CHAPTER VI MUQA'I'A SYS-TEM The emergence of the mugata system was one of the major administrative developments of the land revenue system of 'Harouti • region ·during the 17th and the 18th centuries. The mugata is defined by Wilson as a "fixed rate of 1 assessment". He also finds that mugata was synonymous with Bi-1-Mukata, Bi-1-Mookata or Bi-1-Muquata which applied "especially to a tenure by which a ryot holds his land at a fixed rate per plough or per bigha or to the engagement by which his rent is fixed for a given term without liability to enhancement". 2 But, the above definition does not seem to be correct in the context of Harouti region. Here mugata signified a contract arrived at between the two parties, where one party agrees to perform certain tasks in lieu of a predetermined amount. 3 In the context.of revenue arrangements, the mugata implied 1. Wilson, H.H., Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms, Delhi, 1968, p.352. 2. Ibid., p.87. In Benaras the term Bi-1-Muquata denoted a fixed or consolidated revenue including in one aggregate the mal or land tax and Abwab or miscellaneous cesses. In the Northern Sircars Bi-1-Muquata was applied to a fixed rent or revenue assessed at a rate below the usual standarr.J. In the South it implied land or a village held at a fixed rate. The mugata is synonymous with izara which is "price or profit especially employed to denote a lease or farm of land held at a defined rent or revenue, whether from payer of the public revenue; a farm or lease of revenue of a village or district (ibid., p.214). 3o RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.8, ,Tama gasba Madhkarqarh Kijagati, 1947 v.s.
Transcript
CHAPTER VI
MUQA'I'A SYS-TEM
The emergence of the mugata system was one of the major
administrative developments of the land revenue system of
'Harouti • region ·during the 17th and the 18th centuries.
The mugata is defined by Wilson as a "fixed rate of
1 assessment". He also finds that mugata was synonymous
with Bi-1-Mukata, Bi-1-Mookata or Bi-1-Muquata which
applied "especially to a tenure by which a ryot holds his
land at a fixed rate per plough or per bigha or to the
engagement by which his rent is fixed for a given term
without liability to enhancement". 2 But, the above
definition does not seem to be correct in the context of
Harouti region. Here mugata signified a contract arrived
at between the two parties, where one party agrees to
perform certain tasks in lieu of a predetermined amount. 3
In the context.of revenue arrangements, the mugata implied
1. Wilson, H.H., Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms, Delhi, 1968, p.352.
2. Ibid., p.87. In Benaras the term Bi-1-Muquata denoted a fixed or consolidated revenue including in one aggregate the mal or land tax and Abwab or miscellaneous cesses. In the Northern Sircars Bi-1-Muquata was applied to a fixed rent or revenue assessed at a rate below the usual standarr.J. In the South it implied land or a village held at a fixed rate.
The mugata is synonymous with izara which is "price or profit especially employed to denote a lease or farm of land held at a defined rent or revenue, whether from payer of the public revenue; a farm or lease of th~ revenue of a village or district (ibid., p.214).
of heavy expenditure in-administrative and military
affairs. The maratha depradations caused considerable strain
on the financial resources of the state. 8 There was
political instability in the region during the period
under study. In 1695 A.D. when Rao Kishore Singh died
in the Deccan, the Mughal emperor, Aurangzeb, nominated
Rao Ram Singh as his successor but his elder brother,
Vishnu Singh occupied the ~addi of Kota. When Rao Ram
Singh approached ~ota a skirmish took place near'Amba'
village between the two brothers. Vishnu Singh was
finally defeated and forced to fled to Mewar. Ram Singh
8. DSA-KR. Dugri Manzil Basta No.201, Khata Vohran Ke, 1836 v.s. In 1836 Maharao of Kota purchased various items for domestic consumption from Gusain Dayagiri on credit worth Rs.41250.35. The Maharao could not pay the above amount in time so, Gusain Dayagiri charged an interest of Rs.1089.35 from the Maharao at the time of repayment.
In 1831, v.s., Maharao borrowed Rs.229819.20 from Pandit Lalji for one year which was returned with Rs.l5954.65 as interest. Similarly Shah Bholanath ocve credit worth Rs.69738.65 to ~aharao of Kota in l831..,.~·for one year. In 1765, Kota state borrowed Rs.3062 from Vohra Vijairam to pay the salary of Pathan soldiers. Vohra Jadupati Vishrup Gujarati advanced loan of Rs.1021.5 to Maharao of Kota on Aghan Budi 2, Rs.l021 on Chaitra Sudi 4, Rs.1001 on Maha Sudi 14, Rs.2042 on Kartik Sudi 1, Rs.1011 on Asadh Budi 2, Rs.1021.5 on Asadh Sudi, 1, Rs.1021.5 on Shrawan Budi 2, Rs.1021 on Bhadwa Sudi 4 to meet the emergency requirement of the Kota state. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.25, 1765 v.s.
In 1836 Sakraji Nana advanced Rs.lSOOOl as loan to Kota state out of which Rs.100001 were paid to Babuji Rolkar as compensation. Similarly, Lunkaran Meheta advanced credit worth Rs.294624 to Kota state for one year. These instances cited indicate that during the periods mentioned, the Harouti states were undergoing a financial crisis.
264
who took an active part in the war of successiOn of the
Mughals was killed while fighting the armies of Azim-ush-Bhan.
This provided an opportunity to Rao Budh Singh of Bundi to
annex Kota State. He succeeded in getting a Mu~hal farman
to this effect and proceeded towards Kota. Maharao Bhim Singh '
who succeeded Rao Ram Singh at the age of 25 also came oot
with his army to defend his homeland. Both the armies clashed
near Patan. The army of Bundi was defeated and completely
routed and it was a total victory for Kota state. The Mughal
emperor also got engaged in internal affairs and lost interest
in Rajputana. Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota later on invaded
Bundi and occupied it for sametime at the instigation of
Sayyid Brothers. A big.portion of Bundi state was annexed to
Kota state. . 9
Maharao Bhim Singh died in 1777 v.s. Between
1777 to 1802 v.s. the rulers of Jaip.1r occupied Bundi several
times. In 1803 v.s. (1746 A.D.) Rao Ummed Singh recaptured
Bundi but again the Jaipur army under the camnand of Ishwardas
Khatri attacked Bundi and Ummed Singh was defeated. In 1805
v.s. the Maharaja of Jaipur was defeated by Malhar
Rao Holkar and Rao Ummed Singh was reinstated on
the throne of Bundi. In 1819 v.s. Madhav Rao Sindhia
seized Bundi and £creed the Maharao to give him a ha.ndsame
9. <, Shyamal Das, Vir Vinod, vol.I, pp.1412-16, Udaipur, 1886.
265
monetary compensation as the state of Bundi was passing
throogh a serious financial crisis. The Maharao was forced
to borrow Rs.20,000 from the Sahukars of Kota which were
repaid to the Sahukars by the Maharaja of Jodhpur10 because
the Maharo was not in a position to repay the loan.
Kota state also faced a similar situation. In 1001 v.s.
Maharao Durjanshalji with the help of Ummed Singh of
Shahpura besieged the fort of Bundi and expelled Dalel
Singh. But again the Maharaja of Jaipur with the help of
Jayappa Sindhia recaptured Bundi and restored Dalel Singh
as Maharao. They then attacked Kota. In 1813 v.s.
Jayappa Sindhia was wounded while laying seige to Kota.
Ultimately, a treaty was signed by both parties. The
Maharao of Kota surrendered the pargana of Patan and
Kapren and paid an indemnity of Rs.40,0000 to the Marathas.In
1815 V.S.M3haraja Madhav Singh of Jaipur attacked Kota and
was defeated by the Maharao of Kota.
The period 1817-1860 v.s. witnessed the rise and
fall of Zalim Singh who was one of the stalwarts of that
era. He had succeeded in defeating the Jaipur army in the
Battle of Butwaro and ensured that Holkar adopt a neutral
stancee Zalim Singh and Maharao Guman Singh had differences
over a number of issues. I't culminated in Jhala Zalim
10. Ibid., vol.II, pp.llS-18.
266
Singh leaving Kota and seeking refuge in Mewar. He was
again invited to Kota befcre the death of Maharao Guman 11 Singh. Thus the constant friction and struggle for power
among these rulers ultimately weakened the states.
Thus in the face of growing econanic and politic&
crises the ·state was farced to assign khalsa villages to
the muqaties in order to raise money to meet its growing
financial requirements. The muqatis undertook to pay a fixed
annual amount to the state in two seasonal instalments,
There was an inbuilt provision in the contract for
progressive increase in the amount of muga~ payable to
the state in keeping with expected increase in the revenue
yield, Secondly, by assigning villages to muqatis the
state. dispensed with the responsibility of administering the
mugata villages and also freed itself fran the burden of
maintaining a huge army of officials who had to be
maintained for the assessmept and collection of land
revenue. This entailed a heavy expenditure Ob the royal
exchequer. Thus the grant of kha~a_;, to muqatis was
perhaps more an ad hoc arrangenent todeal with a particular
situation. The state found this arrangement more econanical
and less burdenscme. Thirdly, the state continued to follow
11. Shyamal Das, Op, cit., Vol.I, pp.14f8-20.
the traditional policy in regal:d to the muqata system
i.e., it regarded the muqata or ijara as an instrument for
bringing the cultivable-waste and fallow land under
cultivation. Rehabilitation of depopulated villages was one
of the duties of a muqati_ or i j arador since a large nwnber. of
villages had been deserted or left uncultiva~ due to
various canpulsions. 12 Resourceful mugaties were entrusted
with the responsibility of bringing uncultivable land under
tte plough and resettle the old ruined villages. The
purpose of these was to effect an increase in agricultural
production and resultant enhancement in land revenue and
other taxes. The mugata was also a mechanism to curb the
power and activities of the refractory jagirdars. In such
cases the Maharao used to take away the right to collect
revenue from the refractory and defiant jaqirdars ~nd
transferred it to the mugat~.. Technically it was not a
formal reswnption of the jaqir assignment as the jagirdar
continued to receive his salary at a fixed amount equivalent
to the ~.13 This arrangement created a parallel centre
Patel Madhoram was grantedmauza Mamor in mugata. The land of entire mugata village was nalayak and kankar (uncultivable). The mugati was required to pay Rs.1.25 per biqha annually as land revenue (muqata) for the land which he brought under cultivation on his own or by settling karshas in the village. In pargana Gaghron mauza Kishorepuro was declared as Ujar qaon (depopulated village) in which out of 1000 bighas of land 800 biqhas were categorised as nalayak and 200 bighas were located on steep slopes so the cultivation was quite difficult. Subsequently, tne entire village was granted to Bhil Nathu on muqata. He succeeded in bringing a portion of the land under CUI tivati.on. The value of mugata was fixed at Rs.1.75 per annum.RSA-KR. Bhandar No 1..'1 Bassa No.JO. Jamai Jama Kharch, pa.rgana Gagnron· , 17 2 v-. • DSA-KR. 'ousri Manzil Basta No. 409. .Poyarkhi Pandi, •••
268
Due to uncertainties in the collection of revenue as
well as financial cOmmitments made, the Maharao was often
forced to take loans fran the money lenders. The muqata was
used as a mode of repayment of loans to the money lender
by way of transference of the Maharao•s right to collect
revenue fran certain areas. When the Maharao was not able to
directly repay the loans borrowed fran the money lender, he
used to ass~gn them villages i~ mugata so as to enable them
to directly collect the stipulated amount within a given period
of time. 14 Tqe Mughal mansabdars who were assigned jagir
in the Harouti region were at times posted to distant places
and it was not possible for them to personally administer the
jagirs for the purpose of assessment and collection of land
revenue. Many imperial jagirdars found it more convenient
to farm out their 1agirs to the rulers of Kota. The latter by
virtue of his position could easily manage the collection of
land revenue with the help of his own administrative machinery.
The Maharao even undertook to rem! t the amount of muqata to
RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.25. Dovarkhi Parchayat, 1765 v .s.
In 1765, the Maharao of Kota took the muqa~ of the villages of parqana Baran, Sangod and Sarod which were assigned to Mughal mansabdars in jagir. Similarly, the jagir villages of Santi Singh, a Mughal mansabdar were also given to the Maharao on muqata for a sum of Rs.12,490 annually.
The muqa-ta.-sy-s~1;em- was qu-i-te-\t.-ctesp:ead-:!lbe mpaatis were
usually local potentates with sufficient resources. They
were able to collect land revenue on behalf of the
mansabdars with considerable efficiency. The hundi system
enabled them to rem! t the collected revenue to any place.
The local potentates including Maharao served best this
purpose. 16 The mugata was also granted by Maharao as a mark
of favour especially to his worthy followers, relatives and
kinsmen. Such grants were made from the villages assigned
17 as jagir to Maharao by the Mughals.
Broadly speaking, there were two categories of the
mugata grants upati mugata and mugata. IQ upati muqata18
The j agir villages of the imperial mansabdars, Mir Araditi Khan and Mir Hidayatullah were taken on mugata by Maharao in J?Clrqana Urmal. The amount of mugata was fixed at Rs.l0785 p.a. But the mansabdars exempted Maharao frcm paying Rs.1000. The Maharao remitted Rs. 1406.25 on Maha sudi 1, 1754 v.s. through Sukhram Sagtawat and Rs.611.5 on Chaitra Budi 13, through Maharao•s ·agent. In 1755 the contract of mugata was renewed. The amount of contract was fixed for Rs.12807.25. Later on the mansabdars exempted the Maharao from paying Rs. 2600. Thus the Maharao was required to pay Rs.12807.25. Later on the mansabdars exempted the
Maharao frOm paying Rs.2600. Thus the Maharao was required to pay Rs.10207.25 and the arrears of Rs.385.90 of the previous year. The Maharao remitted Rs.225 in the form of wine in a huge bottle delivered at Umarkot where the mansabdars were posted. Rs.10115.25 were paid at Bhaignsor through Diwan Nathmalfi. The Maharao also gave an unspecified number of buffaloes to the mansabdars worth Rs.200. The mansabdars agreed to recover outstanding arrears of Rs.S2.90 in the next season. RSA-KR. Bharidar No.1 Basta No.16, 1755 v.s. DSA-KR. Dugri Manzi! Basta No.276, Jamai Jama Kharch, R6rgana Kota, 1771 v.s. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.30, Jamai Jama Kharch,pargana Gagnrone. Fran Maharao Bhim Singh to Dhalbhai ~hagwandas, 1772 v.s.
270
the amount of muqata was fixed on the basis of assessment
records of the previous years, the area under cultivation,
fertility of the soil and irrigation facilities. 19 The
expected income from non-agricUltural taxes was also taken
into account and the share of muqati was fixed on the basis
of certain principles. 20 Under the upati muqata arrangement,
the amount of muqata was calculated· on the basis of a detailed
assessment of expected revenue in the year. The holder of
upati muqata was entitled to make representation to the
state for the reduction in the amount• payable in muqata if
he suffered loss in revenue collection on account of any
natural calamity. The state also entertained his request
for remission under such circumstances. Hence, the profit of
the muqati fluctuated fran year to year as it depended on
The collection of Jagat rahgiri taxes were farmed ~t to Kheto and Neto jointly in muqata in 1747 v.s. for one year. The state officials assessed the expected yield of each month separately. We find variations in the expected income of each month. This shows that the assessed amount of muqata was based after analysing the fluctuations in the revenue obtained during the past year.
26. RSA-KR. Bharrlar No.1, Basta No. 25, pargana Sangod Barod, Va Baran Ka muqata, 1765 v.s.
27. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.16, pargana Ghatoli ka paibagi Ko mugato, 1753 v.s.
28. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.13, 1752 V.S.
Pargana Gudavad ea.nnarked as muqata was <)ranted to Maharao of Kota wirth dam 20,000. The contract was fixed at Rs.312.40. The contract was finalised by the kirori and~. of the mughal empire posted in Ujjain. The paibagr-areas of pargana Itawa worth dam 240,000 were assigned toMahatao of Kota for Rs.1000. The paibagi area in pargana Luhavad were also takeri on I :1 ara by Maharao in Rs.1406.25 and 1240 respectively in 1752 v.s.
The paibagi areas of pargana Sanqod, Baran and Barod worth dam 11198398 were farmed rut to Maharao of Kota for Rs.96320.15. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, asta No.25, parqana Sangod, Baran and Barod. Ka ( Paibagi ka dam, 176 5 V. S.)
L./3
Nek-Mehammed ~ani Ajmer Khan in parqana Atone valued--at dam
165000 (Adhmasa) was ~ken on mugata · by Maharao of Kota
for a sum of Rs.859.3S. The contracted amount was paid to
the:,mansabdar in two seasonal instalments, i.e., Rs.429.70
during the kharif season and Rs.429.65 during the ~
season. 29 The jagir of San~i Singh Rathore in pargana Baran
worth dam 80000 (panch Maha) was taken on muqata by Maharao
for the ~ season in 176 2 V .se The tenure of the muqata
was valid up to 1763 v.s. and it was contracted for Rs.12506.
The contract stipulated that the payment .to be made to the
mansabdar would be arranged in such a manner that he receives
Rs.4168.65 during the~ season of 1762 and Rs.8337.35
during the~ season of 1763 v.s. The Maharao again
renewed the contract for one ,more year in 1764 v .s. far the
sum of Rs.12490, out of which Rs.8332 were to be paid in
1764 ~ and Rs.4166 in the~ season of 176S v.s. 30 In
1755 V .s. pargana Urmal was taken on mugata by Maharao
fran Mir Aradati Khan and Mir Hidayatullah. The amount of
mugata was fixed at Rs.10785. Later on the mansabdar agreed
to grant a remission of Rs.lOOO. The remaining amount of
Rs.9785 was paid by Maharao in two instalments. 31 The jaqir
of Mir Ahmed Beg was also taken in mugata in 1752 V .s. fer
32. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.l3, Mir Atned Beg Jagir dam, 1752 v.s.
Ka
ka
274
The contra-ct be-tween Mahara-o -and -the Mughals regard:ing _
the muqata grant of imperial territories -to the Maharao
was finalised by the kirori and amins of pargana Ujjain.
The terms and condition8 of the muqata agreement between the
mansabdars who offered their jagirs to Maharao in muqata
were settled between the agent Of the mansabdar and the
Maharao. In such cases the amount that the muqati undertook
to pay was calculated on the basis of expected inccme fran the
areas to be fanned out and the assessment records of the
previous year. When the Maharao took muqata at the ~ibaqi
from the emperor he was required to remit the amount of
muqata at the capital town of the province of Malwa, i.e.,
Ujjan. 33 The mansabdars favc:ured the payment of amoont
payable in muqata at the place of their choice or wherever
they were posted. The transactions involving the muqata
grants pertainin;J to the jaqir area were conducted by way of
remittance of cash ttr ough hundi. The vohra, maha1an and
different categories of merchants played an important role in
providing banking facilities to both the parties. They
remitted the amount of muqata to Mughal authorities and
mansabdars through hundi (bills of exchange) at different
places in the empire. This facilitated the smooth functioning
33. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.25. From Maharao Bhim Singh to Hathi Singh hado hawalgir of parqana Baran, 1765 v .s. 28 villages of ~rqana Baran which were under the control Of Mugh~ authorities. and earmarked were subsequently given to Maharao of Kota on muqata in 1 76 5 V. S. Tbe Maharao agreed to remit the amount of muqata to the Gumasthas who was looking after paibaqi on· the date atip1lated in the: agreement as per instalments.
275
of the muqata systems. 34 .
The mugata grants including the wat.an territories of
tb! Kota rulers were made to the persons belonging to
different social grrups who urrlertook the. collection of land
revenue and non-agricultural taxes in accordance with the
terms and conditions contained in the patta issued to the
mugat1. 35 The patta conferring the mugata rights also
contained the tenure of mugata , details of taxes farmed out
to a mugati and the name of pargana or mauza granted in
muqata. Details regarding the mode of payment, number of
instalments in the year, the amount to be paid to the state
in each insta~ent, area under cultivation, the soil
conditions and the expected incane of the mauza were also
given in the patta. 36 The mugati had to give a gabuliyet
(letter of acceptance) whereby he accepted the terms
34.
35.
36.
RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.24, pargana Baran Ko mugato, 1764 v.s.
The Maharao took the mugata of the ~ villages of Santi Singh Rathore, a Mughal mansabdar; in 1764 v.s. The amount of contract was fixed at Rs.l2,506. The Maharao remitted Rs.l338.70 on Asoj Sudi 7, in the form of a hundi written by Vohra Amarchand Ram Chakradwaj. The mansabdar was again paid Rs.138830 by another hundl written by Vohra Ravidas Kotesur. Through the third hundi written by Lakmidas Murdlidhar and Santi Singh was paid Rs~l388.70. The Maharao paid Rs.2082.95 on Aghan Sudi 7, in the form of three hundies written by Ram Chandra Chakradhwaj, Vohra Ravldas Koteuur and Lakhmidhar Murlidhar and a sum of Rs.694.35 was remitted through each hundi. Santi Singh was paid Rs. 240 and Rs. 2400 on Shrawan Budi 10, 1765 v.s. through hundies written by Jaikrishna and Mehta Kaisodas respectively.
RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.lJ, Jamai Jama Kharch pargana Sangod Ka muqata Ka gaon ko hasli, 1752 v.s. RSA-KR. Bhandar No • .l, Basta No. 25, Fran Maharao Bhim Singh to Jhunzar Singh Hara, hawalglr of pargana Vaniga, 1765 v.s.
276
and cond.i tions of muqata laid down in the .P-!tta. He also
pranised to pay the amount of muqata on the due date. 37
The muqaties were not required to produce security against
their patta of mugata. The tenure of mugata grant for
the collection o£ land revenue varied between 1 to 5
years. 38 But in case of upati mugata, the contract was
made only for one year. However the contract could be
renewed on the expiry of the term. But the assessment of
the ex:{ected yield in the forthccminq season was made
afresh. 39 Tl:'le tenure of rnuqata grant made for the collection
of different categories of non-agricultural taxes ranged
between 1 to 12 months. 40 The tenure of rnuqata granted to
Maharao by Mughal authorities and imperial mansabdars was
Gopinath Haro was granted muqata of mauza Kankro of pargana Kota for one year. Hathiram was. given the rnugata at mauza Thingaro for three years. In 1745 mauza Gandhiphali in pargana Kota was given in mugata to Vohra Madhoram for two years. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.6, Jama mugato, pargana Kota, 1747 v.s. · In pargana Baran, Patel Lakhiram was granted mauza Gcmand:puro in muqata for 5 years. DSA-KR. Teesri Manzil Basta No.2268, Dovarkhi pargana, Baran KaMal hasil Ki, 1838 v.s. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Bhasta No.30, Jamai Jama Kharch pargana Gaghrone, 1772 v.s.
The patta of mugata for the collection and marketing of varl cus. products from the royal gardens and state owned forest was given for only a season. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.8 1747 v.s.
277
normally restricted to six monbs, seldom exceeding one
year. 41 However, the tenure of mug a ta granted by the
Maharao could be made for a longer period. 42 Purohit
GOkulji and Bhikh~ji were granted land revenue of mauza
Kakanaheri and Kachlo in pargana Sangod in muqata for a
period of three years in 1767 v.s. The amount of muqata
was fixed at Rs.4352. The muqatis were required to pay . 43 Rs.1376 in 1768, Rs.1451 in 1769 and Rs.1525 in 1770 v.s.
In 1745 v.s. Mauza Gandiphali was granted in muaata to
Vohra Madhoram Maniram for two years. The contract was
44 made for Rs.8202 to be paid in two equal instalments.
Purohit Hathiram was granted muqata of mauza Mahiditkheri
in 1765 v.s for three years. The amount of muqata .was
fixed at Rs.3301 and had to be paid in three instalments
of equal amounts. 45 The muqatis were required to pay the
41. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.17, 1765 v.s.
42. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.23, Taqs~ parqana Sanqod Ka mugata ka gaont. 1832 V .s.
43~ RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.27. From Maharao Bhim Singh to Patel, Patwari of mauza Kakanaheri and Kachlya, Maha Budi 6, 1767 v.s.
44. RSA-KR. Bhaiar No.1, Basta No.6, Jama mugata Ko pargana Kota, 1745 v.s. The mugata of mauza .. Gandiphali was granted to Man Sl.ngh Soni in 1755 v .~. for three years. The contract was fixed at Rs.l1071t to be paid in three annual instalments. The mugati paid Rs. 3701 in 1756, Rs. 3900 in 1757, and Rs.4100 in 1758 v.s.
DSA-KR. Dusri Manzil Basta No.276, Jamai Jama Kharch, pargana Kota, Jama muqato, 1771 v.s. Purohit Bhikhaj i and Gokulj i were required to pay Rs.20l on Kartik: Sudi 15, Rs.400 on Maha and Baisakh Sudi 15, in lieu of their mugata grants. But they deposited Rs.400 on Falgun Sudi 15, and Rs.11 were left as arrears to be collected in the next season.
Similarly, Vohra Madhoram was required to deposit Rs .133 4 in the ins~alments on Kart:~.rk arxl Maha Sudi 15, and Rs.1333 on Baisakh Sudi 15 but he pc.id · Rs.250 in Bhadwa, Rs.11 in Kartik Rs.1084 in Aghan, Rs.1334 1n Falgun and Rs.1335 in Jyestha month of 1745 v.s. RSA~. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.6, 1745 v.s.
279
to the Maharao in 3 instalments of Rs.l33 each. But he
was allowed to deposit Rs.134 on Maha Sudi 15 and Rs.267
on Shrawan Sudi 10. 50 However, if the muqatis altogether
failed to deposit the amount within reasonable time limits·
the state officials used to issue letters of reminders to
the defaulter giving the details of the arrears outstanding
. . ti 51 h i aga~nst the muqa • In normal circumstances, t e muqat
had to shoulder the risk in fluctuation of revenue. But he
was entitled to remission on the assessed amount of mugata
in case of natural calamities. The concessions were also
granted when the crop yield was poor. 52 The remission could
also be granted by the state as a mark of favrur to a
mugati especially to those who pranoted cultivation in
mugata villages. Pandit Nimaji and Panda Moti jointly
held mugata of two mauzas, i.e., Naharvad and Artyo in pargana
Suket for three years. In 1837 v.s. the muqatis were
granted remission of Rs.so out of the total amount of
mugata assessed at Rs.1568.75 as a result o.f partial
damage to the standing crop in the villages. Similarly,
Raj Singh Patel who held mugata of mauza, Hamlyakheri in
pargana Suket was granted remission of Rs.70 out of total
51. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.l3, From Maharao Kishore Singh to Jhorawar Singh Hara, Baisakh Sudi 1,
1752 v.s.
52. RSA-KR. Bhandar Noel, Basta No.lS-16, pargana Urmal Ko muqato, 1754-55 v.s. Mir Araditi Khan and Mir Hidayatullah the Mughal mansabdars granted their jagir in pargana Urmal on muqata to Maharao of Kota in 1754 v.s. The amount
. . .
280
assessed revenue of Rs.313.70 when it was brought to the
notice of revenue officials that the crop/yield in the
mugata village was not up to the expected level. In
Qasba Kota the kun1dyas - traders of fruits and vegetables,
held the muqata of mango trees grown in the royal
gardens in 174 7 V .s. were also g:-anted remission in the
amount payable to the state as the mango crop was
destroyed on accrunt of winds and storm. 54 Gyani Laquram
Pancholi who held t~ muqata of jagat taxes was granted
concession of Rs.151 out of the total amount of Rs.2435
in 1837 V .s. on the consideration that there had been a
shortfall in the jagat revenue in that particular year.
Contd. F/n. 52 ••• of contract was Rs.9785.10. The mansabdars allowed remission of Rs.1000 to the Maharao on account of crop failure. 'lhe contract was renewed in 1755 and the amount of muqata was fixed at Rs.12807.25. The mansabdars exempted Rs. 2600 because the parqana Urmal was struck by famine in that year.
55
rnauza Kudialo was given to Pancholi Nandram in muqata in 1836 v.s. for three years. He was granted remission of Rs. 50 on- the total amount of the muqata which was 252.35.
. v.s. Chandel Lalo who was granted mauza Khoti in mufata for Rs.251 was exempted from paying Rs.s. Pate Devi Singh muqati of mauza Gudo was granted remission of Rs. 5 on the total amount of t~ muqata. DSA-KR. Teesri Manzil, Basta No.l25, 1876 v.s.
281
The state exempted dohil land grant holders in the
rnugata villages from the payment of taxes. Patel
Lakhirarn muqati of mauza Gomandpuro was instructed not
to levy any tax on 95. SO bigha of land in mugata villages
held by dohli grant holders. In order to compensate the
mugati, the state reduced the amount of magata fran
770.60 to 7oo.so. Mauza Susavani was held in muqata by
Gumani Brabnin and Chi.t:ra Patel. The revenue officials
by mistake included 127 bigha of land granted in dohli
while calculating the amount of mugata. When the fact was
brought to the notice of the Maharao, orders were issued to
exempt the dohli
amount of rnugata
land from paying any revenue and the
56 was reduced from Rs., 672 to 576.90.
The majority of the muqatis because of their local
connections and hereditary rights in land occupied a high
social and econanic status in the rural social hierarchy.
Being in direct touch with the' state administration they
exercised considerable influence on decisions made locally.
The state frequently honoured muqatis by conferring on
them a pahravani and .122,g (robe of honour and turban)· • Shah
Ram vagdo wbo held muqata of raOOiri in mauza Rangpur
was granted Rs. 4 and 4.50 in 1743-44 respectively for
pahravani. 57 Mansaram Muqati of mauza Masai was conferred
. 56.
57.
DSA-KR. Teesri Manzil. Basta No. 2268, Dovarkhi pargana Baran KaMal basil Ki 1 1838 v.s. In mauiia Gopalpuro 364.5 big has of lar,l(i under dohii land grant held by Shah Rajmall was exempted fran revenue. Subsequently the amount of muqata was also reduced from RE.1039.75 to 576.90 in 1838 v.s. RSA-KR Bhandar No. 1, Basta No. 5 ,R,_·a~h.gi.OOi_r_i~mu_.,q.,.a_t-.;;o, mauza Rangpur, ~rgana Kota, 174S v.s.
282
~ (turban) by Maharao worth Rs.1, in 1838 v.s. 58
Similarly, Shah Nani Ram who held muqata of - rahgiri in
mauza Sindalpur was granted pahravani by Maharao
59 worth Rs.1 in 1752 v.s.
The extent of area held in muqata varied fran pargana
to pargana. In pargana Urmal, out of 57 villages, 2
villages were given in muqata~ 0 In pargana Gaghrone out
of 43 villages 16 w~re granted to muqatis in 1772 v.s. 61
In pargana Delhnapur, out of 172 villages 33 villages were
granted to muqatis. 6 2 In pargana Sangcd out of 71 villages
6 were granted in muqata. 63 In pargana Suket, out of 34
villages, 24 were given to mugatis~4 In pargana Barsana
cut of 99 3 villages 398. SO villages were granted in mug a ta.
The total area of mugata villages was 6,19,100 bighas.65
62. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.51/1, Tagsim pargana Delhnapur Ka gaon Ki, 1832 v.s.
63. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.23, Taqsim pargana Sangod Ka gaon Ki, 1832 v.s.
64.
65.
DSA-KR. Teesri Manzil Basta No.2266, Dovarkhi 1amaband1, pargana Suket ka hawala ka Mal basil Ki, 1837 V .s. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.51/1 Teriz pargana Barsana Ka gaon Ki, 1798 v.s.
283
Assumption cf~are-sc.n~lars- that the class of ijaradars
(muqatis) belonging to trading ·canmunities, grew at the
expense of hereditary revenue officials and completely
ruined and replaced the zamindars, does not seem to be
tenable. 66
This assumption needs to be examined in the
light Of our own SQUrpe material. The evidence relating
66. Siddiqui N.A., Land Revenue Administration Under the Mughals (1700-50), Bombay 1970, pp.98-99.
Siddiqui observes that "the extraordinary extension of the practice of I1ara adversely affected the working of land revenue administration and weakened its stability, still further it gave rise to a class of bankers and speculators who invested their money in the business of revenue farming and emerged as a class of intermediaries, distinct frcm hereditary zamindars. The new class of Izaradars generally came frcm the c1 ties and proved to be a constant source of danger to the interests of zamindars ••• When faced with extreme financial difficulties many of the zamindars who were outbidden by the Izaradars were compelled to sell their zamindari right to those who cruld purchase them. Naturally the wealthier neighbouring zamindars and bankers from the city availed themselves of the opportunity and these sales of zamindaries considerably affected social and econanic complexion .. of rural Hindustan". (pp.98-99).
The learned scholars' are of the opinion that Izaradars who were merchants and bankers had an urban base does not hold good in oo.r region. It is a well known fact that even in the rural areas mercantile activities were not the monopoly of the Bania caste. There was also a high degree of interaction between the trading class and the karshas. The traders belonging to Gusain, Vohra, Mahatan and Shah castes provided credit facilities to karshas and the Maharao as well. They were also engaged in the process of cultivation and had sizeable land holdings. DSA-KR. Dusri Manzil, Basta No.337, Khato mauza Khedo tappa Kaithon ,18 7 v.s. There was a very thin line of demarcation between villages and cl ties in OJ.r region during the period under stuly. The usage of the term city appears to be a misnomer for our studies of 17th and 18th century Rajasthan. In records, the term gasba is frequently used. This is synonymous with the term town. In all the major·gasbas there existed a very sizeable agricultural ccmmuDlty. Trade and
· cultivation were carried on side by side. The major qasbas of Harouti region such as Baran, Sangcx:l,
•••
284
to mugata~ grant of non agricultural taxes shows that these
grants were monopolised by Shahs, Vohras and various other
members of the trading community. Table Nb~6.1shows that
in pargana Kota and Sangod, the Shahs were in a daninant
position. Table 6.2indicates that mugata for the collection
of land revenue was held by different sections of the
rural canmuni ties and no particular group could claim a
dcminant position. In pargana Kota rut of 8 muqa~
villages, 2 villages each were held by Rajputs, Vohras
and Purohi ts. One village each was granted to pathan
and misri Bral'lnin. In pargana Sangod, out of 6 mugata
villages, 2 each were held by Raj put and Purohit and
one each by Vohras and Vyas Brahmin. In pargana Suket
out of 3 muqata villages one each was held by Pandi t,
Pancholi and Rajp1t mugaties. 67 In pargana Baran rut
of 4 mugata villages, 3 were held by Patel and one by
Vohra. 68 Interestingly, in pargana Gaghrone rut of 14
mugata villages, 3 were granted to j hal as, one each to
Hara and Gujars. 4 were gran~d to Patels and 5 villages to
contd. F/n.66 •••
Dighod, Panchpahar, Atru Barod, Palayatha had vast cultivabLe lands. In these qasbas the people from all walks of life participated ii1 cultivation including the members of the trading classes. The Banjaras, Charan, Gudolyaluhar, Gusain, were also found engaged in tradin;J activities. Thus the definition of the term city and the urban character of the Izaradar need to be examined in the light of cur oWn scurces •.
