
their
proposal
trouble
in managing the estates of disqualified
and
proprie-
But granting this commission to the Collectors out of
surplus funds of minor estates the Board thought would be
to objection.
The Board opined that the equitable mode of
nerating Collectors for their trouble
of
the
liable
remu-
in managing the estates
of
disqualified proprietors would be to allow them to draw a commis48
sion of 1
1/2 on the jumma payable to government.
322
Graph
:
7.1
Total Revenue Collections
Graph
:
7.2
Revenue D e m a n d and Collections
323
Apart from these factors
the
of e x c e s s i v e b u r d e n of r e v e n u e
Z a m i n d a r s and the inefficient m a n a g e m e n t of the
on
estates
by
the Z a m i n d a r s the e f f i c i e n t and s y s t e m a t i c m a n n e r of its
collec-
tion
Another
was also r e s p o n s i b l e for the fall of the e s t a t e s .
common feature and factor responsible for the revenue arrears was
the lavish spending and extravagance made by the Zamindars.
Zamindars
ple,
dar
vied with each
other to out do the other.
The
For
exam-
the Vasireddi Zamindar who was a dominant and leading Zaminof the region when he went on pilgrimage had to be
accompa-
nied
with a large contingent of men and material which cost
the
49
Zamindari
a few lakhs of rupees.
The family
expenditures
of
the
Zamindars,
expenses
other
occasions reveal
which
are
feuds
which
incurred during their marriages
the nature and working of
discussed in chapter }.
one
factor
were taken advantage of by others and
reduced the Zamindars to paupers.
the
Another
the
involving the Zamindar
The
and
on
Zamindari
was
family
thus
slowly
longest of such feuds was
Vasireddi's two
adopted
sons
w h i c h c o n t i n u e d for three d e c a d e s at the end of w h i c h the Z a m i n d ari
w a s r e d u c e d to a s t a t e of d e t e r i o r a t i o n and came
50
m a n a g e m e n t of the C o m p a n y .
under
The Z a m i n d a r s showed little
the
inter-
est in the m a n a g e m e n t of the Zamindari a f f a i r s often indulging in
extravagance.
were
The
Z a m i n d a r s u n d e r the n e w p o l i c y of the C o m p a n y
happy to be m e r e b e n e f i c i a r i e s of the e s t a t e s
and
the
Company o f f i c i a l s to m a n a g e them on their b e h a l f .
the
case
creased,
w i t h the Z a m i n d a r of C h a r m a h a l .
he
expressed
As
his
h i s inability to pay the
324
allowed
This
was
arrears
in-
revenue
in
a
letter
to the Collector and requested the Company to
the management of the estate till
When compared with the
the
proprietary
estates
finally
coming
through
several hands.
of
take
over
51
the conditions improved.
Zamindari
estates the conditions
were worse and
estates
before
government
passed
land was regarded as the
symbol
under the management of
As the
these
the
wealth the traditional Zamindars of the region vied with
another
to
hanced
possess the proprietary estates.
This
greatly
one
en-
the
prices of the mootahs and the
estates were
bought
52
jumma rates fixed on them.
But in due course of
time
above the
because
of the heaviness of revenue burden and also due
efficient
manner
of its collection, many of
voluntarily surrendered,
als.
For example,
kash
in
the
to
estates
and some were sold to private
were
individu-
the Kaldindi mootah unable to pay the
was voluntarily surrendered to the government.
the
The
peishestate
of Tumidi after the Permanent Settlement passed into the hands of
two
individuals before
on
account
it was finally divided into two and bought
The same was the case
55
estates of Malakacherla and Pedanah.
The
decade
Company's
of
mands,
revenue
management policies
in
with
the
the nineteenth century therefore began to
the
first
erode
the
the
Za-
revenue
de-
collapsed into economic disarray and were there upon
put
traditional
mindari
of the government.
structures of power and status and many of
and proprietary estates unable to meet the
325
on sale to recover the arrears,
a
land market
selling
estates
occasioned
opulent
and
in the region.
thus leading to the emergence
The new system of the
or parts of estates for recovery
a vast permutation of property
of
Company
of
of
dues
had
and many ancient
and
families had been thus reduced to a state of
depression
1ndigence.
In 1836 when more and more estates were put up for sale
Company contemplated
the principle
the
when the estates were placed
temporarily under attachment whether to allow the Zamindar or one
of his relatives to manage the estate as Ameens. "
The
Board decided that
in cases where it was
essential,
a
member of the Zamindar family would be selected for the temporary
charge
of the management.
ments of estates nominal
a
This would mainly to
than real.
The Chief advantage
attachin
such
measure would be that the estate would be in the hands of
acquainted with and one having an
the
render
resources
interest
in the
improvement
of the estate than a stranger who would
have
one
of
to
acquire the knowledge of the e s t a t e . ^
Ancient Zamindaris : Company's Attitudes And Aspirations
M a n y of the Z a m i n d a r i s
up
in M a s u l i p a t n a m region f a i l e d to
to the e x p e c t a t i o n s a n d a s p i r a t i o n s of the C o m p a n y
ducing
the P e r m a n e n t S e t t l e m e n t .
W h e n the P e r m a n e n t
326
in
live
intro-
Settlement
was
concluded
with
the Zamindars in
the
region
the
Company
thought that since the Peishkash payable by the Zamindars to
the
Company
the
was fixed permanently,
Zamindars to
it would be an incentive for
improve the cultivation and increase the revenues of
their estates and efficiently handle them in order to make a huge
profit
for themselves.
Contrary to the expectations of the Company the very assessment
became
a financial burden to many of
the
Zamindaris
this,
coupled with factors like the extravagance of
dars,
family disputes,
other
external
Permanent
inefficient handling of the
factors,
finally sounded a death
Settlement in the region.
the
and
Zamin-
estates
knell
Over a period of
and
to
the
time
the
Zamindars had accumulated huge amounts of arrears and thus became
indebted
larly
to the Company.
became
creditors.
slowly
In
the
Even those who paid their Kists
and heavily
first case,
indebted to
the
the Company had
regu-
Sahukars
the
right
or
to
sequester that part of the estate which would satisfy the arrears
amount
due
to
second case,
the Company and put up for sale.
But
in
the Zamindar's estates slowly passed into the
the
hands
of the creditors.
With the failure of the Permanent Sett 1ement,the
began
ment
to
think of
in the region.
introducing a different
So it
for itself through sale.
dars became
largely
Government
land revenue
settle-
decided slowly to acquire the estates
But as pointed out,
some of the Zamin-
indebted to the creditors and these
327
Zaminda-
56
ris
were
Company
passing into the hands of the creditors.
thought, would defeat its purpose.
This,
to
ac-
quire the estates and also to keep its hold on the Zamindars
the
Company
the
passed a Regulation in 1821.
So in order
the
The Regulation
specified
government's decision and intention of maintaining
cient
families
former
dignity
of
distinction in these
and affluence,
the
territories
by securing
to
them
an-
in
their
and
their
families
the permanent possession of their Zamindaris and
their
57
territorial rights.
This Regulation covered four major aspects
concerning the Zamindars and their estates and were related to -
1.
succession in ancient families.
2.
mode of recovering the arrears of revenue and private
debts
from the Ancient Zamindaris.
5.
4.
relations between the creditors and the Zamindars.
58
the management of Police in such Zamindaris.
Francis
economy
believed
that
such moderate
entire
for duration.
The preserving the
would certainly be attended with many
believed that for this a new law of
the
larger
verse
as
and confine the proprietors to live at home were
calculated
and
estates
little
Zamindaris
that the great Zamindaris should
valid
be
divided
all the sons and the small ones descend to the
59
condition of supporting the younger children.
328
He
inheritance would be required
estates and not the smaller ones must be applied
among
better
conveniences.
rule of primogeniture customarily held
so
require
for
the
in
re-
equally
eldest
on
In
gars
the
f a m i l i e s o f all
and Native
property
eldest
on
son
might
have
consent
Chiefs
it
had been
death
of
the
the
otherwise
possessions
of
the
the
family
prevailed
Zamindars,
usual
head of
next
heir
except
or where
in
the
not
to
Jagirdars,
divide
family.
would
succeed
to
cases
where
contrary
head of
the
a
Poli-
the
the
of the government had made any other
60
for its disposal.
sion
Rajahs,
family
Generally
the
family
lawful
the
rank
and
usage
with
the
arrangement
The Company did recognize the law of succes-
in the Z a m i n d a n s and followed the existing custom as
long
as it suited the interests of the government.
But the Company did make certain exceptions and had reserved
the
right
tract.
fied
to choose as the Zamindaris were given under
For instance, women were generally considered
except
in
particular cases to
succeed
to
a
a
con-
disqualiZamindari.
Because the government considered them weak and believed that
as
they
had lived in seclusion, women of that rank were in
general
61
incapable of managing the estates efficiently.
It was for this
reason,
his
that in the case of Divi, after the death of the Zamindar
son
mother
being a minor the Company appointed the father
of
the
of the minor Zamindar as the guardian and manager of
the
estate,
of
62
course
with
the
consent
of
the
widow
of
the
Zamindar.
The
Zamindaris
family disputes became a common feature
over property issues.
in most of
So the Company also
329
the
recognized
the
law that
other
the Z a m i n d a r s h o u l d g i v e a r e a s o n a b l e s h a r e
m e m b e r s o f the f a m i l y
for
the
in order to prevent disputes.
Per-
h a p s the C o m p a n y d i d a p p r o v e t h i s m e a s u r e as
it w o u l d p r e v e n t
suits
led t o the
w h i c h c o n t i n u e d for y e a r s a n d f i n a l l y
63
ishment
o f the Z a m i n d a r s .
pages,
sils,
Besides these,
to
64
maintain the respectability of
provided.
Though these
involved an
the
equi-
family
idols, books and jewels which were considered as
articles
impover-
all the s t a t e
elephants, houses, furniture, arms and all
uten-
essential
Samsthan
extravagant
law
were
expenditure,
the Company did allow the practice as they were necessary for the
maintenance of
It
future
Where
the
was
the
the status of the Zamindars.
the
intention of the government not
to
sale of ancient Zamindaris for arrears
the Zamindar
allow
of
mindari
revenue.
in such ancient Zamindaris might fail
Permanent Pe1shkash the Collector should sequester
or such part of
it as might be necessary, with
in
to
pay
the
Za-
reference
to the amount of the balance and take it under Circar management
65
until the arrears were paid off.
In such cases Zamindar would
be
considered as the nominal manager of the estate and the
ernment
would
government
manage the estate on his behalf.
Besides,
would allow a suitable allowance for the
govthe
maintenance
of the family chargeable to the Zamindari.
Though
it was the intention of the government
to
maintain
the ancient families intact
in their Zamindaris, when an individ-
ual
failed in his engagements or
holding
the Zamindari
330
in
his
duties
he w o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d to have forfeited his right to the
Zamindari.
members
In such cases h i s r e s t o r a t i o n or that of one of
of the family to the Zamindari or the amount
for
the
their
m a i n t e n a n c e M o u l d entirely d e p e n d on the favour of the g o v e r n m e n t
and the g o v e r n m e n t also had the right in such cases to alter
66
permanent Peishkash.
the
To prevent the Z a m i n d a r i s or any part of the Z a m i n d a r i s from
passing
into others hands the C o m p a n y declared that all
Zamindaris
for
which no P e r m a n e n t Sanads had
been
ancient
given,
J a g i r s , service Inam lands and generally all territorial
all
posses-
sions a t t a c h e d to offices
should not be saleable or t r a n s f e r a b l e
67
or in any way a n s w e r a b l e for p r i v a t e debts of the Z a m i n d a r s .
By this the Company a i m e d at two o b j e c t s , one of not h u r t i n g
the
feelings
Because
sale
Zamindar.
Zamindar
petitioned
of the Z a m i n d a r s and also
of
By this
of
people
a Zamindari w a s a q u e s t i o n of
generally.
status
to
the
m e a s u r e many of the Z a m i n d a r s for example the
Charmahal
to
the
as he ran into
huge
debts
the Company to take up this Zamindari
voluntarily
under
the
g o v e r n m e n t m a n a g e m e n t till such time that government dues w e r e
68
realized.
The Z a m i n d a r s it w o u l d seem w e r e m o r e interested
in
their titles and their status and p o s i t i o n than of the far r e a c h ing c o n s e q u e n c e s it would have once the Zamindari passed into the
government
hands.
The other o b j e c t i v e of
gaining
control
e s t a t e s , i n this way was a c h i e v e d through a smooth p r o c e s s .
331
of
However this facility was not extended to all
the Zamindars.
The government made a distinction between the ancient
and those Zamindars who had acquired
nent
Settlement.
were
the
the status under the Perma-
But what was not however very clear was
69
Zamindars?
What was the
criteria of
ancient
government
in distinguishing modern Zamindars from
ones.
Because there were several opinions in the
cords,
itself
as
to whether Masulipatnam
grouped under ancient Zamindars or not?
simple distinction between the two that
were
Zamindaris
the
who
the
ancient
official
Zamindars
re-
could
be
But even if one makes
is,
a
the ancient Zamindars
those who held the Zamindaris from pre colonial
times
and
the modern Zamindars were those created by the British under
the
Permanent
Settlement certain questions are bound to
Masulipatnam
region
even
under the
Permanent
Zamindaris were mostly retained within the
exceptions.
The Haveli
tary
estates
70
Zamindars.
the
were also
In
Settlement
the
family with one or two
lands which were parcelled into
bought by the
same
Thus there was little change
Zamindari
arise.
proprie-
traditional
local
in the composition
group even under the Company.
In that
of
case
how
were the modern Zamindars distinguished from the ancient ones?
The
only
Company
it clear that the law of
to the ancient Zamindari
the territorial
had
made
entail
applied
families
in which the
office
and
71
rights had been hereditary.
The mootahdars who
newly purchased the estates or the other landed rights
not covered by the
law.
332
were
However
these
cases,
one thing which comes out clearly was that
in
all
the Company had the sole right to decide as to
who
would benefit from these privileges,
Service
Inamdars and those
and to whom to extend
them.
holding other offices to which
lands
were attached, or heads of old families and other Zamindars would
not enjoy any of these privileges.
would
But even
their service lands
not be liable to be sold for private debts.
Whereas
the
of the ordinary Zamindars could come up for sale even
72
private debts.
for
lands
The entail Zamindars were not
liable to be arrested for
private
debts or for any
judgments in any civil units.
amounts
which may be put against any such Zamindars by the
lector
should be recovered again by the collection in
73
manner as arrears of revenue.
However
to
recover
the sale of any personal property of the
such dues could be done.
But the
But
awards.
the
same
Zamindars
Zamindari
public
The government declared that the
revenue
could
not be held answerable
extent and for an unlimited
The
the
sources
to
an
74
itself
of
of
the
unlimited
time for private debts.
Sahukars who might have lent money to Zamindars
period
the
Col-
should not be considered in any way answerable for the amount
such
any
their Zamindaris were held under the
terms
during
of
the
Permanent Sanads and were alienable for private debts were partly
333
encouraged to advance their money by
means of recovery held
out
by the present regulations, by the eventual sale of such Zaminda75
n s to satisfy decrees of courts.
It was true that Sahukars were perhaps equally ready to lend
their
money before the establishment of the courts.
tors
or
The
might have chiefly depended on the honour of the
were tempted to risk their money by the
credi-
Zamindars
exorbitant
interest
76
and bonus which they usually
But
under
Zamindaris were
insisted upon.
this Regulation the Company specified
that
the
in some measure answerable for the private debts.
But only for the debts which the Zamindars made during the period
they
ment
held their Zamindars on the terms of the Permanent
Settle-
were to be recoverable
Collec-
in the same manner from the
77
tor.
The Collector shall
agement
and pay the creditors the surplus collections
Zamindari
and
paying
take the Zamindari under their
man-
from
which might remain after realizing the public
the Zamindars an amount for the maintenance
the
revenue
of
his
family which would be fixed by the Collector.
Moreover the Company felt that the Collectors should
the
Sahukars in realizing their debts from the
assist
Zamindars.
The
Collector should try to settle the disputes between the two
par-
ties smoothly and in a private settlement avoiding the law
which would take a long time and
suits
involve much expense and trouble
to both the parties when there was any difficulty in the
334
settle-
ment of the accounts in the process of the settlement between the
two parties the Collector should refer the matter to the Panchay78
at.
The amount of usurious interest and the bonus which
the
Zamindars in many cases paid on obtaining loans must be
by the government on the grounds of usury or at
rejected
least reduce
the
the high social status they enjoyed in
the
amount due for interest to the lawful rate.
K e e p i n g in v i e w
locality the Z a m i n d a r s w e r e exempted from a t t e n d i n g the court
in
person.
Zamindars
to
These V a k i l s w o u l d represent the Z a m i n d a r
in
On
institute
the
their behalf the Company a l l o w e d the
Vakils.
courts from time to time w h e n e v e r their p r e s e n c e was
neces-
sary in the court.
Another important field in w h i c h the ancient Z a m i n d a r s
were
given freedom in the m a n a g e m e n t of their internal a f f a i r s by
the
Company
The
w a s the m a n a g e m e n t of the police in such
estates.
Company felt that the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of the p o l i c e o f f i c e r s of the
magistrate
dissensions.
the
in the m a n a g e m e n t of the ancient e s t a t e s r e s u l t e d
The C o m p a n y felt that the internal
management
estate s h o u l d be left to the Z a m i n d a r s t h e m s e l v e s
thought
in
of
who
they
a d m i n i s t e r e d e f f i c i e n t l y w i t h the aid of their own
peo-
ple.
By this m e a s u r e the Company
dars.
M o r e o v e r on the part of the Company it w a s saved from
additional
expenditure.
establishment
did try to p l e a s e the
of police w h i c h w o u l d incur a
Zamin-
lot
the
of
S e c t i o n 58 of R e g u l a t i o n 11 of 1816 w a s intended in
335
this
way to restrain the
interference of the magistrate
79
police of the ancient Zamindars.
However the Board of
felt
that
powers
of
without
there
in
the
Revenue
should be certain simple rules
to
check
the
the Rajahs and any abuse of authority
by
them,
but
The Rajahs should afford
all
lowering
their position.
the aid and information to the magistrate
that they apprehend and send all
80
act ion.
in preserving peace and
offenders to the magistrate
for
This Regulation had left a lot of authority in the hands
Zamindars.
The cultivators position which was not clearly speci-
fied in the Permanent Settlement
left that to be decided
the Zamindar and the cultivator thus
the hands of Zamindar.
the Zamindari
hands the Company
and was subdued.
did
internal
between
leaving lot of authority
in
Having placed police and law and order
the mercy of the 7aminddrs.
they
of
in
left the cultivators virtually at
The cultivator lost all hopes of law
In the event of any oppression by the Zamindars
not have any other channel
to complain as
management of the estates were
police
in the hands of
and
ancient
fami 1i es.
Thus
the evidence clearly suggests that the Permanent
Set-
tlement which
introduced for the first time a regular and system-
atic
in the revenue administration had a
process
impact
on
principles
the
the rural social structures.
which were
deep
For example,
negative
the
introduced to guard the smooth running
system ironically contributed to the failure of the
336
very
of
system.
Another
important
However
the
a r g u m e n t that the s e t t l e m e n t
transformation
seen
c o n s e q u e n c e w a s the rise of
a
land
introduced
market.
a
social
i n the r e g i o n w a s v i r t u a l l y u n t e n a b l e a s
especially
in the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the land
can
market
be
which
emerged during this period.
L A N D M A R K E T AND THE LAND LORDS
The p r o c e s s of c h a n g e
many
folded.
affected
Land
variables
in rural
on
important a n d d e e p l y
SI
o f the a g r a r i a n w o r l d .
British policies,
possession
The
land r e v e n u e
impinged m o s t
rural a t t i t u d e s to land t h u s a f f e c t i n g its
consequently
c r e a t i n g a d e m a n d for it.
of
dramativalue
B e f o r e the B r i t i s h
the C i r c a r s a land m a r k e t did not e x i s t
n e w r e v e n u e p o l i c y of the C o m p a n y for the first
land
a commodity status.
at
time
The c r e a t i o n and sale of
e s t a t e s u n d e r the P e r m a n e n t S e t t l e m e n t
of time led to the d e v e l o p m e n t of land m a r k e t
was,
district
is
useful
all.
in the d i s t r i c t of M a s u l i -
course
which
took
proprietary
b r o u g h t land to the m a r k e t on a c o m m e r c i a l s c a l e . T h i s
distress sale of defaulting Zamindari
and
gave
patnam
Firstly,
was
w a s o n e o f the m o s t
especially those relating to
cally
India u n d e r B r i t i s h r u l e
with
in
the
estates.
it is n e c e s s a r y to e x a m i n e the e m e r g i n g land m a r k e t
however,
in i n c i p i e n t s t a g e s of d e v e l o p m e n t
o f M a s u l i p a t n a m u n d e r the C o m p a n y ' s r u l e .
to
d e b a t e the v i e w that the
337
colonial
in
the
Secondly
it
policies
had
brought
them
ic
about r e v o l u t i o n a r y c h a n g e s
the Company w a s a b l e
base
of
the rural
in the
locality and
to t r a n s f o r m the
through
s t r u c t u r e and e c o n o m -
societies with reference
to
the
social
82
c o m p o s i t i o n of the
land o w n i n g g r o u p s
In the pre colonial
and
r e g i m e s there w a s
c o n s e q u e n t l y there w a s n o real
evidence
of
colonial
indicates
region.
little d e m a n d for
M a n d market1.
land s a l e s and t r a n s f e r s
regimes
in the
The
limited
that we have u n d e r
that these w e r e
for
a
land
the
pre
different
85
purpose.
For e x a m p l e ,
sale and p u r c h a s e of
ing
lands
turies.
lands.
from p r i v a t e
Kali
c h a s e d some
in
are
recorded
i n s c r i p t i o n s r e c o r d several
cases of
The old t r a d i t i o n of k i n g s
purchas-
individuals continued through
Vishnuvardhana,
many
in the
in N a n d i g a m a taluk
other such
land s a l e s
and
instance,
not
by
private
land a v a i l a b l e and
that
w a s to quit t h e i r
lands.
as
cen-
King,
pur-
temple
84
District.
individuals
regimes.
in fact
it w a s
period.
one form of p r o t e s t of c u l t i v a t o r s a g a i n s t
in M a s u l i p a t n a m
the
to a
in K r i s h n a
land that w a s s c a r c e d u r i n g
dars a n d their o p p r e s s i o n s
India,
it
i n s c r i p t i o n s d u r i n g the pre colonial
T h e r e w a s plenty of a r a b l e
labour
the E a s t e r n C h a l u k y a
land from a B r a h m i n for gold to g r a n t
a village situated
There
many
the
For
Zamin-
in o t h e r p a r t s
of
The c u l t i v a t o r s u s u a l l y m i g r a t e d
to
neighbouring
Zamindaris
as they w e r e a s s u r e d
of
land
for
85
cultivation.
This f o r m of p r o t e s t could only be e f f e c t i v e in
a
land s u r p l u s s i t u a t i o n .
t r a t e d by the p r a c t i c e of
Again,
the s c a r c i t y of
carrying away
338
labour w a s
the a g r i c u l t u r a l
illusworkers
86
of a rival Z a m i n d a r .
S i m i l a r l y , the status of the Zamindar w a s
reflected not so m u c h in the extent of his lands as in the number
87
of the ryots w h o m he c o n t r o l l e d .
Thus,
while
labour w a s perceived as being
valuable,
land
itself had little value in the pre-colonial period.
Even
the
acquire
early
value.
phase of the Company rule,
land did not
There were many reasons for this.
Firstly, the
adopted the existing systems of revenue without
explained in the p r e v i o u s chapter
during
any
Company
many c h a n g e s . As
this was partly because of the
necessity of quickly creating a class of loyal supporters of
the
new
for
political
caution
in
structure,
and partly because of
r e s t r u c t u r i n g a strange and
complex
the
need
society.
The
p r e s e r v a t i o n of the existing revenue and social structures m e a n t ,
in turn, that there was no large disturbance in the social m a p of
the
region.
Even when the Company was forced by political
gencies to quell some troublesome Z a m i n d a r s , this was not
sarily
followed by any radical rupture with previous
nomic c o n f i g u r a t i o n s .
exineces-
socio-eco-
That is, land rarely, if ever, was put
on
"sale*.
However,
it is necessary to know briefly the origins of
d e v e l o p m e n t of land market and also the revenue defaulters
in the p r e - c o l o n i a l r e g i m e s .
nent
Settlement
realization
of
cases
Till the introduction of the P e r m a -
the primary m e a n s of the
arrears
the
of revenue
339
were
government
traditional
for
the
coercive
88
measures
such
as
imprisonment and torture.
The
Company
disapproved of the sale of estates for arrears of revenue
early
also
in
stages of its rule out of political considerations,
the
since
indiscriminate sales of Zamindaris in disregard of their antiquity and their place
in the rural
some degree of opposition.
society ware always attended with
Besides,
ment
period
also
as they were more powerful
in the pre Permanent Settle-
the powers of Zamindars being many
and
militarily
the Company for several
89
allowed the Zamindars to continue in their position.
One
due
of the reasons for the
to
trade
the fact that
capital was kept away from
with Europe on government
and
upon
landlords and that the
defaulters
that the land revenue still weighed
were
remained too
land
may
legal
provisions
so dissuasive that the profits
90
of
too
in-
heavily
against
the
agriculture
low.
It has been suggested that another reason for the lack of
land market was the heavy burden of
imposed
be
because
loans was a more profitable
vestment,
the
lack of demand for land
reasons
land revenue and other
91
by the pre-colonial regimes.
This is
a
taxes
debatable,
be-
cause if it was the heaviness of the land revenue assessment that
affected
Company
the
land market,
government.
this situation was more true
Under the Company
after the Permanent Settlement of 1802,
tions
were
more
systematized and
340
government,
ruthlessly
the
especially
the land revenue
more
of
collec-
collected.
This,
as
market.
On
market.
gued,
we shall see, did not hinder the emergence of
the contrary,
it stimulated the growth
The Permanent Settlement if it did no more,
a
land
a
land
was
ar-
of
it
did much by rendering land in the process of time a
valu-
able property and a security for the realization of the revenue.
The
tors.
formation of a land market resulted from
in
the case of default was the main
inability
with the
power.
reason.
Besides
of many Zamindars and more so of proprietors
increased revenue demand,
ers to acquire more land as
son.
fac-
The policy of the Company of putting the estates on public
sale
of
several
the
to
the eagerness of the
cope
purchas-
land was a symbol of rural status and
The revenue demand and the vigour of revenue
collections
the Company under the Permanent Settlement was also the
However it was the famine of 1853 that quickened the
ess though the first
What
reaproc-
lapse had occurred as early as 1815.
critically
affected the structures and
land holding in the region, was the
patterns
introduction of the Permanent
Settlement of 1802, which marked a significant new departure.
the
region the
Zamindari
and
lands under the Company's rule consisted of
Haveli.
Here too,
of
in the Zamindari
tracts,
In
both
the
existing Zamindars were confirmed in their previous positions and
92
they were made the owners of the estates.
In Bengal and other provinces the
land market slowly emerged
with the defaulting estates coming for sale because of
341
Company's
new revenue policy.
in
the
its
incipient stages of growth by 1802 and 1805
Company
the Havel 1
sale
come
in
lands.
the
While
early N i n e t e e n t h Century
over
a
essence what
stretch
considerations
occupation
after
and
its
every
body
consequent
power.
on,
Cases
its
owner
the
when
more
first
an
at
all
time,
been
by
of
forced
intended
and
force,
in
land
had
control
re-
that
is
power
l e g i t i m i z e d by
settlement,
land a t
to
a
part
an
length
with
violently
a
of
sale
it
was
unless
possibly
of
such
public
usurper
which
situation
Zamindars
land
times,
purchased
familiar
defaulting
Bengal,
antiquity
had
recognition
to
the
inhabitants,
the m a n w h o
viewed as
compel
back
had been
as
legitimate
to
it
land a n d
so
even
terms.
of
unnaturally
managed
commercial
for
in
in
when
Thus with the proprietary estates coming on to
Masulipatnam district
in
was
itself
had decided to create proprietary estates
to m a r k e t
mained
not
In the Northern Circars the land market
he
brought
conflict
opposed
for
their
property being sold by order of the court were numerous after the
9?
passing of the Permanent Settlement.
The
authors of the Permanent Settlement believed
principle
market
:
of
natural selection was
only the fittest must survive.
in the
of
the
law
hoped
indigent
would
prudent or wealthy who would improve the
lands.
in this process the
sell
to the able,
hoped that the
ignorant,
Thomas Law
the
had
that
They
implicit
that
extravagant or
land market would produce a new
342
pattern
of
94
proprietorship
Masulipatnam
weeded
based
also,
on enterprise rather than
no
doubt the
inefficient
ancestry.
land
In
lords
were
out. But unfortunately as in the case of Bengal the
land
market did not produce a new set of enterprising proprietors.
The
estates
and
after
as would be shown were bought by the same Zamindars
a time most of them passed into the hands of
the
govern-
ment .
The Zamindari
and proprietary estates were often
subdivided
and were put up for sale.
The Malakacherla estate was broken
and sold in six portions.
Some of the portions were partly
because
revenue demands.
the
government
95
individuals.
and the other two portions were
These
increasing subdivisions
feuds in the Zamindari
or
bought
led
to
by
by
two
personal
Due to the litigations and family
families most of the estates were
among the sons.
the
Of these one portion was bought
rivalries among the Zamindars.
between
sold
of owner's private debts and some partly because of
government
up
For instance, Pedanah
was
divided
divided
into Pedanah and Pedapatnam between the two sons of the
Zamindar.Tumidi
was
divided into Tumidi and
These subdivisions were more
the
in the Haveli
Zamindarls.The
lands when compared to
Haveli mootahs which were
97
were thus further subdivided.
Thus in the Haveli
circar.
China
original
96
Pundreka.
originally
small
lands, the lands belonging to the Company
proprietary estates were created parcelling out the
345
land
98
into
small
Haveli
mootahs.
land w a s
depending
on
pared
the
to
small,
lages
the
and
under
lands
gives
p a r c e l l e d out
the
number
the
Zamindari
largest
in
their
us
lipatnam
an
villages
estates
the
number
idea o f
in
these
size must
of
pre-colonial
and
14 m o o t a h s ,
that
being Guduru with
distribution
the
of
into
smallest mootah being
disproportion
spatial
In M a s u l i p a t n a m district
Haveli
regimes.
of
the
lands
Table
villages
position
have
each
of
district.
544
the w h o l e
their
size
each mootah.
proprietary
of Koval1
fifty
been
in
7.5
due
and
estate
com-
estates
were
vil-
villages.
This
the
around
list
scattered
the
of
consisted of
proprietary
varying
four
to
shows
the
When
with
two
of
estates
in
towns
Haveli
which
Masu-
T a b U i 7.5
Size of Haveli Estates in Masulipatnam district
S.No.
1.
2.
5.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
15.
14.
Name of the Estates
No.of Villages in each
Eluru
Kovali
Pedapadu
Vasantavada
Malakacherla
Crutivenu
Kaldindi
Kondapalli
Va11ursamut
Guduru
Akulamannadu
Inaguduru
Pedanah
Six Islands
8
4
8
12
18
9
8
14
10
52
6
14
17
6
Source
statement
of
the Zamindaris
and
Proprietary
Estates
created under Permanent Settlement, Mi see 1laneous Records,
v.15. p.57.
In these estates the Company sought to create a new class of
proprietors loyal to the British.
demand was fixed forever,
the value of
from
As the amount of the
the government expected a rapid rise
the new estates,
since any surplus income
would now revert entirely to
99
themselves instead of the state.
cultivation
In the initial stages when the Haveli
sale
the
estates
of
dars
revenue
the
accruing
land
lords
lands were put up
regional Zamindars bought several of
at more than their original assessment.
the
As
for
proprietary
possession
land was one of the rural status symbols the regional
vied with one another in purchasing these
estates.
ZaminTable
7.4 shows the sale price of the estates and the profit margin
the purchaser.
345
in
to
Tabla : 7.4
Profit Margin to th* Purchaser in tht Haveli Estate*
Mootahs
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Amount of Sale
Eluru
Kovali
Pedapadu
VasantaVada
Malakacherla
Crutivenu
Kaldindi
Kondapalli
Vallursamut
Guduru
Akulamannadu
Inuguduru
Pedanah
Six Islands
54.162-8-0
36.157-8-0
55.525-8-0
49.087-8-0
55.000-0-0
15.487-8-0
56.087-8-0
35,110-0-0
61,600-0-0
19.057-8-0
1,540-0-0
3.657-8-0
1,036-4-0
8.566-4-0
How many folds the
amount sale is above
that of the profit
11- 9
7-12
9- 5
26-14
21- 5
25- 5
104- 8
551-13
61.600
11-12
1,5403.657- 8
30- 4
8.566- 4
Source : Collector C.Roberts to the BOR,21 . 4. 1826, PBOR. v.1061
pp.3957-5940.
The proprietary estates as mentioned above were sold at such
high rates because the Zamindars anticipated that they would make
a
profit.
But
in reality for many small estates
amount was fixed too high that
the
Circuit Committee.
samut. Akulamannadu,
the
pelshkash
is beyond the estimated figures of
For instance,for the mootahs
of
Vallur
Inuguduru and Six Islands the rates were too
h l gh.
346
Table : 7.5
Proposed Peishkash
Mootahs
and actual Jumma
CC Estimate
Actual peishkash
Amount
MPs.
MPs.
Vallur Samut
Akulamannadu
Inuguduru
Six Islands
1,7952,4554,9539.166-
on the Haveli Estates
0808-
0
0
0
0
21,897-12-2
2,712-10-9
6,546-10-5
9,208- 5-2
Source: Statement of the Zamindaris and Mootahs created under
Permanent Settlement, Mi see 1laneous Records, v.15, p.52.
For certain other mootahs the peishkash amount was less than
the
circuit
committee estimates. For example, it
was
reported
that the best and the lightest assessed Zamindari in Masulipatnam
100
was Gundagolanu.
mated
Table 7.6
shows the circuit committee
jumma on the estates and the actual peishkash
amount
estiand
also the amount of profit to the purchasers.
Table .- 7.6
Mootahs
Eluru
Kovali
Pedapadu
Sale of Some of the Haveli Estates
CC Estimate
Peishkash
Amount
27.722- 7- 6
23,574-11- 0
20.189- 1- 3
23.042- 4- 0
18.906- 0-11
16,379-14- 1
Profit to
Purchaser
4.679- 3- 6
4.668-10- 1
3.809- 3- 2
Source : F.W.Morns.Deputy Director of Revenue Settlement Krishna
district to H.Newill Director Revenue Settlement, Madras
25.2.1861, Report on the Assessment of the Masulipatnam
portion of the Kistna district. 1861. pp.5-6.
347
When
chaser
were
was
compared to the Haveli estates the profit to the
in Zamindari estates was less.
As the Zamindari
retained mostly in the family itself and perhaps
Zamindari
lands
must have been less.
Table 7.7
estates
as
not much competition in these estates the value of
pur-
there
existing
suggests
that
this was indeed the case.
Table : 7.7
Profit margin to the purchaser in
Net profit
to Purchaser
Amount
sale
How many
folds the
pro f I t
S.N.
Zamindaris
1.
Part of
Charmahal
18252- 2- 1
24957- 8- 0
24957- 8- 13
Part of
Charmahal
12506- 2- 8
12577- 8- 0
12577- 8- 0
559- 5- 5 16099-12- 5
44-15- 0
104- 4- 0 1981- 0- 5 11200- 0- 0
5-10- 0
2.
Peishkash
Zamindari Estates
5.
Tumidi
12696- 4- 5
4.
Chatrayi
5.
Vinukota
49-14- 0
551-15-10
1450- 0- 0
4 - 5 - 0
6.
Gudivada
20-10- 5
9 8 - 5- 6
5 0 0 - 0- 0
5 - 1 - 0
Source:C.Roberts,
Collector Masulipatnam district to
the
BOR.
21.4.1826, N A Collection of papers relating to the value
of
land
in the early Nineteenth Century Madras, (1916).
SRMG,
New Series,20. p.54.
The
fixed.
policy
there
makers
could
believed that when the
be no dearth of purchasers.
quit
Some
Zamindars would lose their estates either for reasons of
and
rent
was
of
the
poverty
incapacity or from sheer distrust of the government and
348
the
reluctance to come to a settlement.
fer
In all such cases, a
of landed property to moneyed people who were able
improvements would be in some degree advantageous to
the progress of their plan and the success of
101
ments visualized by it.
The
Company thought that the new settlement
the
land revenue collections and also systematize
But
the
quite
actual results were contrary to the
rapidly,
to
condition
the
improve-
would
improve
the
process.
expectations,
several Zamindaris were put up for
sale.
primary reason for this was the heavy revenue burden the
regime
make
government.
The development of a land market was thus an important
for
trans-
imposed on the Zamindars, having calculated the
and
The
Company
permanent
assessment on the basis of the land revenue figures of the previous
of
thirteen years, without consideration of the real
102
the estates.
Thus,
many of the estates were over assessed.
the Permanent Settlement Rs.
charmahal.
Zamindari
government
Zamindar.
who
could
resources
In 1802,
1,21,870 was fixed on the estate of
The Zamindar Sobhanadri Rao refused to take
as the peishkash amount was too high.
leased
out
the
at
Zamindari
But some Zamindars,
on
up
the
Therefore,
the
account
like Vasireddi of
exert some
influence with the Company,
104
with a lighter assessment.
349
of
the
Chintapalli,
could
escape
This
excessive
detrimental
collection.
Bezwada was
because
For
burden
Mas
of
systematic
the
instance,
fixed at
Rs.
rendered
the
even
and
peishkash
36,885.
As
the
more
oppressive
efficient
on
the
manner
had
1851.
assumed
the
accumulated
as
though
1,49,769.
in 1836.
Zamindar
ZamindWards
But arrears of
revenue
the estate was under the management
had
the
Besides a considerable amount was
due
So the estate was put
up
for
But the sale of the estate was postponed
as
the
pay
the
105
of Nuzividu.a relative to the widow agreed to
debts due to individuals and to the Company
However
in
of
debts to private individuals.
sale
any
the wife of the Zamindar having attained majority
charge of the estate.
Company to Rs.
of
its
for
Zamindar died without
passed under the management of the Court
By 1835,
of
Zamindari
heirs, and as the Zamindar's widow was still a minor the
ari
and
in installments.
as the arrears continued to accumulate
was put up for sale again in 1846.
the
As there were no
the estate was purchased by the government for Rs.
estate
competitors
3000 and
the
Zamindar's widow was allowed to receive a monthly pension of
Rs.
106
150.
The Company's revenue management policies in
the
first
decade
of the nineteenth century,
traditional
structures of power and status,
into economic disarray,
the arrears,
therefore, began to erode
demands,
the
collapsed
and were thereupon put on sale to recover
thus leading to the development of a land market
the region.
350
in
This
Company
process was
introduced,
recovery of dues.
further accelerated by
of putting parts of
the new system
the estates
This was considered to be an
the older system of
sequestering the
entire
the
for sale
for
improvement
estate of a
over
default-
107
ing Zamindar.
Under the new system,
of value equivalent
to be put on sale,
thereby
be
regularly,
for
to
such
paid
on
the
first
the
the
the
day
when
or
farms
the
of
kist
attached
108
of
due
until
estates
fell
rate
of
a n d pay
they
1 7 % per month
If
The
would be
fell
and
wilfully with
if
it
held
by
kists
then
the
Board was
1 * p e r m o n t h on
the
arrears
until
paid
they
the
estates
which
case
from
be
the
cease.
551
become
farms
of
date
to
or
before
From
the
additional
that
misconduct
or
competent
to
addition
to
until
the
be
or
in
due
be
defaulter
time when
charged or
have
or
the
had
on
the
neglect,
be
the
had a p p e a r e d
the
to
would
charged.
to
Zamindars
revenue
from
discharges
interest
due
the
otherwise.
arrears
due.
required
the Zamindars would
estate
into
become
defaulters might
in
the Company was
entire
ascribable
interest
the
to
the m o n t h .
no
was
the
become
discharged or
have
of
arrears were
of
land
the
the
the
should have
revenue
a penalty
have
of
at
fifteenth
prescribed
might
losing
interest
mismanagement
impose
improve
ensuing month
public
that
of
arrears
the
fifteenth
fear
to
proprietors
pay
when
the amount due
the expectation being that
induced
Where
liable
to
only a part of the estate
the
arrears
the
until
estates
they
defaulters
penalty
be
might
was
to
But
under
one o f
the P e r m a n e n t
estates,
ly
the d i f f i c u l t i e s a n d
by
Settlement,
portions of which were
was
inconvenience
experienced
experienced
in d i v i d i n g
e x p o s e d t o sale e i t h e r v o l u n t a r i -
the p r o p r i e t o r s or c o m p u l s o r i l y by the g o v e r n m e n t
realization of arrears
In
dividing
separation of
the
of
the
e s t a t e put up for
share was
clashing
many
obstacles were
took p l a c e
interests
of
the
sale
voluntarily
the
of
it w a s a l w a y s a m a t t e r of g r e a t d i f f i c u l jurma
s a c r i f i c i n g the p u b l i c
i n t e r e s t s o n the one h a n d
109
t o the d e f a u l t e r o n the o t h e r .
injustice
However,
possible
needs
the
sale
g r o w as
In
under
century
of s m a l l
for a land m a r k e t
to be n o t e d that
rapidly here,
as
p o r t i o n s of
to e m e r g e
for v a r i o u s
it d i d
reasons,
Zamindari
s y s t e m at
the C o l l e c t o r s t i l l
352
late as
doing
it
although
it
did
110
not
district.
w h i c h had b e e n
the b e g i n n i n g of
and
made
the m a r k e t
in the G o d a v a r i
n o t e d as
or
estates
in t h i s r e g i o n ,
the S o u t h e r n d i s t r i c t o f G u n t u r ,
the
years
finally accomplished.
ty to g u a r d a g a i n s t d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e a l l o t m e n t s of the
thus
and
concerned,
s o m e t i m e s a delay
before a d i v i s i o n could be
much
the w h o l e v i l l a g e
different parties
interposed that
In the s e c o n d case
the
often attended with as
t r o u b l e a n d e x p e n s e as a n e w a s s e s s m e n t of
the
for
revenue.
smallest
from
the
the
brought
nineteenth
1820 that no
lands
of
whatever
description
w e r e u s u a l l y bought
111
publicly or by private contract.
nam
district also.
such
a
and
This was true of
Pouchepadass was right
Circars mainly
either
Masulipat-
in pointing out
case had become exceptional by that date.
Northern
sold
in Godavari district the
tates were put up for auction as early as 1812.
Even
that
in
the
Zamindari
es-
It was
only
in
Guntur and Masulipatnam we have Collectors reporting that revenue
112
was
regularly paid for long years.
The land had come
to
the
market considerably only after 18J0S.
study
It would be interesting to
why only in Masulipatnam the case was different
and
what
were the reasons.
As
they
the
estates and the portions of estates came
on
sale,
found ready buyers, who either saw in these new
opportuni-
ties for maximizing their wealth and incomes, or were
impelled by
the
traditional
acquire
associations between land and
more land.
rural
Two important consequences of this
power
to
were
an
increase in the size of some estates, and the creation of estates
which were scattered across the region.
For instance, Vasireddy,
the Zamindar of Chintapalli, acquired possessions as far away
113
Masulipatnam also.
as
For example, the first lapse in Masulipatnam region occurred
in
1812.
The parganas of Korukollu and Bhittarzalli which
part of the Charmahal
of the balances.
were
estate were sold by auction in liquidation
The two parganas were bought by the
353
government
114
for
Rs.
which
95,000.
paid
such
It
is interesting to note that
a huge amount for two parganas
the
in
Company
1812
took
possession of the entire estate of Bezwada only for Rs.
3,000
1846.
for
Perhaps in the beginning as the land was put up
in
sale
for the first time there was much competition.
The
sales
sales
of estates and the prices they
were related in a fairly complex fashion,
they
were affected by several
assume
that
would
be
quite
high.
Indeed the prices these
it
because
land market
estates,
prices
to
prices
fetched
are
But
in
were
self
the
in Company possessions the
fixed depending on the arrears amount and
either
the
logical
and vary according to supply and demand.
were
was
perhaps
estates
In a fully developed open market
case of nineteenth century
prices
at
It might be
when there was a great demand for
high.
regulated
factors.
fetched
too low or too high because then
sometimes
land
wa3
not
generally recognized as a commodity.
What w a s
the price
situation
in M a s u l i p a t n a m d i s t r i c t
w a s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the e x i s t e n c e of n u m e r o u s other
of
lands
in a d d i t i o n to the Zamindari
Apart
was
lands
a
from the sale of Zamindari
and H a v e l l
Inam
estates
there
lands.
These
w h i c h w e r e g r a n t s by k i n g s and o t h e r o f f i c i a l s
district.
D u r i n g the
description
estates?
great d e m a n d for d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of
i n d i v i d u a l s were a l s o sold to p r i v a t e
individuals
to
private
in M a s u l i p a t n a m
first half of the N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r y
354
which
sixty
three
such sales were recorded in the Zilla Court of
nam.
Masulipat-
However unlike the Zamindari estates they were
not big and
11?
sometimes consisted of one or only two cutties of land.
It
is
interesting
lands
to note that in the sale of different kinds of
both the Hindus and Muslims were involved.
In
Inam
some
cases
the
Muslim Inam lands were purchased by the Hindus and the
116
lands of the Hindus were purchased by Muslims.
In
the
descriptions
district of Masulipatnam the value
revenue
on
ranged
The Charmahal Zamindari which was
divisions was disposed of by public auction
Cutcherry
different
of lands fetched to its original assessment
from 7 3/4 to 61,600 fold.
two
that
Inam
in
account of arrears and it was sold
which was considered a low rate.
in
Collector's
17
folds
Generally the sale
its
of
Jagir and Mokasa villages which were rent free fetched considerably a superior rate.
Inam
lands
However sometimes even the Jagir, Mokasa or
fetched less prices.
For
example,
kattubadi
Inam
were sold at only four folds and Lakhiraj
117
at six folds.
lands were
sold
lands
In
to
be
the Masulipatnam district the value of land was
ascribed to the authority both actual
which purchasers thereby became
gives.
nominal
invested which no other
The actual authority was that which they as land
possess
was
and
that
in common with all Zamindars and the
nominal
assumed by every land holder in taking
355
chiefly
the
with
activity
holders
authority
title
of
Rajah.
consideration seemed to
118
inducement to possess landed property.
of
The
later
However,
among
the
soil
Besides
For
higher value
While
varied
and their n e a r n e s s
these,
counted.
them prices
depending
to
the
the Z a m i n d a r ' s name and his
instance,
it was the
than the other Zamindari
the
increasing
indicated the growth of the
be
the
on
principal.
the
fertility
irrigation
sources.
administration
also
lands of Vasireddi w h i c h
had
lands.
prices of the estates
land m a r k e t ,
nator
of
these
land t r a n s a c t i o n s were the social
put
on
another crucial
the new s t r u c t u r e s that were e m e r g i n g as a
sale
denomi-
result
c o m p o s i t i o n of the
of
buy-
ers.
The q u e s t i o n of w h o the buyers w e r e a s s u m e s critical
impor-
tance
in any d i s c u s s i o n of the social
Perma-
nent S e t t l e m e n t ,
that
c o n s e q u e n c e s of the
especially because of the
traditional
assumption
the S e t t l e m e n t initiated a r e v o l u t i o n a r y transformation
of
119
society.
W h o then, w a s the b u y e r in M a s u l i p a t n a m r e -
rural
g 1 on?
Sometimes
parts
of the Zamindari
ones w e r e sold to p r i v a t e
estates
and
proprietary
individuals for m a n y r e a s o n s .
Some
the e s t a t e s changed h a n d s twice or thrice b e f o r e they w e r e
ly
bought
by
the g o v e r n m e n t .
o r i g i n a l l y bought by Toleti
For
instance,
R a m a r a z u for R s .
356
final-
Vasantavada
49,087.
of
was
Soon after
wards it was privately sold
to Kocherlakota Venkata Rayudu.
For
arrears of revenue when the estate came up for sale again it
was
bought
of
by Bommadevara Naganna Naidu.
Pedapatnam which formed a part of Pedanah.
privately for Rs.
a
Another example was
high
price.
17,000.
In 1824
that
it
sold
Sometimes the estates were bought
The Pedapatnam mootah was one
such
for
case.
The
excessive personal
rivalries between the Zamindars was one of the
120
factors for the high prices of the estates.
In
the
1821
the Company clearly specified its policy
purchasing of the estates.
acquiring
the
estates
system throughout
authority
in
Having specified its
and introducing a
its territories,
Collectors
uniform
regarding
policy
new
of
revenue
the Board placed discretionary
in buying the estates
to
defeat
the
artifices which would be resorted to for raising the price if
it
were
of
known
that
121
all mootahs were to be bought
on
account
government.
As the estates both Zamindari and Proprietary were in
debts there were no immediate buyers. So the Company bought
of the estates at throw away prices.
Table 7.8 shows the
heavy
most
number
of estates bought by the government and the prices it fetched.
357
Table : 7.8
Estates bought by the Government
Estates
Years
Pedanah and
Price
in R s .
1857
11,660
Pedapadu
1844
53,000
Valavadam
1846
J8.000
Nidadavolu
1847
16,000
Tamidi
1847
5,000
China Pundreka
1847
4,000
Kaldindi
1849
500
Akulamannadu
1849
500
Inuguduru
1849
1,000
Six
1849
1.030
1851
5.000
Pedapatnaro)
Islands
Gudur
Source:
Compiled from the evidence in, Report on the Assessment
of
the Masu1lpatnam portlon of the Kistna district
18611865. pp. 1-7.
The
Company made its objective clear in saying
that
their
main objective was to recover possession of the mootahs and
only
a secondary object to obtain payment of arrears of revenue out of
the
price
certain
at which they might be sold.
restrictions.
However it
The Collectors were ordered not
did
place
to
chase any mootah at more than its value and they ought not to
purbe
imposed upon by the schemes of fraudulent bidders, but with these
358
exceptions
mootahs put up for sale should be
122
account of government.
The
large
all
estates especially the proprietary ones which
arrears
were
purchased
bought
of revenue to the government as
by
the government.
As the
were
mentioned
Company's
on
in
above
object
mainly to recover the estates from 1nd1v1dua1s,the government
was
as
soon as it took possession of the mootahs the balances due to the
government
were struck off.
For instance,
the balances
due
to
government from Tumidi and China Pundreka mootahs amounted to Rs.
1,51,209.
Same
The
was
the
amounting
Guduru
entire amount was written off
case with Pedanah and
by
Pedapatnam.
the
Company.
The
arrears
to Rs.
<Rs.
41,259 were written off in 1857.
Others
125
19,594) and Pedapadu (Rs. 50,580 ).
Perhaps
must have acted as an incentive in the worst cases to the
were
this
Zamin-
dars to surrender their estates to the government.
But
later on many of the estates reverted back to the
ernment
tached
sale
due to lack of purchasers.
The estates which were
to the government for arrears of revenue and put
did
not attract any buyers and remained in
government.
For
instance, the estates
of
Babu, four taluks in Nandigama, Six Islands,
nadu,
Venkata
the
Vasireddi
hands
for
of
Ramanadha
Charmahal
Suraneni
estates
and three taluks in the Bezwada estate were put up for sale.
359
at-
Inuguduru, Akulaman-
Kaldindi, China Pundreka in the Tumedi estate of
Pathi Rao, Korukollu division in the
up
gov-
Table : 7.9
Estates reverted to tha Govirnmint for Arrears of Revenue
included in
the estate
to government
of which the estate
was surrendered
1. Bezwada
3
1846
3.82.753- «- 5
2. Charmahal
1
1846
1,84.949- 4- 6
3. Tumedi
1
1847
97,428- 9-11
4. Nandigama
•
1849
2,34,692-14-1 a
5. Six Islands
1
1846
67,388- 5- 3
6.
1
1849
1.24.813-14- 1
Inuguduru
7. Akulamannadu
1
1849
52.523-15- 5
8. Kaldindl
1
1849
48.619- 6- 4
Source:
R.J.
Porter Collector Masulipatnam to W.H.
Bayley.
secretary to BDR. Ft. St. George. 16.7.1858. PBOR. v. 2249.
p.18981-13911 .
There
estates.
were many conditions and regulations for
buying
Transfer or gifts of land was allowed and
nized by the courts.
was
A Zamindar or a proprietor of an estate had
the liberty to transfer without the previous consent of the
ernment
to whomever he liked either by sale, gift
or
liable
Where proprietors of land fell into arrears they
to
pay interest at tha rate of \7X per month
arrears shall have become due.
gov-
otherwise
his proprietary right in the whole or in any part of his
ari.
the
recog-
Zamindwould
when
be
such
Always persons desirous of becom-
360
ing
purchasers of land may not participate in
the
proceedings.
They can depute authorized agents or Vakeels on their behalf.
the event of any purchase being made under a fictitious name
deposit
made
In
the
on account of such purchase Mill be liable
to be
124
forfeited to the government and the estate was to be resold.
Even in the purchase money 15% of it was required to be paid
immediately
could
after the sale and payment of the
be done in one month's time.
such
estates
Purchasers
rears
remaining
If any one failed to
were resold at the risk of
the
first
do
it
purchaser.
of land were not to be held responsible for
of
amount
any
revenue due to the government from the lands
sold
arto
them prior to the date of purchase unless it was otherwise stipu125
lated ln wr i 11ng.
Europeans
ticipate
were not
allowed directly or
indirectly to
in the purchase of land and in the event of any
parestate
being purchased in participation with an European or a descendant
of a European it would be liable to forfeiture to the
126
together with the deposit money.
The evidence of the records
of the Zamindari
government
indicates very clearly that most
estates put on sale were purchased either by the
same Zamindar or members of the families of the erstwhile
dars.
For
instance,
in Masulipatnam
district,
the
Zamin-
Zamindari
estates of Devarakota, Part of Charmahal, Chintalapudi and Zammulavayi
and
Medurgutta estates were purchased
361
by
the
original
Zamindars
only.
original
was retained
Zamindar E r l a g a d d a A n k e n a i d u and Charmahal
Sobanadri
estates
dars.
The D e v a r a k o t a Zamindari
Rao.
A g a i n in the d i s t r i c t , we have
by
by
many
Kamadana
cases
being bought by sons or b r o t h e r s of the previous
For example the e s t a t e s of B e z w a d a . Mylavaram,
Nuzividu
and
Zammulavayi
Masulipatnam
district
127
we
e s t a t e s w e r e purchased
find that
by
there were no
its
of
Zamin-
Munagala,
sons.
non
In
familial
buyers at a l l .
H o w e v e r there
estates
in the owners of the
For example,
divisions
and
the C h a r m a h a l
estate which
was under the p o s s e s s i o n
of
consisted
Sobanadri
p u r c h a s e d by Zamindars of M y l a v a r a m and Bezwada,that
Lutchmarow
case
the
also
other
From
and V e n k a t a N a r s a n n a Rao r e s p e c t i v e l y .
it went out of
regional
this,
the
we may quite safely conclude that the
radical
change
the
the
in the social
is p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g
that
But
of
of
Rao
Sooraneni
in
this
by
Zamindars.
in the early years at any rate,
an o u t s i d e r ,
is
family p o s s e s s i o n but p u r c h a s e d
estates
What
Zamindari
later on when they w e r e put up for sale for recovery
arrears.
two
is some change
is,
did not p r e c i p i t a t e
c o m p o s i t i o n of the
is
that
sale
rural
of
any
elites.
even when the p u r c h a s e r w a s
one not d i r e c t l y related by k i n s h i p ties to
erstwhile Zamindars.
128
region.
he w a s
invariably another
362
Zamindar
of
What was the situation
These
in the so called proprietary estates?
estates which were fourteen in number were created out
the
Haveli
lands.
the
Zamindars
These proprietary estates were purchased
of
Guntur.
Kondapalli, Akulamannadu,
For instance, the
Inuguduru,
Haveli
six Islands and
of
by
lands
of
Nizampatnam
were purchased by the Guntur Zamindar Vasireddi Venkatadri Naidu.
Pedanah
was
purchased by Erlagadda Nageswara Naidu
and
Vallur
Samut and Gundur parganas were bought by Bommadevara Naganna
alone was an outsider out of 14 estates put on sale
nam seven were purchased by Vasireddi
129
li .
These
cheaply
estates
except
original
Vasireddi
the Kondapalli mootah.
management seemed to be remunerative.
in Masulipat-
the Zamindar of
were purchased by
Till
Chintapal-
Zamindar
1816
the
But with the death of
Zamindar, Vasireddi Venkatadri Naidu
ment.
As the arrears accumulated the estates were bought
in 1849.
Akulamannadu for Rs.500 and
for
Rs.
the
Inuguduru and six
16000-0-0.
estates
the
the
was
MPs.5454-22-75
in
by
mootah
of
islands were bought
1,00(9 each.whereas the purchaser of Vallur
estate
Samut
and estate
was
sold
for
of
were merely nominal and there was no one to bid
when
the
paid
The annual peishkash amount on
As in the case of other estates the prices
government
150
debts.
com-
leading to unsettled manage-
The government bought
three times the peishkash amount.
the
litigations
between his two adopted sons
government
very
estate's
menced
the
who
estates
365
were
burdened
with
MPs
these
against
heavy
Tabls : 7.10
Estates purchased by
Estates
ths
Annual Peishkash
Government
Purchased for
MP - F - C
Kondapalli
MP - F -C
4.090-58-15
8,600-0-0
672-50-44
400-0-0
Inuguduru
1.656-15-22
950-0-0
Six
2.272-50-44
2,225-0-0
Akulamannadu
Islands
Nizampatnam
Source
:
16.000-0-0
R.J.Porter,
11.500-0-0
Collector
W.H.Bayley Secretary to BOR,
The
purchase
Zamindars
Masulipatnam
district
to
16.7.1850, PBOR. p.1(8901.
of the proprietary estates
by
themselves raises certain questions?
the
Why was
regional
it
that
there were not many outsiders?
One
major
reason
which perhaps
dissuaded
bidders from attending the public auctions was that
difficult
bought
the
outside*
it was
often
for a purchaser to take possession of the land he
unless
Zamindars.
s
he
had rural power and was as
powerful
But in case of the Havel 1 estates as they
geographically
well
as
the
were
not
situated this must have dissuaded many
s iders.
364
had
out-
One m a j o r reason w h i c h d i s s u a d e d b i d d e r s from a t t e n d i n g
public
to
a u c t i o n s w a s that it w a s often d i f f i c u l t for a
take p o s s e s s i o n of the land he had b o u g h t .
the
purchaser
P e r h a p s this
was
one of the r e a s o n s w h y t h e r e w e r e not many o u t s i d e p u r c h a s e r s and
only regional Z a m i n d a r s b o u g h t the e s t a t e s .
purchaser
assert
was a
Even then unless the
big one powerful Zamindar it w a s
difficult
his new right in the estate that too as the e s t a t e s
to
were
sold in parts it w a s d i f f i c u l t even to m a i n t a i n their d i s t i n c t i o n
with overlapping.
From the s t a t i s t i c s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e ,
it is clear that
there
was
some r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of rural power,
in the sense that
there
was
a
b l u r r i n g of the t r a d i t i o n a l
boundaries,
with
Zamindars
o u t s i d e the M a s u l i p a t n a m region seizing the n e w o p p o r t u n i t i e s
a c q u i r e estates there.
A g a i n , h o w e v e r , what is s i g n i f i c a n t
is not so m u c h the spatial r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of rural w e a l t h
tant
as
it w a s . but the fact that the new p u r c h a s e r s
to
here
impor-
were
old
Zamindars.
Thus
region
in
the
1802
P e r m a n e n t Settlement introduced
w a s not entirely new.
existing arrangements.
It
in
Masulipatnam
formalized
various
But What the P e r m a n e n t S e t t l e m e n t failed
to d o , h o w e v e r , w a s to r e g u l a t e the relations b e t w e e n the p e a s a n t
and the Z a m i n d a r , and this w a s to have long term c o n s e q u e n c e s .
The
tions
P e r m a n e n t S e t t l e m e n t did not fulfill all
the
of the C o m p a n y . O n e e x p e c t a t i o n that w a s indeed
365
expectasatisfied
was
the
e m e r g e n c e of a land market
in the region.
Though
the
factors,
the
formation
of a land m a r k e t was the result of many
Company's
policy of p u t t i n g revenue d e f a u l t i n g estates
was the single most
had
important factor.
Indeed,
the Company
strongly b e l i e v e d that because of the P e r m a n e n t
inefficient
landlords
on
sale
itself
Settlement,
w o u l d be w e e d e d out and that a
owning class w o u l d emerge based on e n t e r p r i s e rather
new
than
land
ances-
try .
But
most
by
the evidence
from the M a s u l i p a t n a m region suggests
of the Zamindari
e s t a t e s put on sale were purchased
the same Zamindar or by m e m b e r s of the
Zamindars.
non
W i t h the e x c e p t i o n of one or two c a s e s ,
familial
particularly
outsider,
while
buyers
in M a s u l i p a t n a m region at
striking
is that even w h e n the
that
Zamindar,
Thus,
it
years
of
families of
erstwhile
all.
is
was
an
the
invariably a n o t h e r traditional
C o m p a n y ' s rule did not
What
purchaser
can be a r g u e d that the sale of estates
the
either
there were no
is one not related by k i n s h i p ties to
he was
precipitate
that
in
erst-
Zamindar.
the
any
early
radical
change in the social c o m p o s i t i o n of the rural
estates.
Obvious-
ly,
necessity
of
the Company quickly recognized the vital
porting
the Zamindari
s y s t e m so that
the new s t a t e .
366
it could act as a p r o p
supfor
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(1). G.E.Russell.
Collector Masulipatnam to the BOR,
20.5.1819,
Board's Miscellaneous Records General, v.14, p.45.
( 2 ) . About acquisition of powers of the Zamindars see. Collector,
Masulipatnam district to the BOR. 25.9.1786. MDR. v.
2897.
p. 152.
<5>.
For
the Company's perceptions of the Zamindars
power in the initial stages see chapter 3.
and
their
<4>. Report from Edward Saunders et.al, to the President, Committee
of Circuit, s Report of the Circuit Committee
on
the
Zamindaris dependent on Masulipatnam', SRMG, p.13.
( 5 ) . For
further details on the Zamindari Estates and the
Proprietary
Estates and the owners of the estates
before
and
after the Permanent Settlement see, table A 1&.
( 6 ) . For a detailed discussion of the Company's policy see Amb l ra jan,Classical
Political
Economy and British
Policy
in
India, Cambridge,1978; Eric Stokes, English Utilitarians and
India. Oxford,1959.
( 7 ) . For a discussion of private property in
India see.Dharma
Kumar. N Private Property in Asta? The Case of Medieval
South
India',CSSH, 27, 2, (1985). pp.540-366.
(8>. Ainslee, T . Embree , *l_and Holding in India and British
tutions',in R .E.Frykenberg
<ed.),Land Control
and
Structure in India. Delhi, 1979, p.37.
InstiSocial
< 9 ) . Ranajit Guha,A Rule of Property for Bengal : An Essay on the
Idea of Permanent Settlement. Paris and Hague, 1963, pp.17679.
<10).Ainslee. T.Embree, N Land Holding in India and British
tutions',in
R.E.Frykenberg
(ed.).Land Control
and
Structure in India. Delhi. 1979. pp.43-44
InstiSocial
(11).Ranajit Guha. A Rule of Property for Bengal : An Essay on
the
Idea of Permanent Settlement, P a n s and Hague.
1963,
P.97.
(12).Ibid. p.98.
(13).Ibid. p.98.
(14).For
a
detailed discussion of the Permanent
Settlement
in
Bengal
and
its objectives, refer Ranajit Guha, A Rule
of
Property
for Bengal : An essay on the
Idea of Permanent
367
Settlement. Paris and Hague. 1965; S. Gopal.Permanent
tlement in Bengal, London. 1949.
<15). Gordon Mackenzie,
A Manual of the Kistna District
Presidency of Madras. Madras, 188?, p.562.
Setin
the
(16>.F.W. Morris, Deputy Director of Revenue Settlement,
Krishna
district to H.
Newill, Director of Revenue Settlement,
Madras,
25.2.1861, Report on the Assessment of the Masulipatnam portion of the Kistna district 1861-186?, p.4.
<17).C.Roberts.
Collector Masulipatnam District
to
the
BOR,
21.4.1826,
"Value of Land in Early Nineteenth Century
in
Madras Presidency 1 , ( 1 9 1 6 ) , SRMG. New Series. No.11. p.54.
<18>.On the contrary the proprietary estates that were put up for
sale were bought by the regional traditional Zamindars only.
For a detailed discussion on the proprietary estates and the
group who bought the estates see Gordon Mackenzie, A Manual
of the Kistna District in the Presidency of Madras,
Madras.
1885, pp.548-549.
<19>. F.W. Morris. Deputy Director of Revenue Settlement, Krishna
district
to H.
Newi11. Director of Revenue Settlement.
Madras.
25.2.1861, Report on the Assessment of the Masulipatnam portion of the Kistna district 1861-1865, p.5.
(20).Collector.
Masulipatnam district to the
PBOR. v. 265. pp. 9225-24.
BOR,
18.10.1800.
(21).Extract from the Board's proceedings on the Introduction
of
the Judicial and Revenue systems of Bengal, 2.9.1799,
Mi scellaneous Records, v.190, pp. 71-72.
(22).For a detailed account of all the land
legislation
during
this period see P.T. George, "Land system and legislation in
M a d r a s 1 . Artha Vignana. 12, 2, (1970), pp.28-57.
(25).Nicholas B. Dirks. "From little King to Land Lord: Property.
Law and
the Gift under the Madras
Permanent
Settlement 1 ,
CSSH. 28. (1986). pp. 517-518.
( 2 4 ) . Collector. Masulipatnam
PBOR p. 9218.
district to the
BOR.
(25)-T.R.Davidson.
Secretary. Government of India to
5.10.1844. PBOR. v.1962. p.4547.
18.10.1800.
G.D.Dring,
(26).Ibid. pp.4548-49.
(27).Collector.
Masulipatnam
PBOR. v.1571. p.10045.
district to
(28).Ibid.
368
the
BOR.
24.9.1844.
(29).Nicholas B. Dirks, "From Little King to Landlord, Property,
Law and
the
Gift under the Madras
Permanent
Settlement'
P. 315.
O8).I.F.Lane,
Collector Masulipatnam district
28.11.1821. PBOR. v.901. pp.10744-10748.
to
the
BOR,
O l > . Ibid.
(32).Ranajit Guha. A Rule of Property for Bengal : An Essay on
the
Idea of Permanent Settlement, Paris and Hague,
1963,
p.123.
(33).The
regulation 30 of 1802, The Regulations of the Board
Revenue
(no page numbers).
of
(34).T.v\S.
Rao. "Land legislation in Andhra Pradesh
1800-1950.
Artha Vignana. Second part, 8, 4, (1966), p. 357.
(35).P.T. George, "Land System and Legislation in Madras',
Vignana, 12, 2. (1970). p. 30.
Artha
(36).Thomas Munro, "Minute by Sir Thomas Munro on the
state
of
the country and condition of the people', 31.12.1824, Madras
Revenue Selections, p. 615.
(37) .Ibid.
(38).Ranajit Guha.
A Rule of Property for Bengal : An Essay on
the
Idea of Permanent Settlement, Paris and Hague,
1963.
p.125.
(39).Ibid.
(40).George Smith to government in council
Ft.
St.
George,
12.4.1815, Revenue Dispatches from England, v.6, p.329.
(41).Secretary,
BOR, to the Chief Secretary to
3.8.1840. RDC, v.501. p.3959.
the
government.
(42). Arzee from Chilakapati Bapiraju, Vakeel on the part of
the
head
inhabitants
of Devarakota
paragana
to
the
BOR,
3.2.1817,
Boards' proceedings miscellaneous records.
v.39.
(no page numbers).
(43).John Hodgson, Secretary
to the Special Commission.
Madras,
to
the Collector Masulipatnam district. 13.12.1802,
Permanent Settlement Records, v.12. pp.4996-4998.
(44).Board's Proceedings on
the introduction of the Judicial and
Revenue Systems of Bengal, 2.9.1799. Miscellaneous Records.
v.190. p.89.
(45).John Hodgson. Secretary
to the Special Commission,
369
Madras,
to the Collector Masulipatnam district.
nent Settlement Records, v.12. p.5002.
13.12.1802,
(46).Collector Masulipatnam district to the BOR,
pp. 756-765.
(47) Collector.
Masulipatnam district to the
RDC. v. 196. pp. 1321-1323.
Perma-
26.1.1806. RDC.
BOR,
23.4.1815,
(48) I. Clarke. Secretary to government, 16.10.1820, RDC.
pp.4228-4232.
v.262,
(49) Collector, Masulipatnam district to the BOR, (no date) PBOR.
(miscellaneous records),
vol.
15,
pp.57-58;
Arzee
from
Vasireddi
Venkatadri
Naidu
to
Smith,
Collector Guntur
district, 28.1.1806, RDC, v.148. pp.756-765.
(50).For a detailed account of
the conflict and finally how
the
Zamindari
was ruined and had
passed into the hands of
the
government see, R.E.Frykenberg,Guntur District 1788-1848 : A
History
of Local Influence and Central Authority
in
South
India. Oxford. 1965. p.64.
(51).Collector Masulipatnam district to the BOR,
v.196. pp.1321-1335.
23.4.1813.
(52).For the prices at which the estates were bought see
19.
RDC,
table A
( 5 3 ) . F.W. Morris. Deputy Director of Revenue Settlement, Krishna
district
to H.
Newi11, Director
of
Revenue
Settlement,
Madras.
23.2.1861, Report on the Assessment of the Masulipatnam portion of the Kistna district 1861-1865. p.5.
(54).R.Clark, Secretary to the Government to the President,
8.9.1821. PBOR. v.898. p.8634.
BOR.
(55).Ibid.
(56).For
further details of how the Zamindars were
indebted
to
Sahukars.see
the
Zamindari accounts
of
Divi,Letter
from
I.Dent.Col lector Masulipatnam to the BOR. 12.9.1827,
PBOR.
v.1134, p.786; For the list of creditors who became Proprietors
of estates,see P.Grant, Collector Masulipatnam to
the
BOR.20.11.1840.PBOR.v.1733.p.17263.
(57). For details see,R.Clark.Secretary to the Government to
President,BOR. 8.9-1821.PBOR,v.898.pp.8635.
the
(58).Ibid.
(59).Ranajit
Guha,A
Hague.p.108.
Rule
of
Property
370
for
Bengal:,ParIs
and
(60).For the details of Hindu law regarding adoption and
succession to the Zamindaris see.Nilliam Oram, President,
Committee of Circuit
to Campbell.' Secretary BOR.
PBOR.
v.3,
P.119Z.
<61).R.Clark.Secretary
to the Government to
8.9.1821. PBOR. v.898, pp.8657-38.
the
(62).Collector.
p.739.
12.1.1828.
Masulipatnam
to
the
BOR.
Pre9ident,BOR,
v.1134.
(63).One striking example of the Zamindari being reduced to nothing because of the legal battles that continued for
decades
was
the Zamindari of Vasireddi. For a detailed account
of
the
dispute
between the two adopted sons of
the
Zamindar
Vasireddi
Venkatadri Naidu see. R.E.Frykenberg.Guntur District
1788-1848 : A History of Local Influence and Central
Authority in South India. Oxford. 1965, p.44.
(64).An
interesting feature was that the Zamindaris
which
were
under
the Company either under Court of Wards or under
the
management of the Company these were allowed to continue.For
the
details
of
the
Zamindars
property
see
Collector
I.Dent.Masulipatnam to the BOR. PBOR. v.1134. pp.739-787.
(6>).R.Clark,Secretary
to the Government to
8.9.1821. PBOR. v.898. pp.8640.
the
President,BOR,
(66) .Ibid.p.8641.
(67).Thomas Munro, 'Minute of Thomas
RDC. v.262, p.3790.
Munro'.Madras.
19.9.1820,
(68).For
further
details on the Zamindari
management
and
the
petition from the Charmahal Zamindars,see,Co11ector
Masulipatnam to the BOR, 23.4.1813. RDC. v.196, pp.1321-1336.
(69).One official line of thought held the view that none of
the
Masulipatnam Zamindars
could
be classed as
the
ancient
Zamindari families of distinction.For details
see,Col lector
to the Bor.1823, SRMG.p.14.
(70).Gordon Mackenzie,A Manual of the Kistna District
Presidency of Madras. Madras, 1883, pp.348-349.
(71).R.Clark,Secretary
to the Government to
8.9.1821. PBOR. v.898, pp.8635.
the
of
the
President.BOR,
(72).F.W.MorrIs,
Deputy Director of Revenue Settlement,
Krishna
district
to H.Newill, Director of Revenue
Settlement,
Madras, 23.2.1861, Report on the Assessment of the Masulipatnam portion of the Krishna district.
pp.3-7.
(73).R.Clark.Secretary
to the Government to
371
the
President,BOR,
8.9.1821. PBOR. v.898, p.8642.
(74).Ibid.
<75>.Ibid. p.8645.
<76>.Sahukar
teep was a common feature in the region.Many
Sahukars
depended and lived mainly as creditors to
the
Zamindars.for reference see, William Oram, to the BOR,
C\rcui t
Committee Report. 31.13.1786. v.l6/a, p.76.
(77).R.Clark.Secretary
to the Government to
8.9.1821. PBOR. v.898. pp.8657-38.
the
President,BOR,
(78).Minute of Thomas Munro. 19.9.1820, RDC, v.262, p.3787.
(79).Board of Revenue, Regulation 11 of 1816,
(no page numbers).
(80).R.Clark .Secretary
to the Government to
8.9.1821. PBOR. v.898, pp.8648-52.
the
President,BOR,
(81).For
detailed discussion of this view see Eric
Stokes,
Peasant and the Ra) :
Studies in Agrarian Society
Peasants Rebellion in Colonial India. Delhi, 1978.
The
and
<82>.R.A.L.H.
Gunawardana. ^The Analysis of Pre colonial
Social
Formations in Asia in the writings of Karl Marx", Journal of
Indian Historical Review. 2, (1975). pp.365-388.
(83>.Dharma Kumar,
^Land Ownership and
Inequality
in
presidency
1853-54 to 1946-47', Indian Economic and
History Review. 12. 3. (1975). pp. 229-263.
Madras
Social
(84).Kambhampati Satyanarayana, A Study of History and Culture of
Andhras, 1. Delhi. 1975. pp.319-320.
(85).There
were many petitions of Zamindars to the
Collectors
about
the migration of cultivators, some times
expressing
their
inability
to
pay the revenue to
the
company,
for
further
details
refer chief of Dutch Company
to
Anthony
Sadlier, Masulipatnam.
16.9.1789. MDR. v. 2896. pp.
114243.
<86>.
For instance, the Zamindar of Nuzividu Apparao being refractory and powerful in the region often raided the villages of
rival Zamindaris carrying the produce and also the
cultivators. Evidence in the records show the Zamindars letters
to
the Company asking for assistance to bring back the cultivators,
for details see Collector Ragapore to
James Daniel,
BOR. Madras.
31-2.1783. MDR. V. 2891/a. p.17. John Lee to
James Daniel, BOR, Madras.
23-3.1783 MDR, v. 2891/b. p.66.
(87).Jacques Pouchepadass, "Land power and Market : The Rise
of
the
Land Market in Gangetic India', in Peter Robb
(ed.)
372
Rural
India Land
power and Society
London, 1985, p.78.
under
British
Rule.
(88).For a discussion of revenue systems and taxation, see
Ambirajan,Classical
Political
Economy and
British
Policy
in
India. Cambridge, 1978.
<89>.G.E.Russel1,
Collector Masulipatnam district to
the
BOR,
20.5.1819. Miscellaneous Records (General), v.14. p.45.
(90).C.Roberts,
Collector Masulipatnam
21.4.1826. PBOR. v.1061, p.5951-55.
district
to
the
BOR.
(91).Jacques Pouchepadass. x Land Power and Market : The Rise of
the Land Market in Gangetic India', in Peter Robb
(ed.),
Rural
India Land
power and Society
under
British
Rule,
London, 1985, p.78.
(92).For a detailed note on the Zamindars who held
the
estates
before
the
Permanent
Settlement and who were
given
the
Zamindari right under the Permanent Settlement and regarding
the
origins of Zamindaris and1 their sizes
see.
Collector
Masulipatnam to the BOR, PBOR. Miscellaneous Records, v. 15,
pp. 59-60.
<95).Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri,"Land Market in Eastern India
17951940
:
The Movement of Land Prices',IESHR.
12,2,
(1975).
pp.155-156.
(94).For
detailed discussion of the
Permanent
Settlement
and
their
implications refer Ranajit Guha, A Rule of
Property
for Bengal: An Essay on the Idea of
Permanent
Settlement,
P a n s & Hague,
pp. 178-179.
(95).F.W. Morris, Deputy Director of Revenue Settlement,
Krishna
district
to H.
Newi11, Director of Revenue Settlement,
Madras,
25.2.1861, Report on the Assessment of the Masulipatnam portion of the Kistna district 1861-1865. p.7.
(96).For
a list of the names of the Proprietary estates
created
in Masulipatnam district see Collector C. Roberts,
Gollapolam Masulipatnam district to the BOR,
21.4.1826, Selection
from the Records of the Madras government, p.54.
(97).Ibid. p.6.
(98).For
a list of the names of the Proprietary estates
created
in Masulipatnam district see Collector C. Roberts,
Gollapolam Masulipatnam district to the BOR,
21.4.1826, Select ion
from the Records of the Madras government, p.54.
(99).Andrew Scott Collector to William Petrie,
PBOR. v. 265. pp. 92225-24.
375
BOR.
18.10.1800,
(100).F.W. Morris, Deputy Director of Revenue Settlement, Madras
to
H.Newi11,Director
of
Revenue
Settlement.Madras,
23.2.1861, Report on the Assessment of the Masulipatnam
Portion of the Kistna district 1861-1865. p.4.
<101>.Ranajit Guha. A Rule of Property for Bengal: An Essay on
the Idea of Permanent Settlement. Paris and Hague, p. 106.
(102).Gordon Mackenzie, A Manual of the Kistna district
Presidency of Madras Madras . 1883. p. 548.
in
the
(105).F.W. Morris. Deputy Director of Revenue Settlement. Krishna
district to H. Newill, Director of Revenue Settlement.
Madras,
23.2.1861. Report on the Assessment of the Masulipatnam portion of the Kistna district 1861-186?. p.2.
(104).Gordon Mackenzie, A Manual of the Kistna district in
Presidency of Madras Madras , 1883, p. 348.
the
(105). F.W. Morris, Deputy Director of Revenue Settlement, Krishna District to H. Newill, Director of Revenue Settlement,
Madras,
23.2.1861, Report on the Assessment of the Masulipatnam portion of the Kistna district 1861-186?. p.4.
(106).Ibid.
(107).P.T. George, NLand system and Legislation in Madras , Artha
Vignana, 12,2. (1970). p.28.
(108).John Hodgson, Secretary to the Special Commission, Madras,
to the Collector, Masulipatnam dlstriet.13.12.1802. Permanent Settlement Records, v.12, pp.5004-5005.
(109).George Smith London to governor in council Ft. St. George,
12.4.1815. Revenue Dispatches from England, v.6, p.332.
(110).For the details of the estates that were put on sale in
Godavari district see Henry Morris, A Descriptive and Historical Account of the Godavari District in the Presidency
of Madras. London.1878; P.Swarnalata, 'Agrarian Structure of
Godavari District C 1800-1840'. M.Phil dissertation. University of Hyderabad, 1986.
(111).Jacques Pouchepadass, xLand power and Market : The Rise of
the Land Market in Gangetic India', in Peter Robb (ed.)
Rural
India Land power and Society under British Rule,
London, 1983. p.78.
(112).Statement of the Zamindaris and Mootahs created under the
Permanent Settlement1, Board's Proceedings (Miscellaneous
Records). v.15, (no Page numbers).
(113).Gordon Mackenzie, A Manual of the Kistna district
Presidency of Madras , Madras . 1883, p. 348.
374
in
the
(114).F.W. Morris, Deputy Director of Revenue Settlement, Krishna
District
to H.
Newill, Director of
Revenue
Settlement.
Madras , 23.2.1861, Report on the Assessment of the Masulipatnam portion of the Kistna district 1861-186?, p.2.
(115).C.Roberts.
Collector Masulipatnam district
to
the
BOR,
21.4.1826.
"Value
of land in Early Nineteenth Century
in
Madras Presidency', SRMG. 20, Madras, pp.84-87.
(116).For
a
list of sale of Kattubadi and LakhIrai
Inam
lands
recorded in the Zillah Court of Masulipatnam see table A 1$,
A 16. A 17.
(117).Ibid.
(118).C.Roberts,
Collector
Masulipatnam district
21.4.1826. PBOR. v.1061. p.5935.
to
the
BOR.
<119).Bernard S. Cohn,"The Initial British Impact on India
:
A
Case
Study
of
the Benares Region'.JAS.
(1960),
pp.418431;Ratnalekha Ray, Change in Bengal Agrarian Society
17601850. Delhi, 1875.
(120).F.W. Morris, Deputy Director of Revenue Settlement
Krishna
district
to H.
Newill, Director of
Revenue
Settlement.
Madras ,
23.2.1861 Report of the Assessment of the Masulipatnam portion of the Kistna district 1861-1865. p. 5-7.
(121)."Government,
27.9.1821,
Revenue Department,
no.715',
in
Circular
Orders
of
the BOR, Tamil
Nadu
State
Archives,
Madras, p.10.
(122).Ibid.
(123).F.
W.
Morris, to H. Newill.
23.2.1861.
Report on the
Assessment
of the Masulipatnam portion of the
Kistna
district 1861-1865. pp. 6-7.
(124).John
Hodgson, Secretary to the Special
Commission
BOR,to
the Collector, Masulipatnam district. 13.12.1802.
Permanent
Settlement Records, v.12,
pp.5004-5005.
(125).Ibid. p.4999.
(126).Ibid.
p.4995.
(127)."Statement
No.4 on Masulipatnam District 1 .
in
Proceedings. Miscellaneous Records, v.15, pp.57-58.
(128).Col lector Masulipatnam to the BOR.
laneous records, v. 15. pp. 58-60.
(129).Ibid.
375
Board's
(no d a t e ) . PBOR. Miscel-
(150).F.W.
Morris to H. Newi11.
23.2.1861, Report on
sessment of the Masulipatnam portion of the Kistna
1861-1865. pp.2-6.
376
the Asdistrict