§ 21. Right to lapsed Lands, &c.—Head IV.

It has happened that estates were forfeited for rebellion after 1857, or may be forfeited for crime under the Criminal Law. Such lands then became State property. The law of escheat of lands that had no heirs, was known to the old Hindus under the name of 'gáyári.' The Muhammadan law term 'nazúl' is also applied to escheated lands. But it is very commonly applied to lands or houses that were owned by the former government, and therefore became the direct property of the succeeding government.

§22. Hypothecation of the Land.-Head V.

This is really almost the only vestige of any 'universal' State claim to land. It is obviously necessary to the security of the land-revenue. The revenue is, in fact, an absolute first charge on all land, and must be satisfied before any other claim; and the land can be sold, by the Bengal law, at once, and by other laws in the last resort, to recover arrears. When Government sells land, and no one buys it, the land remains (as in Bengal) on the hands of Government, as what is called in revenue language, a Government estate, or a khás mahál.' Should a proprietor decline the terms of Settlement, he may be excluded from the management for a time; but the estate, even though farmed or managed direct by the Collector (held khás' as the phrase is) for a time, does not become the property of Government.

6

6

§ 23. Government the universal Landlord'

After Government has so distinctly conferred proprietary rights in land, any later use of the term 'universal landlord,' as applied to Government, can only be in the nature of a metaphor, or with reference to the ultimate claim of Government alluded to in the last paragraph, or that which arises in case of a failure of heirs.

The only function of a landlord that a Government exercises, is the general care for the progress of the estates; making advances to enable the cultivators to sink wells or effect other improvements; advancing money for general agricultural purposes (under special Acts); suspending or remitting the demand for revenue owing to famine or calamity of season.

§ 24. Land-Revenue whether a Tax or Rent.

6

The land-revenue cannot then be considered as a rent, not even in raiyatwárí lands, where the law (as in Bombay). happens to call the holder of land an occupant,' not a proprietor. The reason for adopting this term will be noticed in the chapter on Bombay tenures. Here it is enough to say that the special definition does not entitle Government to a true rent. Nowhere and under no revenue system, does government claim to take the ' unearned increment,' or the whole of what remains after the wages of labour, or cost of cultivation and profits of capital, have been accounted for.

If we cannot be content to speak of land-revenue,' and must further define, I should be inclined to regard the charge as more in the nature of a tax on agricultural incomes.

CHAPTER V.

A GENERAL VIEW OF THE LAND-REVENUE SYSTEMS

OF BRITISH INDIA.

SECTION I. INTRODUCTORY.

THIS chapter, in which I have endeavoured to present an outline of the various LAND-REVENUE SYSTEMS OF BRITISH INDIA, and to show how they originated and how they are connected together, will contain much that is already familiar to every Indian official; and readers in India may therefore regard as unnecessary many of the statements and explanations offered. It seemed, however, desirable to deal with the subject from the point of view of the general reader, and accordingly to avoid assuming that he possesses a fund of knowledge to start with. It is necessary, then, to begin from the beginning, and not plunge in medias res, or at once make use of terms of revenue-law, familiar enough to officials, but certain, until duly explained, to appear mysterious, if not repulsive, to others.

I may, however, assume, to start with, a single item of knowledge, which, indeed, has been to some extent explained in the last chapter. The rulers, Rájás, and emperors of the successive governments in all parts of India, have at all times raised the greater part of their State income, by levying a charge on the land. Whether this was an Aryan institution, or was learned from the Dravidians, or was a natural method, adopted independently, I leave the reader to form the opinion which best satisfies him. But, as a matter of fact, it came to be an universally-acknowledged principle, that the king, Rájá, or chief of a territory, had

saleable (i.e. were private property), and that the weight of taxation on ordinary lands prevented 'the existence of real property' in them.

Mr. Elphinstone (Governor of Bombay) thought that all land belonged to the Maráthá government, when it did not belong to 'mirásdárs,' or to government grantees (and the mirásdárs were either scions of Maráthá families or successors to their rights); and he noted that Bájí Ráo (the Peshwá), when he had occasion for Mirásí land, paid the price for it.'

Colonel Malleson says: 'It has been stated, and, I believe, truly, that throughout Holkár's dominions no private individual possesses permanent heritable or alienable rights in land; every cultivator is a tenant at will of the Mahárájá.'

This is, perhaps, rather strongly worded; but certainly a similar claim is made by the semi-dependent Rájás of Chamba, Kashmir, and those of the Simla Hill States. They respect occupancy-rights of old cultivators, and certainly admit the heritable nature of the right; but they do not allow of alienation, without permission and payment of a fee, or nazarána,' to the chief 3.

1 Briggs, p. 75. And the rulers very often respected special rights of this kind.

2 Native States of India, p. 197 note. By the courtesy of Mr. W. Coldstream, C. S. Superintendent of the Hill States, I have seen a number of interesting papers bearing on the rights of the State of Bághát near Simla, from the records of the Superintendent's office. In a letter (No. 219, 28 Feb. 1866) I find it stated that the chiefs are the only proprietors,' the occupiers of land are only cultivators but mostly hereditary. The chiefs have certain lands of their own which they call ‘láná,' and cultivate by their own farm servants.

The following were the Ráná of Bághát's rights :

(1) His revenue or grain-share. (2) Offerings on a marriage in the chief's family.

(3) An offering' of of 100-200 bútás or cobs of Indian corn, when the harvest is ready.

(4) When the landholder has a marriage in his family he gives the chief a goat, and the chief returns a sword (talwár) as a present to the bridegroom.

(5) Certain days of 'begár' or unpaid labour on State buildings or roads, but the chief gives flour for the day's bread.

(6) A'nazar' or fee from every raiyat who asks for waste to cultivate.

§ 15. Causes of the later State Claims.

While, however, it is conceded that the real 'ancient' usage, or theory, of both the Hindus and Muhammadans, expressly discouraged the idea that the ruler was absolute owner, or owner at all, of all land, and certainly acknowledged private rights, there were in the books the germs of principles which easily recrudesced into new claims; and there was always the feeling of the conqueror, the successful adventurer, and the ruler who has asserted and gained independence, that his will is the only law, that he has conquered, and everything is his, to dispose of as he will.

The doctrine, for instance, that the Muslim conqueror only took tribute as an act of favour, and might have destroyed the conquered, or have dealt with the land in any way he pleased, and actually did so deal with all waste land, was very apt to make conquerors forget the dicta which should have moderated their pretensions. The very idea that the tribute, or khiráj was a mild substitute for slavery or death-however it may have been softened by the comments of jurists-was only too likely to recur to the mind of a conqueror disposed, for his own profit, to exaggerate his claims.

The author of the Hidayá (Book ix. chap. 7), speaking of the limit of the khiráj being one half the produce, says: 'But the taking of one half is no more than strict justice, and is not tyrannical, because, as it is lawful to take the whole of the persons and property of infidels, and to distribute them among the faithful, it follows that taking one half their income is lawful à fortiori. The later ruler, in the chronic emptiness of his treasury, was apt to act on this reflection, and arbitrarily increase the demand on the land to such an extent that no valuable property in it remained.

Indeed it is not easy to dispose of the reasoning. If the law is that a king acquires everything by conquest, surely he may claim the land, allowing only a liberal user-even a hereditary user of it-to the people; and the amount of his