A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE RYOTWARI LAND REVENUE SYSTEM OF MADRAS PRESIDENCY
THE LAWWAY WITH LAWYERS JOURNAL VOLUME:-16 ISSUE NO:- 16 , OCTOBER 10 , 2024 ISSN (ONLINE):- 2584-1106 Website: www.the lawway with lawyers.com Email: thelawwaywithelawyers@gmail.com Authored By :- Mr. Soorya M E S, SRM School of Law Co-Authored By:- Mr. Mahalingam V, SRM School of Law. A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE RYOTWARI LAND REVENUE SYSTEM OF MADRAS PRESIDENCY ABSTRACT: This paper aims to look back into the Ryotwari land revenue system that was kept in place by the British in the Madras Presidency. This system to some extent replicates the present land revenue systems that are followed in India and acts as a solid precedent for systems that are to come. This paper throws light on various intricacies within the system where its history, application, rights, duties, positives, and negatives are analyzed to understand the factors that led to its formation. The paper also touches on why the system did not continue successfully and the limitation that kept pulling it back. The paper aims to differentiate the different revenue collection systems used by the British and the importance of the Ryotwari system among them. The objective is to understand how this and other revenue collection systems acted in a trial-and-error method in determining and inventing a concrete system that would ensure proper collection of revenue without hindering the rights and enjoyment of land ownership of private parties. The paper concludes by detailing the end of this system and its drawbacks. Keywords: 1. Ryotwari System, 2. Revenue Collection, 3. Madras Presidency, 4. Col. Reade, Munro INTRODUCTION: The Ryotwari or Kulwar system, was first introduced by Colonel Alexander Read and Sir Thomas Munro in 1792. This system sought to establish a direct relationship between the British administration and the cultivators, or ryots, without the involvement of intermediaries such as landlords. A key feature of this system was the detailed survey of individual landholdings in a district to assess the productivity of each plot. Based on this assessment, the government fixed a specific sum of money as the maximum revenue payable for each field. While earlier revenue systems often required payment in kind, Colonel Read’s system converted these payments into a cash form, which simplified revenue collection for the British government. This system was introduced after the third Mysore war in 1792 when cultivators were under the mercy of landlords. These landlords and middlemen took advantage and acted oppressively against these cultivators. Col. Read is said to have introduced this system to put an end to such oppression and make way for a feasible revenue collection set that does not rely upon middlemen. While introducing this policy, it was emphasized that the British administration’s goals of securing revenue, providing fair advantages to industries, accommodating the needs of all inhabitants, and ensuring that both higher and lower classes benefit from their labor, all while maintaining good governance and policy. THE CONCEPT OF MELVARAM & KUDIVARAM: Before diving into analyzing different aspects of the Ryotwari system, it is pertinent to understand the concepts of Melvaram and Kudivaram. It is the partnership between these two that holds the system in place. Both these are rights conferred upon two different parties–the government and the ryot. Ryot means a subject in Arabic. In a much more Indian sense and relevance to this system, Ryot means a peasant or farmer. As stated, both terms mean a right that is conferred upon both parties. Melvaram is the right of the Government to which it is entitled to receive revenue out of the land of the Ryot. It is not a rent per se but a tax that it collects to let Ryot own the land. Melvaram however, does not give the Government a right to interfere with the rights of the Ryot to enjoy the land. This is called Kudivaram, a right enjoyed by the owner/Ryot where he gets to use the land however he deems fit. This is how the ryotwari system is meant to work and this is how most countries generate land revenue. INTRICACIES OF THE RYOTWARI SYSTEM AND ITS DIFFERENCE FROM OTHER REVENUE COLLECTION MECHANISMS: Though the rights of Melvaram and Kudivaram are distinguished, the system was not effectively implemented in its lines. the ryots were not recognized as proprietors of the land they worked on. Instead, they were treated as cultivating tenants who were required to pay a fixed amount of revenue on the land they cultivated. Additionally, although the settlement was made directly with each ryot for the land he held, the system introduced an element of collective liability by making the ryots in a village responsible for the entire revenue demand. In this system, land is divided into blocks, and occupants are allowed to occupy their lands. The tax for the same is assessed for a fixed period of 30-40 years. This establishes a direct relationship between both the government and the landowner without requiring a middleman. When a ryot is certified to have occupied land by the government, he is given a ‘Patta’, a government instrument that certifies that the concerned Ryot is the owner of the said land. It is pertinent to note that this patta is no proof of ownership and it is the government’s prerogative to issue one without any compulsion or obligation. The point of difference between this system and the other revenue collection systems such as the Zamindari or Mahalwari systems is “middlemen”. In the Zamindari system introduced by Lord Cornwallis, Zamindars acted as middlemen who were vested with the duty to collect taxes. They enjoyed more power which made way for oppressive behaviour towards peasants and farmers. They also enjoyed a share of the land revenue generated by the government. Meanwhile, the Mahalwari system introduced by Holt Mackenzie vested the duty to collect revenue with the headman of the village. This system too was riddled with oppression and corruption. Compared to these systems, the Ryotwari provides a mechanism that makes way for minimal oppression and maximum revenue for