History Project Work

Mughal
Land Revenue
System
Compiled by
Ankit Chowdhri
10/09
 Table of Contents

Topic Covered Page No.

Introduction 1
Methods of Land Revenue Assessment 2
Magnitude of Land Revenue Demand 5
Mode of Payment 7
Collection of Land Revenue 7
Land Revenue Administration 8
Taxes Other Than Land Revenue 10
Bibliography 12
Webography 12
 Introduction

The central feature of the agrarian system under the Mughals was the alienation from the
peasant of his surplus produce (i.e. produce over that required for his subsistence) in the
form of revenue was the main source of the state’s income. Abul Fazl in his Ain-i Akbari
justifies the imposition of taxes by the state saying that these are ate remuneration of
sovereignty, paid in return of protection and justice. Abul Fazl, who may be regarded as
the most authoritative exponent of imperial outlook on such matters, says frankly that no
moral limits could be set to the fiscal obligation owed by the subject to the ruler: the
subject ought to be thankful even of he were made to part with all his possessions by the
protector of his life and honor.1 The Persian word for land revenue during the Mughal
rule was mal and mal wajib. Kharaj was not in regular use.

The process of land revenue collection was in two stages:

(a) Assessment i.e. tashkhis/jama
(b) Actual collection i.e. hasil

Assessment was made to fix the state demand. On the basis of demand, actual collection
was done separately for kharif and rabi crop. We have no means of knowing what the
average rate of surplus produce (in terms of the total produce) was in Mughal India.
Owing to the differences in the productivity of the soil and also the climate and social
conditions that determined the minimum levels of subsistence, it must have varied from
tract to tract.2

1
Ain-i Akbari, p. 291.
2
The Agrarian System of the Mughals By Habib, Irfan.
 Methods of Land Revenue Assessment

Under the Mughals assessment was separately made for kharif and rabi crops. After the
assessment was over a written document called patta, qaul or qaul-qarar was issued in
which the amount or rate of the revenue demand was mentioned. The assesse was in
return supposed to give qabuliyat i.e. the ‘acceptance’ of the obligation imposed upon
him, stating when and how he would make the payments.3

A few of the methods commonly used were as under:

Ghalla Bakhshi (Crop-Sharing): In some areas it was called bhaoli and batai. The Ain-i
Akbari notes three types of crop sharing:

a) Division of crop at the threshing floor after the grain was obtained. This
was done in presence of both the parties in accordance with agreement.
b) Khet Batai: The share was decided when the crop was still standing in
the fields, and a division of the field was marked.
c) Lang Batai: The crop was cut and stacked in heaps without separating
grain and a division of crop in this form was made.

In Malikzada’s Nigarnama-i Munshi crop sharing has been mentioned as the best
method of revenue assessment and collection. Under this method, the peasants
and the state shared the risks of the season equally. But as Abul Fazl says it was
an expensive from the viewpoint of the state since the latter had to employ a large
number of watchmen, else there were chances of misappropriation before
harvesting. When Aurangzeb introduced it in the Deccan, the cost of revenue
collection doubled simply from the necessity of organizing a watch on the crop.

3
Zaidi, Inayat Sunita. Mughal Land Revenue System.
Kankut/Danabandi: The word kankut is derived from the words kan and kut. Kan denotes
grain and kut means to estimate or appraisal. Similarly, dana means grain while bandi is
fixing or determining anything. It was a system where the grain yield was estimated. In
kankut the field was first measured either by means of rope or by pacing 4. After this, the
per bigha productivity from good, middling and bad lands was estimated and the revenue
demanded was fixed accordingly5.

Hast-o-bud: Under this method the assessor inspected the village and viewing good and
bad lands together made an estimate of the total produce, on the basis of which he fixed
the revenue.6 The main problem associated with this method was that it deeply depended
on the integrity of the assessor and his personal capacity any discrepancy resulted in
uneven distribution of land revenue.

Zabt: The evolution of the system can be read in the Ain-i Akbari. Sher Shah and Islam
Shah are said to have brought the lands under zabt.7 It is read that Sher Shah established a
crop rate i.e. rai, for the lands which were under continuous cultivation called polaj and
fallow lands called parauti. The rai was based on three rates, representing the good,
middling and low yields. These were averaged to obtain a general rate for the produce
and a third was recognized as the “remuneration of Sovereignty” i.e. land revenue.8 These
rates did not directly express the revenue demand but had to be commuted into cash for
the benefit of the army i.e. jagirdars.9 The practice from the early years of Akbar’s reign
for the details of the practice to be reported each year from every region of the Empire;
there were then examined and approved by the court and the rai’s were converted at the
sanctioned prices into cash rates, known as dastur-al amals or dasturs.10 Akbar tried to
make these rated realistic by varying them according to the local crop rate or computing
4
Ain-i-Akbari, p. 285.
5
Ain-i-Akbari, p. 285-6.
6
Farhang-i Kardani .
7
Ain-i-Akbari, p. 296.
8
The Agrarian System of the Mughals By Habib, Irfan.
9
Ain-i-Akbari, p. 297.
10
Ain-i-Akbari, p. 303, 347.
crop rate at local prices. In 1574-75 Akbar took measures which attempted to work out
these rates. Information on yields of crop, prices and areas of cultivation was collected
for each locality for 10 years. On the basis of this information the revenue rates were
fixed into cash for each crop. The provinces of Lahore, Multan, Ajmer, Delhi, Agra,
Malva, Oudh and Allahabad were divided into revenue circles each with a separate
schedule of cash revenue for each crop. Rate applied year after year with revisions as
made by the administration from time to time. Then these were introduced into the zabt
system. As the system involved measurement of land it caused problems to both the
administration and the peasants. Consequently, the annual system was done away with
and statistics of previous measurements were taken into consideration. This acceptance of
previous year’s measurement for current assessment was known as Nasaq. The system of
zabt was favorable since the measurements could always be checked and rechecked. Also
the uncertainties and fluctuations in produce and payment of demand decreased. This
system could not be applied to those areas where the soil was not of a homogeneous
quality. Method also required an additional cess of 1 dam per bigha in order to meet the
cost of measuring. This cess was called the Zabitana. Another demerit was that the
peasants could bribe the measuring party which would result in misappropriation of
revenue. Under Akbar the system was prevalent in the region between the river Indus and
the river Ghaggar. Even in areas where the zabt system was used other measures like the
kankut and the crop sharing method were still in use for some particular crop or villages.
For example in Ajmer crop sharing was used, in Kashmir, Southern Sind and Gujarat
crop sharing was in use till the late 17th century.

In the Bengal region system of revenue assessment was the Muqtai or fixed demand.
Revenue in cash per unit land or sometime as a lump sum for the entire village. The
essential feature to keep in mind in this system was that the same revenue was levied year
after year. In this system under the Mughals the idea was that each peasant was to be
assessed separately. This required the accountant, i.e. Bitickchi, to record the name of
each peasant, crop grown, estimated yield and then he calculated the revenue. This was
ideal condition but it was not possible to assess each peasant year after year. This was not
a problem in the crop sharing system and also the other system as the entire village was
assessed as a whole. Hence, the general practice was to have a collective assessment of
the village. This came to be known as the Sarbasta, which meant that the village, not the
peasant, was the primary unit of assessment.

Magnitude of Land Revenue Demand

According to Abul Fazl no moral limits can be set for the demand of the ruler from his
subjects; “the subject ought to be thankful even if he were made to part with all his
possessions by the protector of his life and honor.”11 He adds further that “just sovereign”
do not exact more than what is required for their purposes which, of course, they would
themselves determine.

Aurangzeb explicitly said that the land revenue should be appropriated according to
akariat, i.e., not more than one half of the total produce.

European traveler Pelsaert, who visited India in the early 17th century, declared that “so
much is wrung from the peasants that even dry bread is scarcely left to fill theor
stomachs.”12 Irfan Habib comments: “Revenue demand accompanied by other taxes and
regular and irregular exactions of officials was a heavy burden on peasantry.”

Sher Shah formed three crop rates on the basis of the productivity of the soil and demand
was fixed at 1/3rd of the average of these three rates for each crop. Abul Fazl comments
that under Akber, Sher Shah’s 1/3 of revenue demand formed the lowest rate of
assessment. But studies show that the revenue demand under the Mughals ranged
between 1/3 to ½ of the produce, and sometimes even ¾ in some areas. We find that the
revenue demand varied from suba to suba. In Kashmir, the demand in theory was 1/3 rd
while in practice it was 2/3rd of the total produce. Akbar ordered that only one-half should
be demanded.

11
Ain-i Akbari, p. 291.
12
Palsaert 54.
In the province of Thatta (Sind), the land revenue was taken at the rate of 1/3 rd. Yusuf
Malik, the author of Mazhar-i-Shahjahani explains that the Tarkhans who held Thatta in
jagir when the Ain-i-Akbari was written, did not take more than half of the produce from
the peasantry and also in some cases they took 1/3rd or 1/4th part of the total produce.

For Ajmer suba, we find different rates of revenue demand. In fertile regions of eastern
Rajasthan ranged from one-third to one-half of the produce. Irfan Habib on the basis of
the Ain-i-Akbari says that in the desert regions, proportion amounted to one-seventh or
even one-eighth of the crop. But Sunita Budhwar Zaidi points out that there is no
evidence in other sources of such low rates from any locality of Rajasthan. Even in
Jaisalmer, one-fifth of the produce was collected from the rabi and one-fourth from the
kharif crop.

In Central India, rates varied from one-half, one-third to two-fifth. In Deccan, one-half
was appropriated from the ordinary lands while one-third was taken from those irrigated
by wells and one-fourth was taken from high grade crops.

Aurangzeb’s farman to Rasik Das Karori stipulates that when the authorities took
recourse to crop-sharing, usually in the case of distressed peasantry, the proportions
levied should be one-half, or one-third or two-fifths. Rates under Aurangzeb were higher
than that of Akbar. Perhaps it was due to the fact that there was a general rise in
agricultural pries and, thus, there was no real change in the pitch of demand.

In the case of Rajasthan it is reported that revenue rates varied according to the class or
caste of the revenue payers. Satish Chandra and Dilbagh Singh have shown that
Brahmins and Banias paid revenue on concessional rates in a certain pargana of Eastern
Rajasthan.

It may be safely assumed that in general the rate of revenue demand was from 1/2 to 1/3
of the produce. Since, the revenue was imposed per unit of area 'uniformly’ irrespective
of the nature of the holding, it was regressive in nature - those who possessed large
holdings felt the burden less than those who possessed small holdings.

Mode of Payment

In the Mughal period the methods of assessment involved the direct statement of the
revenue demanded in terms of cash. When a method such as the kankut or crop sharing
were used commutation into cash was permitted at market prices “in case it was not
burdensome for the peasantry”13 Collection of revenue in kind was regarded as an
exceptional practice.

In Kashmir the revenue was calculated in terms of ‘ass-loads’ of rice and was never paid
in cash. In Gujarat under the system of Nasaq the demand would be set in cash but
wherever crop sharing was in use the demand would be in kind. In Garh, in Central India,
the peasant, according to the Ain-i-Akbari, paid the revenue in gold muhra and copper
pieces.14 In Bengal the revenue was usually paid in kind and crop sharing was rarely
practices.

Apart from this in isolated territories of Kashmir and Orissa, or the desolate portions of
Rajputana, the cash nexus was firmly established in almost every part of the empire. Its
prevalence meant simply that the peasant was normally compelled to sell a very large
portion of his produce in order to meet his revenue demand.15

Collection of Land Revenue

Under ghulla bakhshi, the state's share was seized directly from the field. In other
systems, the state collected its share at the time of harvest.

13
Ain-i-Akbari, p. 286.
14
Ain-i-Akberi, p. 456.
15
The Agrarian System of the Mughals By Habib, Irfan., p.239.
The revenue collector i.e. amalguzar, according to Abul Fazl, “should begin the
collection for the rabi from holi and then for the kharif crop from Dussehra.” In the
kharif season, the harvesting of different crops was done at different times and the
revenue was accordingly to be collected in three stages depending on the type of crops.
Thus, under kharif the revenue could only be collected in installments. The rabi harvest
was all gathered within a very short period. The authorities tried to collect revenue before
the harvest was cut and removed from the fields.

The revenue was paid into the treasurer usually through the amil or revenue collector,
though Akbar’s administration sought to encourage the peasants to pay direct. The
peasants, or rather their representatives or village officials, were entitled, whether they
paid directly of indirectly, to obtain proper receipts for their payments; the treasurer, on
the other hand, was also asked to get the village accountant i.e. patwari’s endorsement in
his register to establish the amount of payment. These steps were taken to protect against
fraud and embezzlement.

Land Revenue Administration

The various important revenue officials at the rural level are as follows16:

1) Karori: In 1574-75, the office of karori was created. Describing his duties,
Abul Fazl says that he was incharge of both assessment and collection of the
revenue. An important change took place during Shah Jahan's reign. Now
amins were appointed in every mahal and they were given the work of
assessment. After this change, karori (or amil) remained concerned chiefly
with collection of revenue which amin had assessed. The karori was
appointed by the diwan of the province. He was expected to look after the
interests of the peasantry. The accounts of the actual collection of the karori
and their agents were audited with the help of the village patwari’s papers.

16
According to: Mughal Land Revenue System; Mrs. Sunita Inayat Zaidi.
2) Amin: The next important revenue official was amin. As we have already
mentioned, that the office of amin was created during Shah Jahan's reign. His
main function was to assess the revenue. He, too, was appointed by the diwan.
He was responsible jointly with the karoi and faujdar for the safe transit of the
collected revenue. The faujdar of the province kept a vigilant eye on the
activities of amin and karori. He also used to recommend their promotion.
3) Qanungo: He was the local revenue official of the pargana, and generally
belonged to one of the accountant castes. It was a hereditary post, but an
imperial order was essential for the nomination of each new person.
Nigarnama-i Munsbi holds qanungos responsible for malpractices because
"they have no fear of being transferred or deposed." But a qanungo could be
removed by an imperial order if he indulged in malpractices, or on account of
negligence of duty. He was supposed to maintain records cornering revenue
receipts, area statistics, local revenue rates and practices and customs of the
pargana. It was generally believed that if a quanungo was asked to produce
the revenue records for the previous hundred years, he should be able to do so.
The Jagirdar's agents were generally unfamiliar with the locality; they usually
depended heavily on the information supplied to them by the qanungos. The
qanungo was paid 1% of the total revenue as remuneration, but Akbar started
paying them salary.
4) Chaudhari: He was also an important revenue official like the qanungo. In
most cases he was the leading zamindar of the locality. He was mainly
concerned with the collection. He also stood surety for the lesser zamindars.
The Chaudhari distributed and stood surety for the repayment of the taqavi
loans. He was a countercheck on qanungo. From Dastur-ul Amal Alamgiri it
appears that the allowance to the Chaudhari was not very substantial. But it is
possible that he held extensive revenue free (inam) lands.
5) Shiqqdar: Under Sher Shah, he was the incharge of revenue collection and
maintained law and order. In Akbar's later period, he seems to be a
subordinate official under the karori. Abul Fazl mentions that in case of an
emergency, the shiqqdar could give the necessary sanction for disbursement
 which was to be duly reported to the court. He was also responsible for thefts
that occurred in his jurisdiction.
6) Muqaddam and Patwari: The muqaddam and patwari were village level
officials. The former was the village headman. In lieu of his services; he was
allowed 2.5 percent of the total revenue collected by him. The patwari was to
maintain records of the village land, the holdings of the individual cultivators,
variety of crops grown and details about fallow land. The names of the
cultivators were entered in his bahi (ledger). On the basis of information
contained in these bahis, the bitikchi used to prepare necessary papers and
records according to which assessment and collection was carried out.

In each pargana, there were two other officials - the fotadar or khazandar (the treasurer),
and korkum or bitikchi (the accountant). Under Sher Shah, there were two karkuns, one
for keeping the records in Hindi and the other in Persian. But in A.D. 1583-84 Persian
was made the sole language for accounts.

The faujdar represented the military or policy power of the imperial government. One of
his main duties was to help the jagirdar or amil in collecting revenue from the zortalab
(refractory) zamindars and peasants.

There were waqai navis, sawanih nigar (news writers), etc., whose duty was to report the
cases of irregularities and oppression to the centre.

Taxes Other Than Land Revenue

In addition to land revenue there were other sources of income for the state which meant
that the land revenue was not the only burden to be bourn by the village and peasants.

The main taxes were of two kinds i.e.:

1) Tax on Trade i.e. Jihat
2) Market or Transit dues i.e. Sair Jihat
In addition other taxes which formed the perquisites of the officials and the Zamidars
were also present. Two major taxes in villages were those on orchards and cattle.
According to the Ain-i-Akbari if a man used the pastures for rearing his cattle then a tax
of 6 dams per buffalo and 3 dams per cow should be imposed on him. But no tax was to
be levied on cattle kept for religious or charitable purposes. Under Jahangir’s rule it was
declared with great emphasis that there will be no tax on orchards even when land
previously cultivated was now planted with fruit trees, and that never had tax on trees,
know as sardarakhti been levied in “this everlasting state”17. Under Aurangzeb’s rule
revenue was fixed at 1/5th for Hindus and 1/6th from Muslims and the rule of no tax on
orchards was seemingly overturned except for those orchards containing graves or
yielding no profit.

The imposition of Jaziya in 1679 by Aurangzeb meant an important increase in the

magnitude of rural taxation. A separate organization for collectors of jaziya called umana
was specially created for this purpose.

Another source of revenue was the property of those who died without heirs 18 this was
called ankora. Other minor cesses like the zabitana was paid to the measurers of land in
the zabt system at the rate of 1 dam per bhiga land. In addition there were compulsory
gifts to be presented to the ruler called salami. Fines called baladasti also formed a pert
of the revenue. In addition there was also a cess called the pattadari collected on a patta
being granted and tehsildari i.e. a cess on revenue payment was also present. Such rates
were not uniform and caused a burden on the peasantry.

17
Ain-i-Akbari, p.301.
18
Dasrur-al Amal-i Alamgiri, f. 23b.
 Bibliography
 The Agrarian System Of Mughal India 1526- 1707 Second Edition
By Irfan Habib 
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Author: Irfan Habib
 Mughal Land Revenue
By Inayat Sunita Zaidi
Publisher: IGNOU 2008
 The Cambridge Economic History of India
By Tapan Raychaudhuri, Irfan Habib