A PROJECT ON Agriculture law

SUBMITTED TO: Abhishek mishra

Assistant professor

SUBMITTED BY: AKASH SAHU

ROLL NO: 17001239

BA.LLB. 9TH SEMESTER

DATE OF SUBMISSION : 15/12/2021

SCHOOL OF LAW

GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY(C.G.)

 DECLARATION

I ,AKASH SAHU, Roll no :17001239 BA.LLB ,semester 9TH SEM of Guru Ghasidas
University ,hereby declare that this project titled “Agriculture law. ” is my original work and i
have not copied this project or any part thereof from any source without due acknowledgement
and without mentioning name of the particular source. I am highly indebted to the authors of the
books that i have mentioned in my project as well as the writers of the articles and the owners of
the information taken from websites for it. It is only because of contriburion and proper guidance
of my faculty and advisor, PROF.Abhishek mishra, that i was able to gather light on the subject.

Further i would like to state that it has not been previously published or associated with any other
university or association for any purpose whatsoever.

AKASH SAHU

Roll no:17001239

BA.LLB Semester 9TH

 CERTIFICATE

I, AKASH SAHU, roll no: 17001239 BA.LLB semester 9TH of Guru Ghasidas University, am
glad to submit this project report on “Agriculture law.” as a part of my academic assignment.
This project is based on research methodology. I hope this would be significant for the academic
purpose as well as prove information to all readers.

Hereby though i declare that this paper is an original piece of research and all the borrowed texts
and ideas have been duly acknowledged.

DATE OF SUBMISSION- 15/12/2021 Faculty Signature

AKASH SAHU

Roll no:17001239

BA.LLB 9TH SEMESTER

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The project would not have been possible without the help and cooperation of so many. I wish to
record my profound gratitude to a few.

First of all i would like to thank my university

GURU GHASIDAS VISHWAVIDYALAYA (C.G.)

Which provided me an opportunity to gain knowledge and an insight into the aspect of my
project.

My special appreciation and thanks is extended to my guide

PROF. Abhishek mishra sir

For helping me to come out with flying colours in my project report.

This acknowledgement would be left incomplete without thanking my parents who have been
inspiring sources in my study, without their support my project would not have been
successfully completed.

AKASH SAHU

Roll no:17001239

BA.LLB 9TH SEMESTER

Synopsis

Topic- Revenue Administration under British Rule

1. INTRODUCTION

2. Land revenue system under British rule

3. Permanent settlement system

4. Rytorwari system

5. Mahalwari system

6. Other systems

7. Conclusion

8. Bibliography
Introduction
Land revenue is tax or revenue levied on agricultural production on land. British got Diwani
rights of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa in 1765. The major aim of British East India Company
was to increase their land revenue collection. So its policies were aimed at getting maximum
income from land without caring about its consequences on cultivators and peasants.

They introduced the policy of revenue collection by abandoning the age-old system of revenue
administration. The entire burden of Company s profits, cost of its administration and
expenses on wars and conquests were mainly borne by the peasants.

The Indian state had since time immemorial taken a part of the agricultural produce as land
revenue.

It has been the major source of revenue for empires.

It is either collected as a percentage of the share of the total crop or a monetary value is fixed
on the land to be paid by the farmer.

It had done so either directly through its servants or indirectly through intermediaries, such as
zamindars, revenue farmers, etc., who collected the land revenue from the cultivator and kept
a part of it as their commission.

These intermediaries were primarily collectors of land revenue, although they did sometimes
own some land in the area from which they collected revenue.
Land Revenue System Under British rule
Since the acquisition of Diwani rights (right to collect taxes on behalf of the Emperor) for
Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa in 1765, a major concern of the Company was to increase the land
revenue collection, which historically was the major source of revenue for the state in India.

Nearly all the major changes in the administration and judicial system till 1813 were geared
to the collection of land revenues.

The main burden of providing money for the trade and profits of the Company, the cost of
administration, and the wars of British expansion in India had to be borne by the Indian
peasant or ryot.

British could not have conquered such a vast country as India if they had not taxed the peasant
heavily.

They introduced the policy of revenue collection by abandoning the age-old system of revenue
administration.

Their policies were aimed at getting maximum income from the land without caring about its
consequences on cultivators and peasants.

Three major systems of land revenue collection existed in India.

Permanent Settlement System

Background

In 1773, the company decided to manage the land revenues directly.

Warren Hastings auctioned the right to collect revenue to the highest bidders.
But his experiment did not succeed.
Though the amount of land revenue was pushed high by zamindars, the actual
collection varied from year to year and seldom came up to official expectations.
This introduced instability in the Company’s revenues at a time when the Company
was hard-pressed for money.
Moreover, neither the ryot nor the zamindar would do anything to improve
cultivation when they did not know what the next year’s assessment would be or who
would be the next year’s revenue collector.
It was at this stage that the idea first emerged of fixing the land revenue at a
permanent amount.

Regions under Permanent settlement

Permanent Settlement was introduced in Bengal and Bihar in 1793 by Lord

Cornwallis.
It was later extended to Orissa, the Northern Districts of Madras, and the District
of Varanasi.
In parts of Central India and Awadh, the British introduced a temporary zamindari
settlement under which the zamindars were made owners of land but the revenue they
had to pay was revised periodically.
Another group of landlords was created all over India when the government started
the practice of giving land to persons who had rendered faithful service to the foreign
rulers.

Features of Permanent settlement

1. Zamindars and revenue collectors were converted into landlords.

They were not only to act as agents of the government in collecting land
revenue from the ryot but also to become the owners of the entire land in their
zamindaris.
Their right of ownership was made hereditary and transferable.
On the other hand, the cultivators were reduced to the low status of mere
tenants and were deprived of long-standing rights to the soil and other customary
rights.
This was done so that the zamindars might be able to pay in time the
exorbitant land revenue demand of the Company.
 2. Fixation of revenue
Zamindars were to give 10/11th of the rental they derived from the
peasantry to the state, keeping the only 1/11th for themselves.
But the sums to be paid by them as land revenue was fixed in perpetuity.
If the rental of a zamindar’s estate increased he would keep the entire
amount of the increase.
The state would not make any further demand upon him.
At the same time, the zamindar had to pay his revenue rigidly on the due
date even if the crop had failed for some reason; otherwise, his lands were to be
sold.
The initial fixation of revenue was made arbitrarily and without any consultation
with the zamindars.
The officials attempted to secure the maximum amount and hence, the rates of
revenue were fixed very high.
John Shore, the man who planned the Permanent Settlement and later succeeded
Cornwallis as Governor-General, calculated that if the gross produce of Bengal is taken
as 100, the government claimed 45, zamindars and other intermediaries below them
received 15, and only 40 remained with the actual cultivator.
One result of this high and impossible land revenue demand was that nearly half
the zamindari lands were put up for sale between 1794 and 1807.

Comparison of the revenue system in Britain and India

The landlord in Britain was the owner of land not only to the tenant but also
according to the state.
But in Bengal, while the zamindar was the landlord over the tenant, he was himself
subordinate to the state.
He was reduced virtually to the status of a tenant of the East India Company.
In contrast to the British landlord, who paid a small share of his income as land tax,
zamindar had to pay as tax 10/11th of his income from the land of which he was supposed
to be the owner; and he could be turned out of the land unceremoniously and his estate
sold if he failed to pay the revenue in time.

Why were zamindars recognized as the proprietors of land?

Before 1793 the zamindars of Bengal and Bihar did not enjoy proprietary rights over most of
the land. Historians think that the decision to recognize the zamindars as the proprietors of
land was determined by political, financial and administrative expediency:

1. The need to create political allies

The British officials realized that as they were foreigners in India, their rule would be
unstable unless they acquired local supporters who would act as a buffer between them
and the people of India.
 This argument had immediate importance as there were a large number of popular
revolts in Bengal during the last quarter of the eighteenth century.
So they brought into existence a wealthy and privileged class of zamindars that owed
its existence to British rule and would be compelled to support it.
This expectation was, in fact, fully justified later when the zamindars as a class
supported the foreign government in opposition to the rising movement for freedom.
2. Financial security
Before 1793 the Company was troubled by fluctuations in its chief source of
income, the land revenue.
Permanent Settlement enabled the Company to maximize its income as land
revenue was now fixed higher than it had ever been in the past.
Collection of revenue through a small number of zamindars seemed to be much
simpler and cheaper than the process of dealing with lakhs of cultivators.
3. To increase agricultural production
Since the land revenue would not be increased in the future even if the zamindar’s
income went up, the latter would be inspired to extend cultivation and improve
agricultural productivity as was being done in Britain by its landlords.

Impact of Land Revenue System Under Permanent Settlement

As the land revenue was going to be permanently fixed, the company fixed the rates
arbitrarily high (10/11th of total collection) much higher than the past rates. This placed
a high burden on the zamindars which were ultimately borne by the peasants.
The tenantry of Bengal and Bihar was left entirely at the mercy of the zamindars.
It led to the growth of a system of absentee landlordism. These zamindars were
interested only to maximize their revenue collection and had no interest in investments
in agriculture.
High revenue demand and harsh methods of collection, eventually led to frequent
land transfers which didn't benefit zamindars either. The company's revenue collection
also fell as agricultural output declined. By the 1770's Bengal witnessed famines.
The Ryotwari Settlement

Regions under ryotwari settlement

The Ryotwari Settlement was introduced in parts of the Madras and Bombay Presidencies
at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
It included states of Malabar, Coimbatore, Madras, Assam, and Madurai and later it was
extended to Maharashtra and East Bengal.
It was introduced on the recommendations of British officials Reed and Sir Thomas Munro.

Features of ryotwari settlement

Under this system, the taxes were directly collected by the government. It established a
direct relationship between the government and the ryot (cultivator)
The cultivator is to be recognized as the owner of his plot of land subject to the payment
of land revenue
The settlement under the Ryotwari system was not made permanent. It was revised
periodically after 20 to 30 years when the revenue demand was usually raised.
Farmers had the right to sell, mortgage, and lease the land but had to pay their taxes on
time. If they failed to pay taxes, they were evicted from the land.

Reasons for the Adoption of the Ryotwari System

The British officials believed that there are no zamindars or feudal lords with large estates
in south and south-western India. So it was difficult for the British to implement the zamindari
system.
The government revenues were fixed in the permanent settlement so it could not gain from
the rise in prices.
Moreover, the government felt that the revenue was being unnecessarily shared with the
zamindars which reduced its profits.
The zamindari system was oppressive for the peasants and led to frequent agrarian revolts.
The government wanted to avoid these situations.
It also hoped that by introducing the ryotwari system, the purchasing power of peasants
would increase, which would increase the demands for British goods in India.

The ryot’s rights of ownership of his land were negated by the following factors:

1. The government openly claimed that land revenue was rent and not a tax.
2. In most areas the land revenue fixed was exorbitant
3. The government retained the right to enhance land revenue at will
4. The ryot had to pay revenue even during the famines and floods otherwise they were forced
to evict the land.
Impact of Land Revenue System Under Ryotwari System

The peasants did not benefit from this land revenue system and felt that smaller zamindars
we are replaced by one giant zamindar, the British government.
High land revenue led the impoverishment of farmers
A major drawback of this system was over the assessment of crop yields.
The system of tenancy and landlordism still existed as the artisans who were now
unemployed, worked as tenants for rich farmers.
In several districts, more than two-thirds of the total agricultural land was leased.
The government insisted the peasants grow cash crops which required higher investments.
It led to the indebtedness of farmers and when prices declined they suffered the most. For
example, when the prices of cotton declined after the end of the American Civil War the peasants
suffered the most. This created conditions ripe for a rebellion that came in the form of Deccan
Agrarian riots in 1875.
The Mahalwari System

Regions under the Mahalwari system

It is a modified version of the zamindari settlement, introduced in the Ganga valley,

the North-West Provinces, parts of central India, and Punjab.
In Punjab, a modified Mahalwari System known as the village system was
introduced.
In these areas, more than often there was a system of collective landholdings by the
heads of the families or the landlords.
The village community mainly included a group of elders, mainly from the higher

castes. Features of mahalwari system

The revenue settlement was to be made village by village or estate (mahal) by the
estate with landlords or heads of families who collectively claimed to be the landlords of
the village or the estate.
The taxes were distributed between the individual farmers who paid their share in
the tax revenue.
However, the ownership rights of lands were with the individual peasants, who
could mortgage or sell his land.
The land revenue was periodically revised.

Impacts of Land Revenue System Under Mahalwari System

As the areas covered under the Mahalwari system in Northern India were fertile,
the government put the revenue demands between 50% to 75% of the crop production.
Within subsequent generations, the lands were fragmented, but the revenue demand
was still high which had to be paid in cash. This led to their indebtedness in the hands of
money lenders.
Further, this system led to the eviction of farmers from the land. Due to this sub-
leasing of land was more common in Mahalwari areas.
Some Other Systems

Taluqdari System
The term ‘taluqdar’ has different meanings in different parts of India. In
Oudh,Taluqdar is a great landholder.But in Bengal, a taluqdar is next to zamindar in
extent of land control and social Status. The big zamindars themselves had created
many taluqs under several denominations, Such as, junglburi taluq, mazkuri taluq,
shikimi taluq, and so on. These were created partly as a strategy of zamindari
management and partly as A fiscal policy measure for raising zamindari funds for
specific purposes. After the Permanent Settlement, new varieties of taluqs were
created by zamindars. Under the pressure of the Permanent Settlement, many
zamindars were Creating dependent taluqs denominated as pattani taluq, noabad taluq
and osat Taluq.

Malguzari System

The land tenure prevailing in the erstwhile Central Provinces was known as Malguzari
system in which the Malguzar was merely a revenue farmer under the Marathas. When
the Marathas came into power in this region, they farmed out the Revenues of villages
to persons of influence and wealth, who were called Malguzars. During the British
Rule, they were given proprietary rights and were held responsible. For payment of
revenue. If the headman of a village was weak or was for any other reason, unable to
answer for the sum the authorities expected, or if a court favourite wanted the village,
the headman was replaced without hesitation by a farmer. The farmer, or manager was
at first called Mukaddam (the Hindi or Marathi form of Arabic Mugaddam). Under
the Malguzari system, the Lambardar/Sadar Lambardar appointed from among the
Malguzars, was the revenue engager. Other cultivators were either Absolute
occupancy tenant, Occupancy tenant, Sub- Tenant, Raiyat-Malik or lessees, who could
be ejected from their holdings on various grounds. Malguzar (proprietor or co-sharer)
held land under special description, namely, Sir land and Khudkasht land.
Conclusion

British revenue systems, therefore, led to the impoverishment of peasantry. By making land a
transferable property, the British facilitated the rise of absentee landlords, oppressive
moneylenders and pushed the peasant further into misery.

The British by making land a commodity that could be freely bought and sold introduced
a fundamental change in the existing land systems of the country. The stability and
continuity of the Indian villages were shaken. The entire structure of rural society began
to break up. Land

Since the acquisition of Diwani rights (right to collect taxes on behalf of the Emperor) for
Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa in 1765, a major concern of the Company was to increase the land
revenue collection, which historically was the major source of revenue for the state in India.
Nearly all the major changes in the administration and judicial system till 1813 were geared
to the collection of land revenues. The main burden of providing money for the trade and
profits of the Company, the cost of administration, and the wars of British expansion in India
had to be borne by the Indian peasant or ryot.
Bibliography
The information has been collected from various sources-

1. WWW.LEGALSERVICEINDIA.IN
2. WWW.CGLRC.IN
3. WWW.AGRICUOTURELAW.IN

4. WWW.LANDLAW.COM