Ryotwari System in Madras

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Introduction

  • In 1820, under the leadership of Thomas Munro, the Governor of Madras, the British introduced Ryotwari, a new system of revenue collection. The Government began collecting rent directly from the cultivators or tenants, bypassing the traditional Zamindars or landlords. This approach was based on the principle that such lands belonged to the Government, and hence, the rent collected was officially termed as ‘assessment‘. This system was later implemented in various other regions across British India.
  • Actually, it was an improved system of revenue/rent collection successfully practiced by the Mughals, who ruled northern India just before the arrival of the British.
  • Munro actually reduced the rent that tenants had previously paid to intermediaries; that is, from one-half to one-third of the produce; however, it was still considered exorbitant.

Land History of Ryotwari System in Madras Presidency

‘Land Law in Madras Presidency’, BR Chakravarthy, 1927, page 31 reads as under:

  • “When the East India Company assumed control over the administration of the province, the revenues of the land were being collected mainly in two ways. The first was that people going by the name of Zamindars and poligars, collected the revenue from the ryots and paid a certain percentage of the collection to the government, retaining the balance for themselves; as remuneration for their services; the second was that the Sirkar collected the land revenue directly. But even in the latter case, instead of employing a gradation of officers, for collecting the revenue from each individual ryots, as we have it now in the case of ryotwari lands, the government farmed out the revenues of single villages or groups of villages to individuals or to village communities leaving the task of internal collection to those intermediate agents called renters. This system offered a splendid opportunity to many a speculator to enrich themselves at the cost of the poor cultivators. Thus, there existed in general an intermediate agency in one form or other.
  • In the system of collecting revenue by middlemen, there were two important defects.
  • Firstly, there was no limit to the demand made by the government. They went on increasing their demand from year to year, without any regard whatever to the conditions .and prosperity of the cultivators.
  • Secondly, there was nothing to prevent the Zamindars or middlemen from rack-renting the tenants under their control; or whenever the government raised its demand, the middlemen in their turn began to squeeze the tenants to the utmost, and in their anxiety to see, that they incurred no loss from their own pockets, but had a decent fraction of the collections left for them after paying the government its due, they more often than not, made the position of the ryots simply intolerable.”

East India Company and the reign of the British

Malabar was a part of the erstwhile Madras Presidency, ruled by the British. The reign of the British traces its history from the establishment of the East India Company.

The East India Company was a joint-stock company that was founded in 1600. It was formed to trade in the Indian Ocean region, initially with the East Indies (South Asia and Southeast Asia), and later with East Asia. The company gained control of large parts of the Indian subcontinent and Hong Kong. It eventually came to rule large areas of the Indian subcontinent, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions.  The company initiated the beginnings of the British Raj in the Indian subcontinent.

By 1647, the company had 23 factories and settlements in India. Many of the major factories became some of the most populated and commercially influential cities in Bengal, including the walled forts of Fort William in Bengal, Fort St George in Madras, and Bombay Castle (Wikipedia).

Ryots were Tenants; the sum payable was essentially ‘Rent‘

While the payments made by the ryots were termed either ‘assessment‘ or ‘rent‘. But, the legislative enactments in this area demonstrate a distinct legal preference for the term ‘rent’ rather than the more administrative notion of ‘assessment’.

Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, XXX of 1947, reads  as under:

  • “An Act to provide for the reduction of rent payable by ryots in estates governed by the ‘Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908, approximately to the level of the assessments levied on lands in ryotwari areas in the neighbourhood  and for the collection of such rents exclusively by the State Government.” (Referred to in: Shree Raja Kandregula Srinivasa Jagannatha Rao v. State of AP, AIR 1971 SC 71; 1969-3 SCC 71)

Madras District Boards Act (Madras Act XIV of 1920) Section 79 reads as under:

  • “79. The annual rent value shall, for the purposes of S. 78, be calculated in the following manner: (i) In the case of lands held direct from Government on ryotwari tenure or on lease or licence, the assessment, lease amount, royalty or other sum payable to Government for the lands, together with any water-rate which may be payable for their irrigation shall be taken to be the annual rent value…..” (Quoted in: H. R. S. Murthy v. Collector Of Chittoor: AIR 1965 SC 177; 1964-6 SCR 666)

Pattom Proclamation of Travancore of 1040 ME (1865) (considered as a Magna Carta issued by the King to the cultivators) begins as under:

  • “Whereas we earnestly desire that the possession of landed as well as other property in Our territory should be as secure as possible; and whereas We are of opinion that, with this view, Sirkar Pattom** lands can be placed on a much better footing than at present so as to enhance their value; We are pleased to notify to Our ryots: …”
  • ** Note: ‘Sirkar‘ means Government; ‘Pattom‘ means rent.

In Travancore State Manual (Vol. III, page 315) it is stated as under:

  • “The peculiarity of these Jenmom properties is that their owners have absolute control over them and that they take from the ryots the pattern or rent as well as the Rajabhogam …. “

‘Janmam Right in Jenmi‘ in Malabar

Different from riotwary settlement in other parts of Madras Presidency

In ‘Land Law in Madras Presidency’, BR Chakravarthy, 1927, page 372, it is stated as under:

  • “The land Revenue settlement in Malabar differs from the ordinary ryotwari settlement in the rest of the presidency in that in Malalabar the existence of lit landlord between the state and the actual cultivator is recognised in the theoretical distribution of the produce, on which- the rates of assessment are based. For instance, in the case of wet lands, from the commuted value of the annual grain out-tum a deduction of 15 per cent is first made for vicissitudes of season and unprofitable areas; then a further deduction is made for cultivation expenses, of the balance is set apart for the cultivator’s share; and 6/10 of the remainder is fixed as the assessment. The calculation with respect to dry lands is similar and is even more lenient.
  • The reason of this difference from the rest of the presidency can be understood only if we bear in mind the essential distinction, or at any rate what according government constitutes an essential distinction, in regard to private ownership of land between Malabar and the cast of the presidency. The right of ownership in land in Malabar is termed janmam and is said to comprise the tall and complete ownership in land; so that the owner of janmam right or jenmi as he is called, is absolutely entitled not merely to the soil, but to all things above and below it from the highest point of heaven to the lowest depths of the earth. At one time, there was considerable dispute on this question in regard to Malabar as it was with regard to the other parts of the presidency. But it was ultimately accepted by the Government itself that in Malabar, at least, the private ownership mast be taken to exist in the jemnis and that the government could not claim any such right.”

Lands held under ryotwari tenure after ryotwari Settlement (1934)

In Kannan Devan Hills Produce v. State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301; 1972-2 SCC 218, it was pointed out that it was held by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Sukapuram Sabhayogam v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Kerala 101 that the lands, after 1934, were ‘held under ryotwari tenure after the introduction of the ryotwari Settlement in the Malabar area of Kerala State’.

  • Note: The expression ‘estate’ in Article 31A (relating to ‘acquisition’ of land etc.) included ‘ryotwari’ land also by virtue of the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution on June 20, 1964 with retrospective effect.

Lease by Government, under Pattas

  • Under the ryotwari system, land was given on lease by the government to the ryot (or cultivator) under a patta. A ryotwari pattadar was not a proprietor of land in its full sense, but only a tenant.

Our Apex Court, in Threesiamma Jacob v.Geologist, Dptt. of Mining & Geology, AIR 2013 SC 3251; 2013-3 KLT 275; 2013-9 SCC 725, it is held as under:

  • “26. Coming to the ryotwari tenures, this Court [In Karimbil Kunhikoman v. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 723] held that they were governed by the standing orders issued from time to time by the Revenue Board. Under the ryotwari system land was given on lease by the government to the ryot under a patta. Noticing the salient features of the ryotwari system as explained in various authoritative works, this Court opined that “though a ryotwari pattadar is virtually like a proprietor and has many of the advantages of such a proprietor”, such pattadar was never considered a proprietor of land but only a tenant.” (Also quoted in Raphy John v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, 2022-3 KLT 679.)

Landmark Change by the 1971 Constitutional Amendment

In S. Thenappa Chettiarv. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1986 SC 1117, it was held, following Khajamian Wakf Estates v. State of Madras, AIR 1971 SC 161, that the expression ‘estate’ in Article 31A included ‘ryotwari‘ land also – by virtue of the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution on June 20, 1964 with retrospective effect.

It stands marked as a gigantic step in the history of land reforms in India..

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment