In Sind every man in the south who holds a few acres, is called zamindar. In the north there is a class of hereditary cultivators called marusi hari, who pay lapa to the zamindar over and above the Government assessment.
In Malwa there are three classes— (1) the Janmi or Watani Kursan, (2) the Sukbasi, and (3) Pykashti. The first of these can sublet and possess a title to the fields their forefathers culti vated, which is never disputed so long as they pay the Government share. The second are new settlers, who at first have no immunities, but after two or three generations their descendants merge into the first class. The third are non-resident, and have no rights beyond their contract.
In Nimar, cultivating occupancy resembles that of other Mahratta districts, but is weaker, as in Oudh, under native rule ; the ryot, if not well treated, moves off to an adjoining village under another farmer, and cultivates there.
In Mewar the ryot is proprietor of the soil. He compares his rights to Dubh grass (Cynodon dacty lon), which no vicissitudes can destroy. He calls his land his bapota, which is the watan of the Mabrattas, and the miras of the south of the Peninsula. The military vassal in Rajputana called bhumia, the caniatchy of Malabar.
In the Himalaya, besides the proprietors, there are khaekur, with rights of occupancy so long as they pay the Government share of the revenue, and a few serthan who hold a lease.
In Orissa the ryots are divided into—(1)Thanee, who seldom hold under a patta or lease, and (2) Pahee, who always do so. The Thanee hold a, hered itary non-transferable right of occupancy, and their rent is usually restricted to that portion of the Government demand that remained due when the Pahee payments had already been appropriated to its liquidation.
In Benares are resident and non-resident ryots, and the farmer or proprietor could not disturb the former, so long as they paid. the stipulated rent ; but the latter were cultivators-at-will.
Saharunpur right of occupancy prevails, and the rent could not be raised above the customary rates ; the rents on non-proprietary cultivations are adjusted according to the different kinds of produce.
In Moradaba,1 rents in kind are the rule, money rents the exception, and the only real Khud ryots were of the zamindar s family, and could not be dispossessed.
In Bareilly, on tho expiration of a lease, the landlord NV88 genemlly considered freo to let the land to 3vhoin he pleased, but it was generally relet to the last tenant.
In Shaltjahanpur, if a higher rent bo offered than what the resident ryot may choose to pay, he may be ousted.
1n Muttra tho proprietor has the rights of oust ing the tenant if he refuse to pay the estimated value of rent.
In Agra the proprietor cannot oust a cultivator pos.sessing the right of inheritance in the soil ; but those who have no such hereditary right can be dispossessed in favour of another willing to pay more.
In Mynpuri, Farrakhabad, Etawa, Gorakhpur, and Allahabad, the proprietor cannot dispossess any person having a right by inheritance in the soil ; but those who have only a tenancy can be put out ni favour of another person willing to pay more, no matter how regularly the tenant may have paid his rent.
In Bundelkhand the cultivators are all pro prietors, and (apparently even if sold out) have a right of occupancy at customary rates.
In Cawnpur the ryot is a tenant-at-will, culti vating from year to year ; popular opinion prevents exaction.
A tenant is also called in the Mahratta districts, Sukar, Kunbawa, or Kul. They are distinguished by their holdings as Thulwaluk, Mundwaluk, Oopri, and Owundkari. Cultivators of Central Oudh who enjoy rent privileges are styled Amnek. A family or relatives cultivating their own lands are called Bhaiyachara or Bhayad. Ordinary cultivators are called ryot, plural ryaya, or arzal, meaning humble or common.
In the Bengal Presidency, during the administra tion of Lord Cornwallis, in the provinces of Bengal, Behar, and Benares, the Government settled, permanently, the persons' names, and the amount of tax to be raised, solemnly engaging never to increase it. The persons thus raised to a social position similar to the landlords of Britain, were termed zantindars. There is no doubt that many of them were persons of hereditary influence and status in the country, and that their connection with the land, of which they were then recognised as the proprietors, had in general been of a per manent character. But their position, neverthe less, was essentially that of middlemen, collecting the revenue, not for themselves, but for the MogInd government, accounting to that government for their receipts, and remunerated by a percentage of the collections. It is no3v, however, universally admitted that they never had the power of dis posing arbitrarily of the land. There were every where at least large classes of tenants whom they could not lawfully eject, except for non-payment of revenue, and from whom they could not law fully exact more than the customary payments.