# **2.2 Land revenue systems of Orissa**

As more areas came under British control from the late 18th century onwards, a number of different land revenue assessment systems evolved according to the status of the individual of whom land revenue was actually demanded<sup>3</sup> . _Zamindari_ and the _ryotwari_ systems were the most common and their main elements are described in Box 2. The _zamindari_ system existed in five districts in Orissa, the _ryotwari_ system in a part of a district, and the so-called Subsidiary Alliance in the 24 princely states covered the remaining seven districts. More than 80 percent of privately owned land fell under the _zamindari_ system (Pathy, 1981).

A number of different revenue and tenancy laws also prevailed in the state. This was because parts of Orissa fell within different administrative units belonging to Bengal (later with Bihar after its separation from Bengal in 1912), Central Provinces, and Madras. The 24 princely states were controlled by the British through a Subsidiary Alliance by which the princes had freedom in their internal administration so long as they paid regular tributes to the colonial authority. The former extent of each legislative jurisdiction is described in Box 3.

# **Box** 2: Main systems of land revenue assessment in Orissa prior to Independence

_Zamindari_ (or landlord) tenure: land was held as an independent property and revenue was assessed on an individual, or a community, owning an estate as a landlord. Proprietors were required to deposit land revenue at the district treasury. One sub-divisional officer, assisted by one or more tehsildars, was incharge of revenue collection. There was no revenue administration below the district level, and the _zamindars_ organised their own revenue collection agencies, often involving many more layers of intermediaries.

_Ryotwari_ (or peasant proprietary) tenure: land belonged to the Crown and was held in a right of occupancy (which was both heritable and transferable) by individuals. Revenue was assessed on individuals who were the actual occupants of smaller holdings. It was collected through the village headman whose office was hereditary. He was paid a commission (10 percent) and sometimes received somejagir lands. In addition to collection of land revenue, he was also required to keep the records-of-rights up-to-date by carrying out mutations.

Under either system, there were numerous rent-paying sub-tenants.

What, if any, is the impact of the different revenue systems prevalent in the state until half a century ago? While there may be little practical difference, rights over commons, which are determined by traditional norms and customs, do vary across the state, and especially between the erstwhile _ryotwari_ and _zamindari_ areas. There was also considerable variation in the quality of land records management since there was a village accountant in _ryotwari_ areas, but no such position in _zamindari_ areas. As a result, land records were better maintained in the former and almost non-existent in the latter. These differences can create problems during land litigation since there may be no historical records on which to establish the bases of competing claims.

- 3 The systems had evolved according to the varying degrees in which, in different parts of the country, tribal occupation of territory had superseded the rights of the ruler, or full proprietary rights had been granted to the individual.

11