v.s. - inflibnetshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/15116/14/14...299 gughri was collected...
TRANSCRIPT
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 -~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------