CHAPI'ER VXI

LAND G:RANTS AND -REnNU.E-ASSIGNMEN-'l'S

The bulk of the revenue1 accruing to the state was

alienated in the form of revenue free land grants, religious

endoWments and assignment to the state officials in lieu

of their salary.

There were different categories of land grants and

jagir assignment viz., dohli, p .. mya, ~~ amochi, ~

katai, pet roti and the iagir assdgnrnent in lieu of regular

military and civil services rendered to the state: There

prevailed a~so those jagirs given, without any condition of

service either for life time of the assignee or in perpetuity.

However, these could be resumed at the will of the Maharao.

A brief outline of the nature of various categories of

revenue free land grants is given below.

Dohli:

It was granted to religious deities but indirectly to

the person who was engaged in performing Pija rituals and

looking after the temples such as the Brahmin- priests,

mendicants, sadhu etc. Sometime such land grants were

made separately for the livelihocd of the priest and for

offering prayers, and performing ceremonies like telbhog,

distribution prasad, construction

the temPle etc. 2 ThOUgh dohli

of garden near

grant was exempted from

revenue assessment a nominal tax known as dohli ki

1. DSA-KR. Dusri Manzil, Basta No.276, Jamai Jama Kharch, pargana Kota, 1771 v.s.

2. DSA-KR. Teesri Manzil Basta No. 2054, Avarizo dohli Ko, parg ana Barod, 18 29 V. s.

299

gughri was collected frOm the holders of such grants,

at the rate of Rs.2.50 per 100 bigha of land. This tax

was levied only once in a year. The incidence of dohli

ki gughrL cernes at Rs. 2. 5 per annum. 3 The dohli land

cultivated by the grantee himself was known as gharuj ot.

When the dohli land was cultivated by the karshas it was

called karshajot. 4 The karsha cultivated the dohli land

on the basis of crop sharing. However, in both the

cases, land was not subject to routine assessment of land

revenue. The karshas \4hO cultivated dohli land were

required to pay a tax known as dohli ki anni at the rate

Contd. F/n. 2 •••

The following table shO\-;s the details about the land grants assigned separately for .£2hli, tel bh~ and gardens attached to the temples:

-----------------------------------------------------Asami Mauza Total

Area Land Grant for 'Tel Bhog I,' 'Prasad' etc.

Land Assig­ned for the Maintenance of Priests

Land Allo­ted for the Cons­truc.tion of garden around

--------------------------------------------!h~-!~~E~~ Qasba Barod 395 51 324 16 Udaipur a 96 35 61 Ajnav 772 30 742 Amlava 40 40 Kaj.lakhedo 72 12 70 Kajilo 50 50 Khajuri 20

-------------------------------~---------------------

3. DSA=KR. Dusri Manzil Basta No.338, Adsatto Mauza Briznagar tappa Aradkhedo, 1864 v.s.

4. · DSA-KR. Teesri Manzil Basta No. 310, Adsatto Mauza .• Dhavo tappa Dighod, 1864 v.s.

The total chak (area) of dohli grant was 97.50 biqha in Mauza Dhavo, out of which 26 bigha was under .91:!..arujot (cultivated by the grantee himself) and 32 bigha remained uncultivated and 39.50 bigha of land was under Karshajhot. The karsha paid a tax on karshajhot at the rate of Rs.0.22 per bigha annually.

300

of Rs.o. 22 per bigha on their share ;_;_ r.roduce fran

dohii land.

Pet Roti: It was also a revenue free land grant

made to the kith and kin of the Maharao for their

livelihood, since they would not engage in any kind of

service or job because of their royal lineage:

!-lund Katai: It was another category of revenue

free grants made to the near relatives of the soldiers

who sacrificed their lives defc:nding their homeland. 6

Udik: It was a revenue free land grant made to

Charan, Bhats, Princess, PoEts, fakirs and intellectuals

for their livelihood. 7 A considerable number of villages

were granted in 'udik' grant • In pargana Sangod in

1832 v.s. out of 72 villages 12 villages were assigned

in 'udik' with the rekh of Rs. 5450. :3 imilarl y in

Pargana Gaghrone out of 38 villageS6 were granted in

'udik'in 1832 v.s.

5. RSA-rJR. Bhandar No.6, Basta No. 3/2 Tagsim Pargana Madhkargarh Ka hawala Ki,_ 1823 v.s.

6. Ibid.

7. DSA-KR. Teesri Manzil. Basta No. 2266. Dovarkhi Jamabandi Kathra Malhasil, 1837 v.s. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No. 23, Tagsim Pargana Sangod 1822 v.s., RSA- KR. Bhandar No. 6, Bast,a No. 3/2, Tagsim Pargana Gaghrone 1832 v.s. Tamboli Shreeji Maharaj, Bhatt Shri Vijai Nanoji Maharaj Charan Vinodram, and Joshi Mandattji were granted one Village each as 'udik' Jagiri gaon in Pargana Suket in 1837 v.s.

3D)

Amochi: It was a land grant instituted to lOOk after the

general welfare of the society. --=The inccme fran arnochi grant

was intended for the construct!~ -and upkeep· of the public

welfare works; the construction of wells, sarai, dam. It also

was to aid widows and other desti tutes who did not have any

means of livelihood. 8 me widows of Gopinath and Sangram

Sir.g h were grant ed 338.50 bigha of land in mauza Gadari. 9

In mauza Visyaheri 140 bigha of land were granted in amochi. 10

The owners of these grants were exempted fran payment of land

revenue.

Punyarth: Puny_arth grant was also made to the perso'!'!;

engaged in religious, spiritual and intellectual upliftment

of the society. 11 These included sanyasis, sadhus, swamis,

fakirs12 and Bratrnins. 13

Chakari was a land grant assigned to the lowly

placed state officials, such as ..!!!!• mille vagwan,

balai, sansri, farrash, khati, gadiwan,

8. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.6, Basta No. 3/2 Tagsim pargana Madhkargarh ka hawala ki, _1823 v.s.

9. DSA-KR. Teesri Manzil Basta No.310, Adsatto mauza Gadari tappa Dighod, 1864 v.s.

10. DSA-KR. Teesri Manzil Basta No.1952, Adsatto mauza mauza Visyaheri tappa Kanvas, 1864 v.s.

11. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.6, Basta No.4 3/2 Tagsim Parqana Madhkargarh Ka hawala Ki, 1823, v.s.

12. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.17, Tozi avazizo dharti Ko, Pargana Kota, 1756 v.s. In mauza Kanvas, Shri Bhagatji was granted 5 bigha, Swami Lakshmidas and_ Jogi Mayadas were granted 50 bighas each and fakir Nur Mohammed was granted 25 bighas as Punyarth jagiri.

13. DSA-KR. Dusri Manzil, Ba ta No. 276, Jamai Jama Kharch, Mauza Dabhaheri Pargana Kota, 1771 v.s.

302

tllahawat' luhar silahdar ~ehtar etc. It was granted to the

hereditary pargana and village officials such as the

Chaudhary, patel and patwari in lieu of their services

rendered to the state. The hawalgir who was a pargana

official employed on the basis of month~y salary also was

remunerated by way of chakari land in addition to his cash

salary. The state employees who received·· chakri land

grants were mainly civil servants employed in the royal

palace, fort and revenue departments. Since they got the

payment of their salary in the form of land grants they

were known as dharti ke Chakar. 14 Sometimes chakari grant was

also made to an individual as a mark of special favour frcm

the haharao. In this case the grantee was not required to

f 1 . 15 per orm any regu ar serv1ce. Though chakari grants were

normally treated as being free from revenue assessment, the

holders of such grants were in some cases required to pay an

annual tax known as bighori at the rate of 0.25 and sometimes

Rs.0.62 per bigha. The dharti ke chakar were granted

concession in the rate of bighori when the crop was destroyed

16 by cattle, locust or drought. Sometimes the dharti ke chakar

14. Ibid. In mauza Kiradi Bhat~ Kishan was granted 50 bi9ha. Thakur Amar Singh Hado was assigned 125 bigha as chakari grant. In rnauza Kishore Sagar 17 Rajput asamies were granted 235 bigha in chakari grant without any service condition. In mauza Madhuheri a l1adari and Silehdar were assigned 100 bigha each. Nai Kashiram and Nathu Nagarchi were granted 300 and 100 bigha of land respectively. The above mentioned grantees were required to pay a tax known as bighori at the rate of Rs.0.25 per bigha annually.

15.. .!.!2!9· 16. Ibid. From Maharao Bhim Singh to Chaudhary Hargovindji,

Baisakh Budi 12, 1771 v.s. The dharti ke chakar of mauza Kanvas waited upon the Maharato and requested him that the crop yield was not

•••

303

were exempted fran bighori tax. 17 The lanq_ grants m51:de to

dharti Ke chakar could be resumed at the will of the Maharao.

The resumption took place when the assignee failed to pay

bighori tax in time or his services were no longer required

by the state. 18

Rajlok was a revenue free land grant made to the female

members of the royal household, which conprised of the queens'

19 mother, wives and the near relatives of the Maharao. ·

Taken together all these grants accounted for relatively

a lower proportion of th=:! territories under the control of

the 1'1aharao or the total revenue alienated to various

categories of grantees and assigneeS,. The bulk of the state

reve:me was assigned in j agir, in order to meet the salary

claims of both the civil as well as military officials. The

holder of a jagir was termed as a jagirdar. The overwhelming

majority of the stae officials preferred the payment of salary

in the form of jagir rather than the cash salaries. The

COtltd. F/n.16 ••• upto the expectations hence they were unable to pay bighori tax. The Maharao accepted the request and reduced the rate of bighori from Rs.0.25 to 0.12 per bigha.

17. Ibid. FrQn Maharao Bhim Singh to Saha Bihari Hawalgir ~auza Dighod, Baisakh Budi 11, 1771 v.s. Jairam Mirdho who held a chakari grant in mauza Sahipura was exempted from bighori tax.

18. Ibid. FrQn Maharao Bhim Singh to Muthradas Bhatt, Posh BUdi 11, 1771 v.s.

19. DSA-KR. Dusri Manzil Basta No.276. Dovarkhi Jama dharti Ka Chukava Ki, Jamai-KJama Kharch, pargana Kota, 1771 v.s.

. ..

304

extent of territories -assigne9 in jagir fluctuated from

time to time, depending upon the requirement of the state. The

decline of the central authority often led to increase in

the area assigned ~n jagirs. The assignment of jagir implied

the transference of the state's right to collect land

revenue and certain other authorised taxes to the recipient

of the jagir. Contrary to the usual practice of assigning

revenue of a given terri tory, a definite tract of land as

territorial unit called mauza was assigned in jagir in the

Harouti region. The extent of the area under each jaair was

invariably mentioned in each patta of jagir and expressed in

bighas. The estimated value of jagir termed as rekh was

also mentioned alongside. In some jagir pattas the figures

of actual revenue realised (Upati) were also given.

conbd. F/n. 19 •••

Bahu Sisodanigi and the wife of Jagat Singh were assigned 100 bighas each for the construction of a garden. Bada Raniji was assigned 350 bigha in mauza Rangtalav. The wife of Bhai Kishan Singh was granted 200 bigha. Bahu Jhaliji was assigned 100 bigha in mauza Mundana Khurd in rajlok jagir.

305

A large segment of the ruling ~ada clan were jagirdas

and derived their livelihood from the income of their

jagirs. The majority of the recipients of the jagirs

were those who rendered military services to the state.

It may be noted here that unlike the Mughal mansabdari

system, the Rajput jagirdars were not given the 1 Zat 1

and 1Sawar 1 rank separately. However, the perso~al

salary of the ~girdar, the emoluments of his

retainers and amount required for discharging various

·obligations were clearly mentioned, separately.

The villages of 1Harouti 1 region were classified

into three distinct categories, i.e., 1 asli 1 1majera 1

and 1 uj ar 1 • The teirn 1 asl i 1 signifies a fully matured

village and it was treated as a separate revenue unit.

The· 1majera 1 was a newly colonized village or a

dependency of the asli or parent village. - The

•ujar gaon 1 also known as 1viran 1 was an old, ruined

or depopulated village 2~ ~he villages belonging to

the above mentioned categories varie:-; from pargana •

The perecentage of ~~ajera 1 and Ujar villages was

20. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.lO, Dovarkhi pargana Urmal Ki, 1749 v.s.

It was 15.30 ~ 10.38 in quite microscopic,

21 pargana Vaniga,, and tappa Richava22 respectively.

For the purpose of disbures·ement of revenue the

mauzas were mainly divided into two categories namely,

'khalsa•and'jagir'. The villages held in Khalsa were

usually more fertile than the jagir villages and were

directly amrninistered by the state13 The number of

villages assigned in jagir far exceeded the Khalsa

but the percentage of Khalsa was comparatively higher

in and around the state capital where the land was

relatively fertile. In all the parganas, certain

mauzas were always retained in Khalsa due to various

reasons. One of the considerations was to check

the activities of the jagirdars and curb the

refractory elements among them. 24 The areas

earmaked as jagir fluctuated fran time to time

21.

2 2.

2 3.

RSA-KR. Bhandar No.6, Basta No. 5/1 Ta~sim Pargana Vaniga, 1823 v.s. DSA-KR. Dusri Manzi! Basta No. 276, TaQ!!sim Pargana Richava ka gaon ki,1771 v.s. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No. 30/1, TaQ!!sim Pargana Nandgaon, 1799V.S.

Out of 1124 villages in 20 paraganas of Kota the number of Khalsa villages was 251~ which comes to 22.3 per cent of the total. In pargana Baran out of 993 Villages 398~ were held in Khalsa and 594.5 were assigned in jagir.

24. RSA-KR. Bhandar No. 6, Basta No. 1/1, Tagusim jagiri, 1711 to 1771 v.s.

307

depending upon the prevailing situation. The extent

of area held in jagir was much higher as compared to

the Khalsa territory. The number of jagir villages

was very high in the parganas located on the border

of the state. In pargana Ghati 83 per cent of the

total villages were assigned in ~agir.

'rhe taqsi.m -. record gives the break up of the

village in j agir:'". Khalsa and punay Udik. A large

number of villages were assigned in jagir·:.. in each

Eargana. 'l'he following table shows the number of

villages assigned in j agir: ~ in some of parganas of

kota state.

As ami Total No.of Villages

The villages Assigned in j agir:·

v.s.

----------------------------~---------------------Madhkargarh 41 35 1736

Urmal 47 13 1749

Baran 95 54 1771

Sarahala 60 39 1798

Vaniga 161 26 1798

Richava 154 109 1772

The document also gives a break up of the

total cultivable land assigned in j agir. The taqusirn --record of EaLgana Vaniga shows that out of 2,03,400

bighas, 36,500 bighas of land was assigned in jagir I .

- 82,600 in mugata, and 84, 300 bighas were- left. the

Khalsa~5 in ~argana Sarahala the total 'chak'(area)

-25. RSA-~~. Bhandar No.6, Basta No.S/1. Taqsim pargana Vaniga, 1798 v..s.

308

was 1,16,000 biqhas .• Out of this 87,100 bighas were assigned

. . . . //"

~n Jag~r_, 11,400 in udik, and 17,500 bigha were left in

Khalsa. 26 The following table shows the extent of the area

under jagir in pargana Vaniga and Sarahala:

------------------------------------------------------------AsaiJd Gaon Chak Jagir Chak as Percent­

age of ~otal area

-----~------------·-----------------------------------------

Pargana Vaniga

Jagir Gaon 26 36, 500 17.95

Khalsa 64 84,300 41.46

Muqata 71 82,6 00 40.58

Pargana Sarahala·

Jagir 39 67,100 75.09

Khalsa 7 17,500 15.08

Udik 14 11,400 9.82

-----------------------------------------------------------The above table shows that the extent of area assigned

in jagir varied from one pargana to another. In pargana

Vaniga the area under jagir was only 17.95 per cent while

in Sarahala it was as high as 75 per cent of the total.

Since the jagir was usually assigned to meet the

tankhwah claims of the assignee it was necessary to

determine in each case a~ area that would yield a revenue

equivalent to the j agirdars' sanctioned pay. 27 A tentatiYe

26. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.6, Basta No.5/1. Sirsatto pargana Sarahala Ko, 1798 v.s.

27. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.30. From Haharao Bhim ~-fn,.,.h .... rt. U ....... _,_4_ TT....:3-0:: r'l·-- TT-.-:1- --...:1 r"\....-,..,~k-.--tY l'lhh=a4

309

estimate of the expected yield (rekh 1) of each mauza

. .was calculated to meet this administrative requirement~8

It was the endeavour of the state to assess the 'rekh 1

in such a manner tmt it could be as close as possible to

the •upat• or the actual produce. The •rekh 1 was

calculated on the basis of the total cultivable area of

the village. The land classified as 0 nal a yak'

(uncultivable land) and 1 bid0 1 (grazing land) was deducted

from the total area. The 1 hakat• or cult:tvable land

served as the basis for determining the amount of

'rekh'. In the initial stages, the •rekh 1 was prepared

on the basis of land ~nder actual cultivation and

29 its •upati' {actual r;roduce) in t.he previous year •

The rekh figures of . villages in Pargana Gaghrone

are as follows.

Asami Jagiri Gaon Chak Nala- Bido Hakat Rekh Rate yak per

-------------------------------------------------------------~~~Q~ Guman Singh Arno 1 2000 700 114 1186 300 0. 25 Ama~ Singh Narayanpur 1 3000 2700 300 200 0.66 Hado Rawat Roop Palyakheri 1 550 150 . 20 380 400 1.05 Singh Sukh Ram Hado Marthuni 1 1000 700 300 100 0.33 Madho Singh Bhalgarh 2 2000 1400 58 542 100 0.18 Hado M.Vadar Fateh Singh Gaondi 1 1000 600 20 240 400 1.37

contd. F/n.27 . .. was assigned jagir of

which he pei.·t onned figure of h:is j agir

maintained horses at

Ram, Aghan Sudi 10, 1772 v.s. Anand Singh, son of Kalyan Singh, mauza Kalmadi in lieu of chakari with turgui tazi horses. The rekh gaon was f~xed at Rs.3,600 and he the rate of Rs. 200 per horse. __

28. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No~23, Taqsim Sarahala Ka gaon Ki, 1832 v.s.

29. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.6, Basta No.3/2. Taqsim pargana Gaghrone ka Jagiri gaon ki, 1823 v.s.

310

However, the relationship between~ and~ was not

alvyas positive. Moreover the ~ and ~ figure did not

remain consta-nt -and were periodical! y revised .. in accordan-ce

with the increase or decrease in the area under cul.tivation.

The 'tagsirn' record of pargana Sangod shows that the 'rekh'

figures of 8 villages having an area of 2797 bighas was

Rs. 21790.6 in 1828 v.s. This figure rose to 21976.35 in

1832 v.s. Similarly the 'rekh' figures of the 6 villages

having an area of 8168 bigha was 4903.35 in 1828 v.s. There

was an upward revision of rekh in 1830 v.s. and it was

estimated at Rs. 5668.75. Sane time the •upat' figure remained

constant for four years when there was no scope for further

improvement in the state of cultivation.

-----~------------------------------------------------------Asami Mauza Chak Upat Upat Upat Upat

Bigha 1829 1830 1831 1832

------------------------------------------------------------Mauza Kucholi 950 1000 1ooo· 1000 1000

Halimkheri 600 7500 7500 7500 7500

Sa hi pur 1800 1600 1600 1600 1600

Kishoq)ur 700 500 500 500 500

Janipur 2000 1000 1000 1000 1000

'l'iso 800 700 700 700 700

Hongo 4000 5000 5000 5000 5000

Dig hod 4200 4500 4500 4500 4500

-----------------~----------------------------------------

15750 23800 23800 23800 23800

~----------~------------------------------------------------

The table show that the upat figures remained

stationary from 1829 to 1832 v.s. 30 We have similar

information fran the tagsim records of pargana Sarahala

30. RSA-KR. Bbandar No.1, Basta No. 23, Tagsim pargana sang<Xl Ka gaon Ki, 1832 v.s.

311

where ~ figures of 5 villages with an area of

1400 bigha were Rs. 3600 in 1829 v.s. and did not change

upto 1832 v.s. The upat figures of some Khalsa villages

were 500 in 1829 v.s. and did not show any change upto

1832 v.s. Similarly , tbe upat figures of 8 udik

villages and 4 j agir; villages assigned to Bhil and

Gujar jagirdaasalso remained stationary upto 1832 v.s~

However , records from other ~rganas reveal that upat

figures fluctuated from year to year. The total amount

of 36 jagir.; villages assigned to desh ke Jagirdars

was calculated at Rs. 35806 in 1829 v.s. In 1830 v.s.

the figures rose to Rs. 35882 and again declined to

Rs. 35551 in 1831 v.s. The upat figure of navatalka ka

gaon assigned to talkedars also shows similar trends.

In this case the amount of upat was 7700 in 1829 v.s., it

declined to 7500 in 1830 v.s. and remained the same in 1831-

32 V .s. 31 Thus in upat figures could rise when there was

scbpe for the imprO'ITement and expansion of agriculture and

remained stationary in normal seasons. The upati figure

used to decline when the area was affected by famine or

disease.

Where the jagir did not yield ~ equivalent to the

rekh the j agir ;·· could be either converted into naqdi

or the number of zabta ghora could be reduced. PremMal

31. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.23, Tagsim tappa .Sarahala Ka gaon ki, 1832 v.s.·

.312

~~a who held the jagir of 3000 bigha in ~appa Sarahala

against ?~abtaghora' was not able /to· collect revenue

equivalent to his service obligations. Consequently his

jagir was resumed and he· was made 'nagdi'. The jagirdar

was instructed to keep )abtaghora' as before. In an

instance involving Nawal Singh f:i,ara who was faced with

a shortfall- in the amount of 'upat' the jagirdar was

allowed to reduce the number of horses from 3 to 2. 32

The following table shows ~ figures from 1829 to

1832 v.s. For different Cc'tegories of revenue assignments.

---------------------------------------------------------As ami Gaon Chak Upat Upat Upat ~ 1829 1839 1831 1832 v.s. v.s. v.s. v.s.

---------------------------------------------------------Hajur Ke Jagirch.r 5 1400 3600 3600 3600 3600

Desh ke Jagirdar 36 73300 35806 35882 35551 35551

Ydik Gaon 8 9900 4200 4200 4200 4200

Gujar, Bhil ke 4 500 536 536 536 536 Gaon

Navatalka ka Gaon 7 17800 7700 7500 7500 7500

Thus the ~ arrl ~ figures were periodically JEeVised

keeping in view the state of agriculture in a partigular

pargana or rnauza. The Hara rulers followed a much more

realistic practice in the assignment of jaqirs. The rekh

figures were hypothetically calculated figqres which were not

based on the actual yield of the area. The hasil figur~s

32. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.6, Basta No.1/1, Taqsim Jagit±, 1771 v.s.

313

fluctuated considerably from year to year in accordance

with the state of agriculture in a year. However, there

was an upward movement in the hasil figures during the period

under study because of extension_ in the area under cultivation

by the 'barla gaon ka karsha •. Secondly~ the state also

tried to exact more and more surplus by infla:ting ~

figures · t'hough it was rare that hasil figures ever matched

the amount of rekh. It may be pointed out here that the.~

was different from the Jama figures determined by the

Mughal administration. The ~r~ rulers worked out their ~~n

j, ama figures tenned · as · • re kh • .· for.: the purposes of assigning

jagir .. to their own jagirdars. A comparative study of the

Jama figures of the t1ughals and the locally detennined

rekh reveals that rekh was higher than the ja~a. The

discrepancy l;>etween these two sets of figures .can be

explained perhaps in terms of the ability of the Hara

rulers • administration to calculate the expected yield of

their territory more accurately than the Mughals. The other

plausible cause seems to be the rulers• intention to ex~ct

more service by merely inflating the revenue yield figures.

As discussed, the ~ figures were theortically

prepared on the basis of the area under cultivation and on

the basis of the actual yield in the previous years. But

in practice the~ figures did not necessarily coincide

with the actual produce of the current year. The rekh

figures in same cases were repeated year a~ter year. Though

their was provision to campensate the ]agirdar ,by converting

him to naqdi bu~ in practice the jagirdars were rarely can- -­

pensated when their jagir area was affected by famine

314

o,r:_:locusts E~sul.ting in deline of~- Of course it is

ture that sometimes the j agirdars benefitted because of

exqeptionally good harvest. The jagirdar was also

required to pay an amount as riazrana, · 'peshkash • and

'di1aibhoni' to the state which was an extra burden on him.

He had to pay these levies out of his personal income. Thus

whenever the financial position of the jagirdars became

precarious they tended to furnish lesser number of

: 33 Jabtaghora. and this in some cases led to the

confiscation of the jagir~ 4 In many cases, the additional

fiscal burden imposed on the jagirdars by the state led to

their oppression of the peasantry. The amount of nazrana,

dhaibhoomi and eeshkash were always shifted on to the

.l!P?sants. Thus partly because of its very nature and partly

due to its functioning the jagirdari system became an

instrument of oppression of the karshas: 5 There was no in

built mechanism that could resolve the problem of divergence

between rekh and hasil and the large gap between the

expenses incurred by a j agirdar to discharge his various

services and financial obligations and the actual produce

obtained by hiUl.

. 33. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.8/l, Tagsim Jagirl.

1744 v.s.

34. DSA-KR. Dusri Manzil, Basta No.276, Dovarkhi pandi taqsimat, 1771 v.s. ~

3 s. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.17, Fran Maharao Naval Singh to officials of pargana Palayatha, Jyesth sudi 1 51 1 7 56 V • S •

315

The jagir was assigned -through a sanad issued by

the r1aharao. A copy of it was also sent to the pargana

and village officials such as chaudhary, hawalgir, patel,

patwari. They were inf.o.I!Ed about the assignment of the

requisite ja_g~-~ to too incumbent who was ready to maintain

36 the required number of horses, aswar and palas etc. The

name of the mauza assigned the amount of rekh, area under

hakat (cultivation) and nalayak (uncultivable) land.andh9ther

relevant information·were also mentioned in the sanad. 37

Details regarding the conditions of service were also sent

to the hawalgir who was instructed to ensure that a jagirdar

was properly discharging his service obligations. He was

authorised to make necessary deductions out of the ~ of

the assignee if the jagirdar did not fulfil his service

di . 38 con t1ons. Maharao Bhim Singh assigned in jagir, mauza

Arno and Nithado to Bhai Sardar Singh and informed the

hawalgir of pargana Mangrole to that effect. In the

assignment order it was stressed that Sardar Singh will

perform chakari at the thana of Mangrole. In case he was

summoned to the capital the hawalgir was to ensure that he

left for the capital. Since the number of '3abta ghora was

yet to be determined the hawalgir was instructed to send

36. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.26. Fran Maharao Bhim Singh to Hari Singh Hara, 1776 v.s.

37. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1~ Basta No.26. From Maharao Bhim Sinqh to Parasram Hara hawalgir of pargana Bared, Jyestha Sudi 5, 1776 v.s.

38. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, B~sta No.24, From Maharao Bhim ---singh to Jhunzar Sinth Hara hawalVir of parqana, Kha takheri, S hrawan ___ ':ldi 5, 176 5 .s.

316

details--of each cr...op along with t.he areas- under rabi and

kharif to the Maharao so that the service obligation of the

jagirdar could be fixed accordingly. 39 Sometimes the sanad

of the j agir assignment was issued to a j agirdar but the

order was not implemented in•time. In such cases, the

amount of revenue equal to his service obligation was paid to SL

the jagirdar. Kite Hara received the order to the effect

that mauza Sarahalo has been assigned to him in jagir but he

could not take possession of the jagir mauza. The Maharao

ordered the pargana official to pay him an amount equal to

his salary claim. 40 Jagu Dasondhi got the assignment of

mauza Mundana in jagir but he was not given possession of

his jagir with effect from the date of appointment. He received

41 Rs.SOO/- as interim relief by order of the Maharao. Sometimes,

jagirdars were partially exempted from their service

obligations by the Maharaoo Swarup Singh Rajawat deshko jagirdar was

who maintained 8 horses upto 1823 V. SLrequired to keep only

2 horses without any corresponding reduction in the amount of

rekh assigned to him. He continued to possess the jagir

43 assignment which valued at Rs. 200 approximately. The revenue

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.24, From Maharao Bhim Singh to Bhai Daulat Singh, Jyesth Sudi 5, 1766 v.s.

RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.26. From Maharao Bhim Singh to Jeeva Hara hawalgir of parqana Urmal, Asadh Budi 9, 1766 v.s •

.!,lli. Frcrn Maharato Bhim Singh to Bhai Pratap Singh hawalgir of pargana Kunzed, Kartik Sudi 10, 1766 v.s. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.6, Basta No.3/2. Taqsim pargana Ghati Ka -hawal a Ki, 18 2 3, V. S.

-Fakirdas Rajawat maintained 4 barkandaz. ·tn 1823 v.s. the Maharao exempted him from keep1ng 2 barkahdaz.

~-

317

due from the mauza was collected by the agerit of the jagirdar

on the basis of the revenue rates sanctioned by the state

officials. The revenue officials periodically measured the

area devoted to each crOp in the j agir rnauzas and fixed

the revenue rates for each crop separately. In 1747 v~s.

the revenue officials surveyed the entire land in mauza

Karnaheri which vas assigned in 1agir to Maha Singh Nathawat.

The state officials worked out the revenue rates for

different kharif crops. The rates prescribed were as follows:

van Rs.l.50, kodu 1.75# velda 1.15, kasumbo 0.75, maize 0.85,

tobacco 2.50 per biqha~4 In many cases, the~ assigned

to a 1agi.rdar also included the incane fran addi tiona!

taxes other than land revenue aoo non-agricultural taxes.

This fact was specifically mentioned in the patta of 1ag1r.

The assignment of these additional taxes was regarded as a

mark of favour fran the Maharao. Hara Chet Ram was given

the right to collect jaqat taxes from his jaqir villages and

45 this fact was mentioned in his patta. SQ'netimes . the rulers

favoured the j agirdar by granting him permission to maintain

an elephant for the service of the Maharao for which special (46

provision was made in the patta. ·

44. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.8, Jama mauza Karnaheri, Jagiri Maha Singh Nathawat, 1747 v.s.

45. . RSA-KR. Bbandar No.3, Basta No.67, Talik Bahi, 1839 V.S.

46. RSA-KR. Bbandar No.1, Basta No. 24, FrQn Bhim Singh to hawalgir of pargana Khatakheri, 1766 v.s.

318

The j agirdars were not allowed to grant sasan and

punya udik grant from their assignment. This right was

exclusively reserved by the Maharao for himself. 47 Whenever

tile 1 agirdars failed to maintain the required number of

j abta ghora, this fact was prQnptl y brought to the not! ce

of the Maharao by the hawalgir. In such cases, appropriate

steps were taken by the administration through its officials,

to impress upon the jagirdars that he was required to comply

with his service obligations as mentioned in the patta. In

1747 v.s. the jagirdars who were required to maintain 675

horses produced only 616. The Maharao issued an order to the

effect that the jagirdars be forced to fulfil their service

obligations in toto. .The defaulting 1agirdars could

produce additional 41 horses but still they remained short of

17 horses. The Haras who were supposed to furnish 166 horses

could prOduce only 147 horses and 20 horses remained

gairhazir. The l_idie:::hhwahas who were supposed to maintain

252 horses at the time of physical verification could present

only 240 horses. The Solanki and Nathawat jagirdars were

required to present 70 horses but could produce only 60 at

the time of verification. The Rathores who were supposed to

furnish 15 horses could bring only 9 horses and 6 horses were

treated as absent (gairhazir). The Tanwars who were supposed

to maintain 22 horses could produce only 2 horses and 20

47. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.3, Basta No.67, Talik Bahi'-1839 v.s.

319

horses were re-ported -a-s- q-airhazir. The percenta-ge of

gairhazir horses came at 8.60 of the total strength. 48

When the 1agirdar:.: failed to I;:erform chakari as per !

condition mentioned in the patta he could either be suspended

fran the service or his jagirs could be confiscated by the

Maharao. Deokaran Chandrawat who held the Jagir of mauza

Mittalheri was required to discharge chakari with 6

1abtaghora but he could produce only one horse. The Maharao

reduced his jagir in the same proportion and he was allowed

to retain part of the village that was yielding a revenue

equivalent to the salary of one jabtaghora. Ummed Singh who

could not produce jabtaghora for physical verification was

ordered to surren:ler his jagir to the state. The jagir

held by Deep Singh was resumed by too Maharao because of his

failure to produce the required number of 1 abtaghora. The

ahithas who were employed by the state to look after the

standing crop in the Khalsa territory were ordered to take

possession of the 1agir mauza and not to allow the fagirdar

to collect the revenue and continue to stay in the village

until Deep Singh was able to obtain a fresh parwanah about

the restoration of his 1agir!9 The ahithas were especially

48. RSA-KR. Bhahdar No.1, Basta No.1, Tagsim pargana Kota ka gaon Ki, 1747 v.s. Also see the table No.

49. DSA-KR. Dusri Manzil Basta No. 409, Dcwarkhi pandi tagsimat, Parwanah hazur Ke, 1771 V .s. • · Akhairaj Hara, jagi·rdar of mauza Badlo in ~ana Kota failed to keep the number of horses prescd in the patta. Subsequently his jagir was confiscated. The ahi thas were ordered to take possession of the jagir. village until ttl:! .ll's..irdar furnished the full strength of the jabtaghora. The iaqir villages of Kito Hara were confiscated follow ng the report that he did not maintain the jabtaghora mentioned in the patta. He was told that his jaglr could only be restcred when he

•••

320

posted to administer the villages confiscated from the

jagirdars, The ahithas were also required to ensure that

recalci trs.nt 1 agirdars could not collect land revenue and

other taxes from the villages by force. 50 Thus, instances

abound in our sources of the frequent inability of the

individual 1 agirdars to meet the teJ:ms and concH tions laid

down in the sanad.

The jagirdars were classified into two_categories,

viz., hajur Ke jagirdar and desh Ke Jagirdar. Both

categories of assignees rendered chakari to the state along 51 with the jabtaghora prescribed in the patta. The

hajur ke Jagirdars were by and large drawn from among the

contd, F/n. 49 •••

agreed to perform chakari at qasba Madhkargarh with the number of tabtaqhora prescribed in the sanad, Daulat Singh who maintained 8 h~se against his jaqir mauza Dabri, Mohanpura was later on added to his 1agir by increasing his chakari obligation to 13 horses. But he kept only 10 horses. When it was reported to the Maharao he reduced the lagir areas of Daulat Singh in proportion to the sa ary of 3 horses, Kushal Singh Hara, held fagiri of mauza Modhipur on the condition of maintaning 3 jabta qhora but he sold 2 horses to Rasan Singh and·was left . with only one horse to send in chakari, The Maharao on the report of the hawalqir confiscated a portion of his jaqir that was equivalent in value to the salary clafm of 2 horses.

SO, Ibid,

51, RSA-KR, Bbandar No.1, Basta No,J0/1, 1772 V,S,

321

members of Hara clan. The close relations of Mabarao were

also recruited under this category. However. the principle

of clan solidarity was not strictly adhered to while

appointing hazur ke jagirdar. Persons belonging to clans

other than Haras ard a section of lower castes such as Bhils,.

Meena and.Gujar were also recruited as hajur ke jagirdar.

In terms of conditions Of chakari hajur ke jagirdars enjoyed

certain privileges as they received ernolwnents at a higher

rate than the desh ke jagirdars. They also supPlied a

lesser number of jabtaghora as is evident from the·tables. 52

The bulk of the jagir assignments were appropriated by this

category of the jaqirdars in sane of the parganas. Out of

353 villages assigned in~£ in the year 1777 v.s. 232

villages were held by hajur ka jagirdars. De$.h ka jagirdars

were assigned 121 villages. In terms of chakari,. Haras

and Bhais (near relatives of Maharao) who were mainly

recruited as hajur ke jagirdars furnished 2. 96 horses per

unit of~ amount whereas the jagirdars belonging to other

clans provided 3.90 horses. 64.60 per oent of the total amount

assigned in jagir was appropriated by a single clan

grwp namely the Haras. While jagirdars belonging to other

clans/castes possessed only 35.40 of the ~- A study of

the tagsim record of papgana Nandgaon shows that in 1799v.s.

hajur ka 1agirdars possessed· 236.5 villages and furnished

9 71 horses at the average rate of 2. 9 horse per unit of rekh

52. See table no. 1..18 and 7.19.

322

while· the desh ke 1aqirdar who held 348 3/4 villages and

maintained 1986 horses on an average of 45.6 horses per unit

of the rekh. 53

The numerical strength of desh ke 1agirdars and

consequently the number of villages assigned_ to them in

jagir were canparatively higher than hajur ke jagirdar. They

fonned the core of the military might of the state. In

hawala Kunzed the desh ke jagirdars were assigned merely

16.32 per cent of the total villages in 1777 v.s. 54 However,

the position underwent a subtle change in 1823·v.s. when Jhala

zalim Singh emerged as a major power centre in the po]it~

of Kota state after the battle of Bhatwara. He intrcrluced

several refonns in the ~phere of administration. The

jagirdari system also saw some changes. 55 During this

period, the number of Jagirdars belonging to the Jhala clan

also started swelling. 56 Secondly, the number of desh ke

1agirdars increased when the dange·r of the Maratha incursions

became imminent. To face this situation the Maharao of Kota

53. RSA-Bhandar No.6, Basta No.l/1, ~gsim parqana Nandgaon, 1779 v .s.

54o RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.35/4, Tagsim parqana Nandgaon I<i, 1776-79 v.s.

55. Tod James, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, Op. cit., pp.416-435.

56. RSA-KR. Bhandar No .• 6, Basta No.3/2, Taqsim records, 1800-1824 v .s.

323.

ad-opted a policy of assigning j-ag±-rs to Harathas in the

parganas located on the south western border so that they

could act as a counter check upon the predatory activities

of the Maratha ·hordes.. It is because of this that in I

1839 v.s. 71 villages were assigned to 39 Haratha jagirdars

against an annual yield of Rs.128,000. Thus in these

circumstances the increase in the number of jagirdars

belonging to desh category was. inevitable. 57 By then the

desh ke .Jaqirdars were in possession of 77. 5 per cent of

the total villages assigned in jagir while ha1ur ke Jagirdars

possessed none of the villages there. 58 Similarly in

Pargana Barsana desh ke Jaqirdar had 346.5 villages and

ha1ur ke j.·aqirdar had only .57 villages out of the total

993 villages in 1798 v.s. 59

It is quite evident from the records that the.hajur

Ke Jagirdar enjoyed superiority over desh ke 1aqirdar

both in terms of higher status and better emoluments. The

former not only held substantial jagir but even their

tabindars were paid salary A'te rates higher than those of

desh ke jagirdars. A Kachawaha tab~ndar under hajur ke jagir­

~ was paid Rs. 250 per annum while on the other hand his

counterpart under desh ke 1agirdar got only Rs. 200 per

annum. The same yardstick was applied to other clans. 60

57. RSA-I<R. Bbandar N.o. 6, Basta No.5/1. Sirsmtto E!£gana Bars ana Ko, 1798.

sa. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.6, Basta No.3/2. Tagsim records, 1800-24 v.s.

59. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.6, Basta No.S/1. Sirs~tto parqana Barsana Ko, 1798 v .s.

Record,1773 v.s. 60. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.7, Basta No.3, Tagsim

324

The Hara jagirdars constituted the majority in most

of the papganas. Table No.1 shows that in ~rgana Ghati,

Madhkargarh and Mangrade they formed the largest group

among the 1agiJ:dars. Table no. 2 shows that wt of 553

villages 232 villages were assigned to Haras, 56 to

Kachawahas, 6 each to Sisodya, Gaur and Rathore 1agirdars,

24 villages were assigned to Solankis, one each to Panwar

and Badgujar, 10 villages to Dahiyas, 7 to Tanwas and 4 to

Musalman 1agirdars. In parqana Richawa we find that Hara.

Solanki, Gaur and Sahar Jagirdars were assigned only one

1agir village each Vtm.le Rathore were granted 27 villages,

Soningra 14,. Gujar 4, Jhala, Chundawat and Bhakhrot were

assigned 2 villages each. Significantly the Bhils who were

considered lower in social status than the Rajputs enjoyed

a prominent position in the pargana. They were assigned 54

villages in jaqir with a~ (area} of 4,17,000 bighas

of cultivable land, which was 37.36 per cent of the total

area of the pargana.61 In pargana Kota, Chauhan, Rathore,

Sikarwal, Tanwar and Dasundhi were assigned one village

each, the Gaur, Dhaibhai and Musalman were granted 2

villages each, Kayastha and Brahmin were assigned 4 villages

each, Dahiyas were granted 3 villages, while Khawas, Paswan

and Solanki were granted 6 villages. Significantly Haras

who were the ruling clan got only 7 villages in .Jagir.

61. DSA-KR. Dusri Manzi!, Basta No.276, Tagsim pargana Richava Ka 1agiri gaon Ki, 1771 v.s.

325

The Kachhwahas were the daninant clan of the pargana who

were granted 12 villages. They maintained 178 horses. 6 2

The record of pa.rgana Ghati for the year 1798 V .s.

reveals that out of 35.50 villages Haras were assigned 10

villages with a~ of 10,466 biqhas. The expected yield

of the area was Rs.1l,041.35 annually. The Gujars were

assigned 7 villages, Bhils 3.5, Kanwar, Dahiya and Gaur

were granted one village each. Kachhwaha and Khawas were

assigned 2 villages each. Sisodyas were granted 3 villages.

Altogether about 12. SO per cent of the total number of

villages were assigned to non-Rajputs. These included

Bhil, Gujar and Khawas.63 The trend in other parganas is

almost identical. In parqana Gaghrone, Bhils were granted

5 villages, Meena and Gujar one each while Jhala and Haras

were assigned 6 villages each. Thus the non Rajputs were

assigned 7 villages out of 14 Jagir ma~zas and the

remaining 7 villages went to the Rajputs. The Bhils and

Meenas constituted an important segment of the class of

1aqirdars in the Harouti region.

There was no uniform rate prescribed for the ..1abta-

ghora, aswar, pal as, pyadas etc. maintained by tte jaqirdars.

Anand Singh who was granted mauza Kalmadi in pargana

6 2. R.SA-KR., Bhandar No.1, Basta No.6, Taqsim pargana ~. 1745 v.s. '

63. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.6, Basta No.l/1. Tagsim pargana Ghati Ka hawala Ki, 1798 v.s.

326

Baran as jaqir valued at~ Rs.3,600 maintained 18

· horses of the turgui tazi breed which was a superior

quality of horse. The rate of the upkeep of each horse in

this case was Rs.200 per annum. When Maharao added another

village to his 1aqir in pargana Bared in lieu of ~h

1abtaqhora he was assigned an additional amount of Rs.l800

in keeping with the increase in his obligations.64 Hathi

Singh who m~intained one horse of Kumet breed which

65 was inferior in quality was paid Rs.175 per annum. Ajab

Singh Rathore, who was granted naqdi jagir worth Rs.2o,ooo,

maintained 95 horses at the rate of Rs. 200 and an elephant

at the rate of·Rs.lOOO 66 t::e r annum. Kishore Singh who

maintained 2 ~ {horseman) and 4 horses was paid Rs. 700.

The rate of the upkeep of each horse was Rs.175 per annum.

Gaj Singh Kitawat who kept two horses was paid Rs.300 at

the rate of Rs.l50 per annum. Hari Singh whQ maintained 31

palas {soldier) was paid Rs.115.75 at the rate of Rs.3.73 per

pal a as monthly salary. Kharag Hazari who retained

3 aswar . (horseman) was paid Rs.31.75 per month at the rate

of Rs.lo.s. He also maintained 24 palas (footman) who

were paid 97.50 at the rate of 4.07 per month. Miyararn

64. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.30, From Maharao Bhim Singh to Udairam Hara hawalqir of pargana Baran, 1772 v.s.

65. RSA~KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.24. FrOm Maharao Bhirn Singh to Jhunzar Singh Hara hawalgir of pa.rgana Khatakheri, Shrawan Sudi 5, 1765 v.s.

66. Ibid., Shrawan Sudi 4, 1764 v.s.

327

furnished 2 aswar at the rate of 8. SO per month and 23

palas at the rate of 3. 43 per month. 67

The relationship between the_~ assigned and

service obligations of 1agirdar were not fixed uniformity

in all the cases by the Maharao. Amar Singh Hado, 1agirdar

of rnauza Arno. with a rekh of Rs.300 maintained one horse.

Gurnan Singh who held a jagir worth Rs. 200 also maintained

one horse. Similarly. Sukhram Hara and Rawat Roop Singh

held jagirs worth rekh Rs.lOO and 400 respectively

despite the fact that both maintained one horse only. Bhil

Gumani who held 2 villages in jagir worth rekh 200

maintained 15 aswars and palas. Bhil Khemo and Meeno Kano

who were granted jagir of rekh 100 each undertook the

mairtenance of 4 asamies~ 8 The state always preferred

turgi tazi breed of horses which were of superior quality,

ccmpared to Kumet, ~ or junglee type of horses. 69 The

salary for maintaining turgi horses was fixed at a rate

higher than any other breeds. Those who kept tupqui tazi

horses were pai4 Rs.200 per horse. 70 The rate for kumet

was Rs.l 75 71 and for ~ and lung lee breed of horses the

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.25. From Maharao Bhim Singh to Hawalqir of pargana Urmal, l766 V .s.

RSA-KR. Bhandar No.6, Basta No. 3/2. Tagsim parqana Gaghrone ka hawala Ki, 1823 v.s.

RSA-KR. Bhaooar .No.6, Basta No. 7/1. Tagsim tappa Barod, 1834 v.s.

RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.30. Fran Maharao Bhirn Singh to Udairam Hara Hawalgir of pargana Baran~ Aghan Sud! 10, 1772 v .s. · RSA-KR Bhandar No.1, Basta No.24. From Maharao Bhirn Singh to Jhunzar Singh Hara, Shrawan Sud! 5, 1765 v.s.

328

rate sanctioned varied between Rs.125 and 150. 72 Sometimes

Maharao fixed the salary of jabtaghora as high as Rs.937

per annum which was a mark of special favour bestowed

upon the Jagirdar. Jodh Singh Rawat who held a 1agir worth

.~ Rs.17,525 maintained 18 horses at the rate of

Rs.973.68 per annum. Bhai Hari Singh, a desh ka 1agirdar

who was assigned jaqir worth~ Rs.21,400 maintmned 88

horses at the rate of Rs.356.65 per annum. 74

not It wa~necessary that a uniform standard was followed

in regard to deteonining the salary and obligations for all

the clans. Bhai Sukh Singh held the jagir worth rekh Rs.l200

and provided 3 horseman. 75 Savan Singh Sisodia in lieu of

jagir valued at Rs.lOOO kept 5 horses, Bhai Nangji held the

obligation to maintain 5 horses for Rs.5oo. However Bhai

Nangri was required to keep only 1 horse for the same amount

of salary. 76 In pargana Mauthe Haras held 5 villages in

72. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.6, Basta No.3/2. Taqsim pargana Ghat! Ka hawala Ki, 1823 v.s.

73. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.6, Basta No.l/1, Tagsim pargan& Ghat! ka Jagiri gaon Ki, 1779 v.s.

74. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.6, Basta No.3/2. Tagsim pargana Madhkarqarh Ka hawala Ki, 1823 v.s.

75. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.3/2. Tagsim Jagiri, 1800-1824 v.s.

76. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1,· Basta No.32. Taqsim pargana Madhkargarh Ka hawala Ki, tappa Vasthuni, 1823 v.s.

329

jagir with an upati of Rs.3072.50. They provided 19 horses.

The Gaur 1agirdars got 35 villages in jaqir yielding

Rs.23321 in revenue and kept 74 horses. The Rajawats who

were assigned jaqir of 8 villages with the annual est~ated

yield of Rs. 5646 pro.rided 28 horses at the rate of 201.6

per annum. 77

Apart from rendering active military and civil services

to the state, the 1aqirdars in the region of Harouti were

also not averse to promoting the economy of their respective

jaqir areas. Although we do not have any reference to

their participation in the commercial activities, there are

numerous instances of the 1aqirdars showing a keen interest

in cultivation and their involvement in the process of

agricultural pro:iuction. This went a long way in gearing

up the rural econany and also in ere as iog the revenue resources

of the ruling class. The jagirdars actively participated

in the process of cultivation and played a crucial role in

extension and promotion of agriculture during the r:eriod of

our study. 78 They were allotted a tract of land in their

jagir mauza as gharuhala tenure / for the purpose of·

cultivation. The 1aqirdars generally employed halis for

the cultivation of their gharuhala plot. 79 Since the

77. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No. 30. pargana Mau ka desh Ka Jaqi~ar, 1772 v.s.

78. DSA-KR. Dusri Manzil Basta No.338. Adsatto mauza Pisyaheric tappa Aradkheda, 1864 v.s.

79. Ibid. Adsatto mauza Umarheri, 1864 v.s.

330

_j_agi.rdars be-l-onged to an econanically superior-se-cti-on

of the society, ~Y could mobilise the requis~ resources

to organise cultivation such as bullocks, seeds, plough etc.

They were in a much better position to cultivate a larger

tract of land in their jagir ma~. Shivdan Singh Sisodia

had a gharuhala plot in his jagir mauza Umraovo. The size

of his holding was 259.?.5 bigha oUt of 1130.25 bigha of

cultivable land available in the village which was 29.95

per cent of the total cultivable land. 80 The tagirdar

cultivated 538 biqha of land in mauza Umarheri out of

1125.35 bighas which was approximately 47.85 ~r cent of

the total cultivable land in the mauza, 81 Jagirdar Appaji

Gangadhar occupied a gharuhala plot of 132.50 bigha out of

1507 bigha of land available in the village which

approximated 8.75- per cent of the total cultivable land in

the village. 82 Pandit Bhauji had a large tract of

cultivable land .as qharuhala plot. Out of 2901 bigha of

land he was allotted 1006,5 bigha which was 54,56 per cent

of the total cu1 tivable lard. 83

The gharuhala plot of jagird..!!£! were assessed at nonnal

revenue rates. There were no different schedules for

kars ha and j aqirdars holding gharuhala tenure. The

jaqi. rdars also paid various taxes other than land revenue

80. DSA-KR, ~esri Manzil, Basta No.310, Adsatto mauza Amaravo tappa Dighod, 1864 v.s.

.. 81. DSA-KR, Dusri Manzil, Basta No.338, Adsatto mauza

Umarheri tappa Aradkhedo, 1964 v.s.

82, Ibid. Adsatto mauza Khedli, 1864 v.s.

83, DSA-KR. Teesri Manzi!, Basta No.310, Adsatto mauza Padasli tappa Dighod, 1864 V .s.

331

at the rates prescribed _£_or the karshas~4 The j as-i-rda-rcs were

entrusted to bring more and more bido and JSrat land under

cul tivati<>n. If a part of their gharuhala plot remained

. parat they were required to pay Rs. 2 per bigha as land

revenue even on land that was not ploughed. 85 This was done

to ensure that the karshas and jaqirdars cultivated the

entire lam allotted to them. The aim was to extend the

area under cultivation.

Whenever the jaqirdar holding gharuhala tenure failed

to pay various taxes levied by the state on the jagir mauzas

or ccmmitted atrocities on the karshas, the standing crop on

their qharuhala plot or its produce could be confiscated by

the state. 86 The gharuhala jagirdar did not enjoy any

special privilege as far as the assessment of revenue was

concerned. But it is clear that they were men of means and

84$ DSA-KR. Dusri Manzil, Basta No.338. Adsatto mauza Khedli tapra. Ki, tappa Aradkhedo, 1864 v .s.

85. DSA-KR. Teesri Manzil,-Basta No.310, Adsatto mauza Umarovo, tappa Dighod, 1864 v.s.

86$ RSA-KR. Bbandar No.3, Basta No.S/2. Talik Bahi, 1868 V.S. Gordhandas who held mauza Mud-Dhaso in jaqia in rargana Baran in 186 8 wi theld the revenue frcrn Chau har B em tax payable to the state and also c~ tted atrocities on the £arshas who ran away from the village. Hawalgir Girdharidas ordered the confiscation of the standing crop of the jagirdar •s gharuhala plot and instructed the officials that until the 1 aqirdar paid the amount of Chaudhar bhom his gharuhala crop would not be given to hfm. The officials were ordered to reinstate karshas who had left the village on account of the tyranny of the Jagirdar.

332

could afford to cultivate a large tract of land as gharuhala

with the help of halls. For chakari to the state the

jagirdars were duly rewarded. Further, by cultivating land

in their 1agir mauza, it would be reasonable to assume that

they did not have to suffer £rem econanic hardship. The

gharuhala tenure must have definitely added to the · incane

and prosperity of the jagirdars.

It is evident from the foregoing account that a large

proJ;X>rtion of revenue was alienated in the form of revenue

free grants to different categories of persons and jagir

assignment to the military and civil servants of the state

in lieu of their salary claims. The revenue free grants

as religious endowments accounted for a very low percentage

of the total revenue accruing to the Maharao. A much larger

proportion of revenue as jagir ·was assigned to civil

and military servants to meet their salary claims. The extent

of territories assigned in jagir fluctuated from time to

time depending upon the requirements of the state. The

estimated.income £rem each jagir village was calculated

on the basis of local agrarian and ecological conditions.

The state tried its best that rekh (expected yield) and -~ (actual yield) figures should be as close as possible

and several remedial steps was taken to mitigate the problem

of. divergence between the ~ and ~· The state fully

realized that any shortfall in the revenue due to the

1agirdar would not only hamper the efficient working of

the jagirdari system but could also be detrimental to the

333

interests of the karsha and that of the state in the long

run. The state had also created a class of elite 1aqirdars

viz., hajur ke jaqirdar who exercised quantitative and

qualitative superiority in the earlier period of our study.

But the danger of Maratha invasion and the emergence of

Jhala zalim Singh caused the swelling of the ranks of

desh ke jaqirdar. Though there was no uniform rate prescribed

for the jabtaghora, the state in order to ensure better

performance of military service preferred good quality of

horses which were paid at higher rates. Besides rendering

military service to the state, the jagirdars were also

encouraged to take an interest in agricultural development.

They thus played a significant role in the promotion and

extension of agriculture in their respective J2gir areas

by organising large scale cultivation on their gharuhala

plots which was usually cultivated by halis.

The very nature of the 1 agir assignment and its

working, assured a greater degree of relative pennanence

of the jaqir tenure and also facilitated the growth of the

rural economy. The divergence between~ ard ~ at

times, prompted the jagirdars to overexploit the peasants.

334

Table 7.1

Bhandar No, 6, Basta No 1/1, 1776-99

20 ka gaon ki .\1799 v.s.

Teriz pargana

-~---------~-----------------------------------------------------------s. Name of the Total Asli Majara %of Asli % of Mazara No. Pargana No, of Villa-Villages to total Village to

Villages ges Villages Total Villages

-------------------------~----------------------------------------------1. Nandgaon 208 193 15 92.78 7.22

2. Abo 17 16 1 94.11 s. 26

3. Sagod 71 70 1 98.60 1.40

4. Barood 103 102 1 99.03 o. 9?.

5. Baran 118 102 16 86.44 13.56

6. Mangrol. 86 78 8 90.60 9.30

7. Kunjod 49 43 2 s...,.1s 12. 24

B. Madhkargarh 29 27 2 93.11 6.89

9. Ghati 52 50 2 96.15 3.84

1 o. Ghatoli 23 21 2 91.30 8.69

11. Chacheti 14 10 _. 71.42

1 2. Itawa 13 13 100.00

1 3. Jatpura 61 61 r 100.00

1 4. Bhalkhedi 11 11 100.00

1 s. Gaghron 43 31 12 72.10 27.90

16. Siswali 12 11 1 91.66 8.33

1 7. Palayatha 90 88 2 97.77 2.22

18. Chachurni 36 29 7 80.55 19.44

19. Suket 88 81 92.05 7.95 20. Urmal

----------------~---------------------------------------------------------1124 1041 83 92.61 7.38

335

Table - 7.2

Percentage of Khalsa Villages to the total villages

in different parganas, 1799 v.s.

------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Pargana Total No. Total No.'t % of Khalsa

of Villages Khalsa Villages to

---------------------------------~~!!~2~~---!2~~! _________________ _ 1. Nandgaon

2. Abo

3. Sagod

4. Barod

5. Baran

6. Mangrole

7. Kujod

8. Madhkargarh

9. ·ohati

1 o. Ghacheti

11. Chacheti

1 2. Itawa

1 3. Jatpur

1 4. Balkhedi

1 s. Gagrone

16. S:ilswal i

1 7-;- Palyatha

18. Chachurni

19. Suket

2 o. Urmal

208

17

71

103

118

86

49

29

52

23

14

13

61

11

43

12

90

36

88

58

4

8

39

22~

6

5

2

5

1

2

12

8

29

so

27.88

23.52

11.26

37.86

18.64

6.97

10. 20

6.97

9.61

4.34

14.2

·-27.90

8.88

80.55

56.81

-----------------------~--------------------------------------------1124. 251~ 22.37

336

Table - 7.3

_Number of Jagirdars belonging to different

Clans/Castes , Ghati ka hawala

-------------------------------------------------------------~ . .

Caste/Clan

Hara

Bhai

Jhala

Kachawa

Gujar Meena

Solanki

Ghanim

Vayad

Sisodia

Talkedar

Chouhan

Gaur

Dahiya

Bhil

1771 v.s.

20

3

5

5

1

1

1

2

1

3

Year

1803 v.s.

12

6

2

6

14

5

1823 v.s.

15

5

2

1

12

1

1

--------------------------------------------------------------

337

Table - 7.4

Number of Jafirdara belonging to diffe~~· · clans

~angrole ka hawala

---------------------------------------------------------------Caste/Clo.n ---------~~~~---------------------------------

1771 v.s. 1803 v.s. 1823 v.s.

--------------------------~------------------------------------

Bhai

Hara

Kachawa

Tan war

Rather

Gaur

Kh,abania

Musalrnan

Talkedar

Jhala

Sisodiya

Dahiya

Dhaibhai

Solanki

37

5

5

1

1

3

3

2

44 38

3 4

4

1 1

3 4

4 5

1 3

2

1 1

1 2

3 4

1

1

-------------~---------------------------------------------------

338

Table - 7.5

Number of Jaqirdars belonging to differeent

Clans/Caster Pargana Madhk~garh ka hawala kd

~~~~-----------------~-----------------------------------------Caste/Clan

Hara

Jhala

Solanki

Tanwar

Dahiya

Saktawat

Basla ke gao:-J

Had a ke

Kachawaha

Gujar

Rati1ore J ..

Pu~bia

Khqbniya

Ramkisan ki Irk a

Year

---------------------------------------------------1771 v.s. 1803 v.s. 1823 v.s.

-------~---~---------------------------------------

14

1

2

1

7

14

3

2

2

3

3

1

10

1

1

1

3

1

3

--------------------~--------------------------------------------

339

Table 7.6

Hazurke Jagidar in Pargana

Nandgaon Barsana, 1777 v.s.

---~-------------------------------------------------------------------· As ami Deel Gaon

0 Jabtagh~ra Rekh

(R.S) Naqdi

---------------------------------------------------------------------Hara 138 232 688 3,28,031 9,300

Kachawa 46 56 338 94,900 100

Rathore 6 6 44 23,300

Sisodiya 5 6 21 12,301

Solanki 23 24 86 28,350

Gaur 6 6 19 6,600

Dahiya 9 10 27 9,100

Tanwar 7 .7 12 10,366

Panwar 2 1 2 1,700 1,1000

Badgujar 1 1 2

Musalman 3 4 20 6,800

--------------------------------------------------Total 246 353 1159 5,11,448 10,700

-----------------------------------------------------------------

340

Table - 7. 7

RSA-KR. Taksim Pargana Sangod

Teriz Jagirdaran, Bhandar No ,6, Basta N0.23

1S32 v.s.

---------~--------------------------------------------------As ami Gaon Asli Mauza Chak Upat

------------------------------------------------------------Udik 12 12 6,838 4,550

Khalsa 8 7 1 ":2797 21,790.6

Muqata 6 6 8,168.0 4,903.35

Rajlok 2. so 2.50 1,6 50

Bhati 1 1 4,600

Had a 3 3 4,600

Rajawat 2 3.900

------------------------------------------------------------

341

Table - 7.8

-· Number of Villages assigned to difrerent Clans/Caster Tappa Richawa. 1771 v.s.

------------------------------------------------------As ami Gaon Asli Mauza Chak

------------------------------------------------------Khalsa 29 26 3

Hara 1 1 0 1,000

Solanki 1 1 0 800

Rathod 27 18 9 36,000

Bhakrot 2 2 0 1,500

Soningra 14 12 2 14,200

Chundawat 2 2 6,000

Gaur 1 1 1,400

Gujar 4 3 1 6,900

Bhil 54 53 1 41,700

Sahar 1 1 0 300

Jhala 2 2 1,800

Ujar 16 16

--~--------~-------------------------------------------

•

342

Table - 7.9·

Number of Jabtaghora Maintained by different Clans in Pargana Kota~ 1745 v.s.

----------------------------------------------As ami Gaon Jabtaghora

----------------------------------------------Hara 7 27

Chauhan 1 16

Kachawaha 12 178

Rathore 1 8

Solanki 1 35

Dahiya 3 10

Gaur 2 8

Sikarwal 1 3

Tanwar 2 7

Brahmin 4 5

Dasundhi 1 1

Kaith 4 6

Dhabhai 2 5

Khawas/Paswan 6 10

Musalman 2 2

Karigar 3 4

----------------------------------------------

34-3

Table - 7.10

Number of Village with 'Chak' arrl 'Upati' assigned to different Clans in pargana Ghati, 1798 v.s. -----------------------------------------------------------------------As ami Gaon Asli Mauza Chak Upat

-------------------------------------------~---------------------~~~~--Hara 10 10 10,466 11,041.35

Sisodiya 3 3 6,806 7, 5 21. 3 5

Kachawa 2 2 2, 235.5 12,144.7

Gaur 1 1 1,424 1, 406

Tanwar 3 3 2, 9 56. 5 3, 506.7

Dahiya 1 1 449.35 58.6

Kanwar 1 1 1,422.60 1,288.65

Solanki 2 2 1,376. 7 1,730 .. 85

Khawas 2 2 4,995.55 4,649.6 5

Gujar 7 7 3,410.83 3, 771.7

Bhil 3.50 3 0.50 3, 897.8 953.3

------------------------------------------------------------------------

344

Table - 78 11 Numbe-r of Villag.es assigned to different Clans along with Cha k and Upa ti ___ _

-------------------------------------------------------------As ami Total Gaon

Asli Mauza Chak Upati

-------------------------------------------------------------Udik

Hawala ki Khalsa

Muqata

Bhati

Hara

Rajawat

Jhala

Solanki

Sisodaya

Purbya

Rathor

Ghanim

Balnot

Khabanya

Musalman

Bhat/Charan

Bel dar

Kidake Tal ke

Nava Talke

12

8

6

1

3 2

4

3

2

1

2

2

1

6.50

1

2

1

3

9

12

7

6

1

3

2

4

3

2

1

1

2

1

6. 50

1

1

1

1

9

1

1

1

2

6,838

2, 797

8,168

1,750

5,450

21, 790.6

4,903.35

- 4,600

3,900

2, 200

3,400

4,885

9,000

3,100

4,325

3,000

700

5,700

3,000

1,240

1,600

7,000

17,050

Table 7-12

The Service obligation and the area of Jagirs assigned to different Clans/gaster

In pargana Gaghrone, 1823 v.s.

As ami Gaon Rekh Jabtaghora Barkandaz Pala Chak Nalayakz Bido Hakat Chakari

-----~-~---------~---------------~-------------------------~-----------------------~-~-Hara 6 1,100 4 2 8,550 5,650 134 2,708 De ski

Jhala 1 400 4 1,000 600 10 390 De ski

Bhil 5 950 32 4,800 2,750 730 1,320 De ski

Meena 1 300 '- 12 4,000 2,700 138 1,16 2 De ski

Gujar 1 500 6 1,000 500 500 De ski

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------w ~ U1

Table - 7.13

T~~ Service obligation and amount of Rekh assigned to Jagirdars belonging ~o different Clans/caste~ in Pargana Ghati, 1823 v.s~

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---As ami No.of Gaon Chakri

Jgirdars

Bhai 1 1 De ski

Hara 9 10 De ski

Rawat 1 4 De ski

Rajawat 2 2 De ski

Solanki 4 3 Desk a P.ajur

Nathawat 3 3 De ski

Jhala 1 1 De ski

Sakhda 1 1 Desko

Tanwar 1 1 Desko

Gujar 5 5 Desk a

Bhil 5 5 Deske

Bhand 1 1 oe·ska

3 ka

Rekh De~l Jabta- Tabi­ghora ndar

700 - 2

4,500 - 22

5,100 - 18

1,100 -12,900 -

3, 500 1 1 2

2

200 -800 -400 3

1,100 -200 -

Jabta- Pala Barka- Aswai ghora ndaz

2 14 12

4

21

5

1

1

10 15

15 30

------------------------------------------------------------~-------------------------

w ~

Table 7.14 Service obligations and the amount of 'Rekh' assigned to Jagirdars belonging

to different Clans in Pargana Manghrole 1823 v.s.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------As ami No. of gaon

No.of Chakari Jagirdars

Pa tta ki Deel rekh

Ghorz1 Deel and ghora ki rekh

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bhai

Hara

Rathore

Rajawat

Sisodya

Gaur

Talkedar Rajputa Ka Thakura ke

Khawanya

Tanwar

Musal:-nan

32

3.50

1

6

6

6

1

2

2

19 Des 12 Hajur 7

3 Hajur ki

2 Des ki

2 Des Ki

3 Des Ki

1 Des Ki

1 Sarkar Ki

2 Des Ki

2 Deski

64,56 5 7 6 7,400

4,137 1 1 600

1,000 1 2 3,900

15,400 2 3 4,_4QD

1,44,700 3 5 4,000

25,000 1 2 3,000

8,100

1,000 1 1 600

3,060

5, 200

--------------------------------------------------------------------~-----------

w .p. ...,J

348

Ccmtd. Table 7.14 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------As ami Rekh Deel Ghora Deel and Tabind- Tabindara

ghora k2 ghora ki !"ekh

Jabta- Pala ghora ki

rekh rekh

Deola No.of Chakari ki re- Villa-kh ges

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pale! Singh 4,000 1 2 1,000 15 3,000 14 1 D~s Rathore

Udai Singh 1,500 1 1 500 5 1,000 6 1 II

Kishan Singh 13,900 1 2 3,900 25 7,500 25 5 II

Gulab Singh 25,000 1 2 3,000 11 22,000 42 6 " Gaur

Hari Singh 121,400 1 2 4,000 58 17,400 6 II

Sohan Singh 20,800 1 1 88 II

Chanan Singh 2, 500 1 II

Ram Kisan Tan- 700 2 n

wa

Gopal Singh 2, 360 360 200 II

Kanhi Ram 1,000 1. 1 2 400 600 Sarkar Ki

Nasib Khan 4,000 17 Des

Mirdast Ali 1,200 7 II

Talkedar 8,100 II

6 150 Raj put

Thakur

--------------~---------------------------------------------------------------~---------~--------~-

349 Contd. Table 7.14

-----------~-------------~-------------------------------------------------------------------As ami Tabindara Ka ghora

ki rekh

Tabindar Tab- Jabtaghora ki rekh indar

ki rekh

Barak­and az

As war Pal a Pala 'Ci rekh

---~--------------------------------------------------------------·---------------------------Bhai

Hara

Rathore

Rajawat

Sisodya

Gaur

Tan war

Talkedar Rajputa Ka Thakura Ka

Khawanya

Musalman

76

4

15

30

sa 11

2

14,324 42 28

800 7

3,090 14

8,500 25

17,488

22,000 42

2

6 150

360

21

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

350

Table - 7.15

Desh Ke Jagirdar of different Clans in Pargana Mau, 1772 v.s.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------·--~-As ami No.of Gaon Gaon Kota Gaon Hau Deel Jabtaghara Jabtaghara Jabtfhara Jagirdar Ka Ka Kota Ka Mau Ka

---------------------------------------------------------------~--------------~-~~--Hara 7

Hada Sabet 44 ka

Gaur 15

Kachawaha 5

8

37 35

5

8 9 19 19

2 17 76 50 26

5 8 28 28

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hara Sabet 9 Ka

Hara Sabet Ka

Gaur

Kachawaha

Barkandaz Total Upat

Upat Kota Ki Upat Mau Ki Naqudi

------------------------------------------------------------------------3,072.50 3,072.50

31,757 30,803 40.0

23, 329 21 1 171 350 800

5,646 5,646

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

351

Table - 7.16 • Number of Jagirdars belonging to different Categories in Pargana ~arhala , 1832 v.s. -------------------~------------------------------------~------------~--~---------~----~ As ami Gaon Asli Mazer a Chak Nalayak Dohli Sansri Hakat

-----------------------------------------------·-----------------------------------------Hajur ke Jagi- 5 5 rdar

B~r.h ke Jagi- 36 31 5

Khalsa Ke Gaon 1 1

Udik 8 8

Gujar Bhila 4 4 ke Gaon

Nava Talka ke 7 5 2

14,000 3,032.00

73,300 20,540.35

2,000 1,385.00

9,900 1,034

500

178,000 5,041.2

514

3105

5

178

4

15

10

10,454.00

49,639.65

610.00

8,678.00

500

172,954.8

-----------------------------------------------------------------------·------Upat 1829 Upat 1830 Upat 1831 Upat 1832

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Hajur.Ke Jagir- 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 dar

Desh ke Jagir- 35,806 35,882 JS,551 35,551 dar

Khalsa Ke Gaon - 500 500 500 500

Udik 4,200 4,200 4,20C 4,200

Gujar Bhila Ke 536 536 536 536 Gaon

Talka Ke Gaon 7,700 7,500 7,500 7,500 . . . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

352

Table- 7.17

Desh Ke Jagirdars and their Service obligations, and emoluments in Pargana Gaghron~, 1823 v.s.

-----------------------------··----------------------------------------------------As ami No. of Rekh Upat Jabta- Barkardaz Aswar Chak Nalayak Bido

Mauzaz (R.S) ghora Pal a bigha

----------------------------------~-----------------------------------------·------}lq_.to Am an Singh 1 300 1 2,000 700 114

Gum an Singh Hara 1 200 1 3,000 2,"700

Rawat Roop Singh 1 400 1 550 150 20

Sukh Ram Hara 1 100 1 100 700

Madho Singh Hara 2 100 2 2,000 1,400

Fateh Singh Jhala 1 400 4 1,000 600 10

Bhil Gum ani 2 200 15 1,000 250 150

Bhil Nango 1 150 5 1,000 800 80

Meeno Vakto ~ 100 4 1,000 700

Meeno Shivji I~ 100 4 1,000 300

Meeno Kano 1 100 4 2,000 1~700 16 2

Bhil Khemo 1 100 2 800 500

Bhil Chittra 1 500 1" 2,000 1,200 500 Va Man Singh

Gujar BhOpO 1 500 6 1,000 500 500

----------------------------------------------------------------------------·--------

353

Table 7.17 Contd.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--As ami Hakat Value of rekh per bigha

Rate of Jabta- Rate of bark~ Rateof ghora andaz Pala aswar

----------------------------------------------------------------------~---------------Halo Aman Sin- 186 1.6 2 300 gh

Guman Singh 300 0.67 200 Hado

Rawat Roop Sin-380 1.06 400 gh

Sukh Ram Singh 300 0.33 100

Madho Singh 58 0.58 50 Hado

Fateh Singh 290 1.37 50 Jhala

Bhil Gum ani 590 0.33 13.33

Bhil Nimgo 120 1. 25 30.o00

Bhil Khemo 300 0.33 so.oo Meeno Kano 138 0.72 25.00

Meeno Vakto 300 0.33 25.0

Meeno Shivji 25.0

Bhil Chittra 300 1.66 so.oo Va Man Singh

Gujar Bhopo 500 1.00 83.33

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

354

Table 7.18 The Jagirdars Belonging to Differen~ Categories Along with the Area of Jagir and Service Obligations in Pargana Ghati, 1823 v.s.

--------~--------~~----------------~---------------------------------------------------------------As ami No. of Mauzas

Chakari Rekh Jafta A.swar Bark P.atta ghora andaz

Ki

Pala Maufi Chak Nalayak Dohli Hakat

-~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---------Bhai Roop, Singh 1 De ski 700 2 743 1.ndera Singh Hara 1 2,000 1 .- 2,439 235 9 Surtan Singh Hara 1 300 2 2 309.50 Kirat Singh Hara 2 900 12 2,450 Mohkram Singh Rawat 4 5,100 18 Sawan Singh Hara 1 200 5 Parsoji Hado 1 500 2

.surat Singh Hara 1 800 15 Soman Singh Hara 1 500 10 -Mohbat Singh Hara 1 600 2 Jhalam Singh Hara 1 500 12 Fakirdas Rajawat 1 1,000 4 2 Jasot Singh Rajawat 1 II 100 2 Sohan Singh Solanki 1 II 2,000 9 Kusal Singh Solanki 1 II 700 3 Vijay Singh ~olanki 2 Hajur Ki 1,300 4 Nawal Singh Solanki 1 Des Ki 700 5 Salom Sinah Ma~~awat 1 Dharii Ko 1,100 1 Deel Tabin- Jafta- -

1 dar 2 ghora 3 0 ··-~ •< - _ ........... ~~ --A··~--~- .. - "-•

S~ap.ilt> Stngh Sagtawat 1 200 8 6 Baqaya 2 - -. Lal Singh Sahtawat 1 500 2 Devi Singh Jhala 700 2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

355

Table 7.18 Contd.

-------~------~----------------------------------------------------------------------~-------As ami Bido Hakat

Bhai Roop Singh 12 731

Indera Singh Hara 53 2,142

Surtan Singh Hara 50.8 258.70

Kirat Singh Hara 6.0 6,245

No. of Rekh ghora Rakh Patta Ki Chakari Deel Pal a Barkandaz

Gujar Duro 1 100 100 De ski 2

Gujar Harji 1 100 100 II 5

Gujar Nango 1 100 100 " 1 5

Guj_ar Amro 1 100 100 II 5

Bhil Kaiso 1 100 100 II 5

Gujar Gangaram 1 200 II 10

Bhil Amaro 1 300 300 Desko 15 -Bhil Chitra 1 200 200 Desko 5

Nathu Bhil 1 400 400 Desko 15

Bhil Harji 1 100 Desko 5

Bhand Sopu 1 200 200 Desko

--------------------------------------------------·----------------------------------~----

356

Table - 7.19. Hazur ke Jaqirdar in Pargana Madhkargarh ke hawala, 1823 v.s.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---As ami No. of Mauzas

Rekh Jafta- Deel Total gora

Deel Ka Tabind­ghora aran ki

ki rekh rekh

Tabind- Tabind- Jabta Tabindar aran ka fran gora

ghora ghora Ki rekh ·

--------------------------------------------------------------------------~-~-----------------~ Kishan Singh 7 Rajwat

Paulat Singh Jha- 1 lc.

Shiv Singh 1

Fateh Singh 1

Hari Singh 6

Fateh Singh 10

Fateh Singh 1

Fateh Singh 1 Rajawat

Bhai Chittra Si- 1 ngh

Savan Singh

Rarndas Rajawat

Dhan Singh

Hari Singh

Bhan Singh

Lal Singh .San­gawat

Bhai Nangaji Arjun Singh

1

3

1

1

1

1

1 1

1, 500 2 1

500 2

1,500 7

Desh ke Jagirdar

2,500 2

21,400 6 0

18,650 2

700 2

1,000 1

3,000 1

1,000 5

1 •. 000 2 soc 500

600 1

200

500 900

1

1

2

1

3,000 1,200

700

4,000

400

600

1,000

400 1

9

43

12

16

1

1,800

8,600

600

2,400

200

4

13

5

18

2

1

1 1

357

Table 7.19 contd.

-----------------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------As ami No. of

Mauza

Rekh

Total

Jafta­

gora

Deel Dee! ka

ghora ki

Tahind- Tahind- ~abind- Jabta Tabindar

aran aran ka aran gora

rekh ki rekh ka ghora ghora Ki rekh

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---De vi Singh 1 1, 400 1 1 400 5

Suhu Ram 1 500 2 2 200 7,500 37

Mauza Kakdi 2 2,005 1 1 380 1,100 and Teedi

Mahakam 1 400 1

Hara

Hari Singh 1 1 Solanki

Mehtab Singh 2 7,900 1 2 2,000 29 5,800 31

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

358 Table 7 • 20 Jagirdars Belonging to Different Class and their Service Obligations and

1 Rekh 1 in Pargana Manghrole, 1823 v.s.

~-----~-~---------~---------~------------------------------------------------------------------

As ami Patta Ki Rekh

Deel Ghorn Deel/ Tabin­G horn dar a Ka Ki Rekh Ghorn

Tabin­dara Ka GhOrn , Ki Rekh

Tabin- Jafta- Bark- No.of dara Ki Ghora andaz Vill-

Rekh ages Assi-

----~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------2E!~---------Chain Singh Bhai Devi Singh Sawan Singh Hara Devi Singh Bhai Swarup Singh Sarnbu Singh Bhai PrithviSingh Bhai Kushal Singh Jawan Singh Nathu Ram Bhai Chattan Singh Bhai Hindu Singh

Hara Bhai Kalyan Singh

Hara Nar Singh Sambhu Singh Nathu Ram Bhai Nathu Ram Bhai Bhanwar Singh Bhai Ummed Singh Chittra Singh Hara Parbat sing h Hara Sulab Singh Hara

21,000 8,000 5,498

400 500

11,000 5,200 1,900 2,800 1,600 1,100

2,300

4,200 14,000

4,500 3,000

18,000

1 1

2

1

1

1

600 3,900 1,837.50 1 1,600

700

2 2

1

1

1

5,000 1,200

100

500

600

600

7 34

14

9

12

4

1,400 6,900

4,200

1,800

2,400

800

2

14 1 1

1

13 7 4

14

72

13

5 2

-

28

2 4 1

1 2 3 1 2 1 1

1

1

1 1 7 1 t

1.50 1 1

I Des

" Hajur

II

Des II

Hajur Des

II .. "

" "

Hajur "

Desko Hajur Des Hajur

II

"

Ki

Ki

666 -~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------