the - shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in › bitstream › 10603 › 15116 › 13... · 261 the...
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).
3o RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.8, ,Tama gasba Madhkarqarh Kijagati, 1947 v.s.
261
the farming out of revenue of a given area or any
particular source of revenue to a mugata holder (mugatt~
by the state or the jagirdar. The contract could involve
the Maharao and mugatd, 4 or a Mughal jagirdar and any -local powerful zamindar. The Maharao also took mugata of
the jagir villages of the Mughal rnansabdars~ The contract
was made for the collection of land revenue and various
agricultural and non-agricultural taxes, which were to be
paid to the state on the basis of customary rat~s or in
accordance with the terms and conditions as stipulated in
the agreement. In normal condition the mugati had to bear
6 all the risks entailed in the collection of revenue. If it
fell short of the stipulated amount, the mugati was required
to make good. the loss. In case the has.i,l exceeded the
stipulated amount, the collection made over and above the
amount of mugata was appropriated by the mugati and that
would be his legitimate incomee Usually, the mugata contract
was made for the amount that was less than the standard jama
so as to leave a margin of profit for the muqati. The
profit could also be increased through efficient administra-
tion and vigilance on the part of muqati.
4. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.13, Jamai Jama Kharch pargana Sanghod, 1752 v.so
5. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta 16, Pargana Ghatoli Ka paibagi Ko mugato, 1753 v~s.
6o DSA-KR. Dusri Manzi]., Basta No.276, Dovarkhi-parchajat, 1771 v.s.
262
It was expected of the mugati to make personal efforts
for the extension and prQ'noti on of agriculture. Those
engaged in collection of non-agricultural taxes were also
required to make effective arrangements for the collection
of these taxes and to prevent any attempt of tax evasion
on the part of the revenue payer. The intention was to
enhance the amount of revenue collection ~ery year by
unearthing hidden sources of revenue. The state also reviewed
~~ figures periodically to make the revenue demand on
mugati more realistic. As such the amount contracted in
mugata did not remain constant. The state made endeavours
to maximise income through a progressive increase in the
amount payable by the mugatis. Sometimes there was no scope
for further improvement in be state of agriculture and
7 taxation in a particular pargana or mauza. The amount of
mugata remained stationary. In some cases, the amount of
mugata became a fixed sum as a mark of special favour to
certain categories of the mugatis particularly the Hara
bhomias.
Political Background
The 17th and 18th century witnessed considerable
socio-economic and political developments which were condu
cive to the growth of the mugata system. Firstly, the
state was constantly under acute financial crises because
1. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.23, Tagsim pargana Sanghod ka gaon, teriz mugato, 1832 v.s.
263
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
of power in the affected a~ea.
12. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1 Basta No.l3. Dovarkhi Jamai Jama Kharch, parqana Sangod, 1752 v.s.
13.
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
the mansabdar at the place of his dDice. 15
contd. F/n.13 • •• 1772-1884 v.s.
14. DSA-KR. Dugri Manzi! Basta No.201, Khate Vohran Ke. 1836 v.s.
15. _:)
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
16. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1. Basta No.15. ~rgana Urrnal Ko mugata, 1754 v.s.
17.
18.
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 vagaries of nature. 21
19. DSA-KR. Teesri Manzi! Basta No.125, Jamabandi mauza Kotdo, pargana Panchpahar, mugati Swarup Singh, 1876 v.s.
20. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Bas.ta No.8, ·oasba Madhkargarh Ki .Jagat Rahgiri, i747 v.s.
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.
21. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.16, pargana Urmal Ko mugato, 1755 v.s.
271
The second category of muqata contract included a
rough estimate of the expected in cane fran a particular area
or source of revenue on the basis of hypothetical calculations
taking into accoun the jama_ of a number of preceding
years. The amount Of muqata cons! sted a fixed sum. While
executing such muqata contracts no reference was made to
the current state of cultivation or yield of the area granted
in muqatas or the actual realisation of revenue from the
tax fanned out. The mugati thus had to bear all the risks. 22
Thus, the nature, type and terure of the muqata grants
were widely different. The mugata involving merely the
.collection of lam revenue fran khalisa villages was granted
to various sections of the rural society. 23 However, the
various non-agricultural taxes which included jagat,. rahdari,
.lli!Y• rahgiri,. mapo, chapo etc. were usually made to ·the
traders and bankers. These taxes were collected at custom
24 hooses located at different places throughout ·the state.
The marketing right of varic:us fruits and forest profucts
from the royal gardens, trees and state owned forests were
22.
23.
24.
DSA-KR. Dugri Marizil Basta No.276,. Jama Muqato mauza Kankro, pargana Kota, .1771 V .s. ·
RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.13, Jamai Jama Kharch, papgana. Sangod, muqata Ka gaon Ko hasli, 1752 v.s.
RSA-KR. Bha.ndar No.1, Basta No.10, Jamai Jama Kharch, pargana Kota, Jama Mapo, Nav Rah9iri Muqato, 1749 v.s.
L'L
also farmed out to certain prOfessional classes. However,
such mugata grants usually lasted for a season but it
could be renewed. 25
Like other Rajput chiefs of Rajasthan, the Maharao of ..
Kota also retained control over some territories which did
not form part of his watan iaqir. These areas were taken on
mugata by the Maharao from other imperial mansabdars who
had been assigned these lands in tankhwah jaqir. 26 The
paibagi areas which were eanmarked for jagir but yet to be
assigned were also taken on muqata by Maharao. However, the
tenure of such muqata grants was very uncertain. 27 Many
mansabdars preferred to leasecut their jagir to Maharao who
had a well organised administrative machinery at the mauza
and pargana levels which enabled him to ensure the collection
of land revenue. Thus the Maharao was able to retain control
over certain territorial tracts which did not form part of the
Kota state through the practice of Mugata. 28 The jagir of
25. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.8, Jamai Jama Kharch, pargana Kota, 1747 v.s.
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 Rs.117.25.
29. RSA•KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.12, Jamai rrama Kharch, parqana Atone, 1751 v.s.
30. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta N0.24-25. Santi Singh Rathore ka Mansab ka dam, 1764-65 v.s.
31. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.16, pargana Urmal mugata ka Lekhoa 1755 v.s.
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
37. DSA-KR. Dugri Manzil Basta No.201, Khato mugato Ko, pargana Khatakheri, 1836 v.s.
38. DSA-KR. Dusri Manzil Basta No.276, Jamai Jama Kharch, pargana Kota, 1771 v.s.
39.
40.
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.
RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.10, Jamai Jama Kharch, pargana Kota, Mapo chapo nav rahdarl muqato, 1749 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.
45. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.25, Jamai Jama Kharch, Pargana Kota, 1765 · v.s.
278
amount of mugata in a predeteonined number of instalments . 46
to the agents of Maharao. The muqatis who took muqata
of land revenue were required to pay the amount of
mugata every year in three instalments, the first was
collected on Kartik Sudi 15, second on Maha Sudi 15, and
47 third on Baisaka Sudi 15 every year. The mugatis who
collected non agricultural taxes were asked to pay the
amount of mugata to the state in moothly instalments. In
such cases, the revenue officials tentatively worked out
the amount of mocthly instalments on the basis of the
previous records. 48 However, the obligations to pay the
amount of mugata on time was not strictly adhered to by
all the muqatis. 49 The documents show that the state
officials were often not rigid in implementing the terms
and conditions of the muqata grants. Narayandas Kaisodas,
the muqati of mauza Panchpahar was required to pay Rs.400
46.
47.
48.
49.
DSA-KR. Dusri Manzil Basta No.276, VDovarki Mauza Mudhak pa;gana Madhkargarh, 1771 v.s.
RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta·No.6, Jamai Jama Kharch, pargana Kota, Jama muqato, 1745 v.s.
RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.lO, Jamai Jama Kharch, pargana I<ota, Manas gaon ko nav, rahqlri mugato, 1749 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
so. DSA-KR. Dusri Manzi! Basta No.276, Jamai Jama Kharch, pargana Kota, 1771 v.s.
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.
53. DSA-KR. Teesri Manzil Basta No. 2266 Dovarkhi Jamabandi Kathta Mal basil, pargana Suket, 1838 v.s.
54. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.8, Jamai Jama Kharch, pargana Kota, 1747 v.s.
55. DSA-KR. Teesri Manzll, Basta No. 2266, Dovarkhi Jamabandi Kathta Mal hasil, Jarna, pargana Suket, 1837
. 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
58. DSA-KR. Teesri Manzil, Basta No. 2268, Dovarkhi Jamabandi, Kathta Mal basil, pargana Baran, 1838 v.s.
59. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.13, Parqana Sangod Ki Jagati, 1752 v.s. Shah Kheto, Chaudhary Baliram and Subhachand were granted Rs.2.50 for Pahravani on behalf of Maharao. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.10, Jamai Jama Kharch, pargana Kota, 1749 v.s. No.
60. Ibid.
61. RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.30, Jamai Jama Kharch, parqana Gaghrone, 1772 v.s.
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 •.
. 67. RSA-KR. Teesri Man7.il Basta No. 2266, Dovarkhi Jamabandi Kathta Mal hasil, pargana Suket, 1837 v.s.
68. DSA-KR. Teesri Manzi! Basta No. 2268 • .Q._ovarkhi pargana Baran ka mal hasil ki, 1838 v.s.
285
Bhils. All the muqatis ·were local persons. 69 In pargana
Panchpahar, out of 16 muqata villages, 5 were .granted
to RajpUts, 4 to zamindars and 7 villages were held by
Patels. 70 It is evident from these instances that in
the grant of the muqata of land revenue, the members
belonging to the mercantile class of urban based traders
did not find favour with the state. The hereditary
officials and zamindars continued to be in a dominant
position in the rural society and were preferred by the
state as mugatis of land revenue. The involvement of
the mercantile class was merely confined to the
collection of taxes levied on trade and conurerce. 'Ihe
growth of muqata system did not alter the basic structure
and functioning of land revenue system.
The practice af granting muqata rights in khalisa
and 1aqir areas constituted. an important developnent
during the perioi of our bldy. However, so far as the
khalisa land of the Kota Maharao is concerned, the practice
did not become widespread as in the neighbouring Jaipur
State. The grants of muqata involving non-agricultural
taxes were more numerous than farming out of land revenue.
69.
70.
RSA-KR. Bhandar No.1, Basta No.30, Jamai Jama Kharch, pargana Gaghrone, 1772 v.s.
DSA-KR. Teesri Manzil Basta No.l25, Jamabandi, Perqana Panchpahar, 1867 v.s.
286
Since tbe muqata of land revenue was not granted to
speculators who tried to out-bid each other, the system
did not adversely affect the peasantry or the long term
revenue paying capac! ty of the. area farmed rut. There was
an inbuil t incentive to the muqatis to make efforts to
maximise the prct it and make personal efforts for the
extension and pranotion of agriculture.
Thus the state resorted to the practice of
mugata due to political administrative and econanic
ronsiderati ons. The functioning of the Mughal jagirdari
system and its growing crises in the late 17th and early
18th century led to the grant of Mughal Khalisa and
tankhwalb. j agir areas in the periphery of the Harooti
on muqata to the Hara rulers. Within the Hara states
the muqata never became widespread so far the Khalisa lands
were concerned. The except! ons being the ru1ned, deserted
and newly settled villages which were granted on muqata
for agricultural developments to the local poten~tes
In Harouti it never became an index of a financial crisis or
break down of administration. Nor were the mugatis
vested with administrative powers of faujdari rights.
That mugata was not granted for speculative p1rpos~s is
further strengthened by the fact that the _IDUqatis were not
required to furnish malzarnini of the Sahukars This
was an important depart~e fran the us-..1al practice of
287
insisting on the I1aradar to produce a guarantor
while bidding for ijaray The mugata system did not in
any_ significant ways alter the land revenue administration
or the power structure in the rural society.
288
Table - 6.1
Mugata on Non Agricultural Taxes
-------~----------~----------------------------------~-~------------S.No. Asami Mauza v.s. Muqata Period Value
--------------------~------------------------------------------------PARGANA KOTA:
1. Shah Ramvagdo Rangpur 1743 Rahgiri 1 year 401
2. Shah Ramvagdo Rangpur 1744 Rahgiri 1 year 501
3. Shah Kaisho Kota 1749 Rahgiri 1 year 275 Mapo Nav.
4. Shah Kheto Manasgaon 1749 It 1 year 421
Ramo, Chaudhary
Chan
5. Shah Kheto etc •• 1750 rr u 1 year 311
PARGANA SANGOD:
1. Shah Bhino 'J. sangod 1752 Jagati 1 year 2601
2. Shah Movji Kamlo 1752 Jagati 1 year 321
3. Shah Ramo Dhabhoi 1752 Jagati 1 year 121 Dhobhodo
4. Shah Nani Ram Sindalpur 1752 Rahgiri 1. Year 101
5. Shah Nandji Sohar 1752 Jagati 1 year 45.50
6. Shah Laxmidas Gohdu 1752 Rahgiri 1 year 33.0
PARGAN MADHKARGARH
1. Shah Pokarram Qasba 1747 Jagati 1 year 661 Madhkargarh Rahgiri
Chapo,Mapo
2. Shah Kheto Qisba 1748 Jagati 1 year 701
Madhkargarh Raheiri
Mapo,Chapo
PARGANA SUKET
1. Laghu Ram 1837 Jagati 1 year 3435
-------------------------------- ----------~--~-------------~-----~
S.No. As ami
289
Table - 6. 2
Mugata on Land ·Revenue
l>1auza v.s. Period Value
( Rs.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------PARGANA KOTA:
1. Purohit Hathi Ram Mahidi t Kheri 1752 3years 3301 ') Misri Narayan- Panchpahar 1777 1 year 400 .....
das Kaishori
3. Vohra Hathinn Tingari 1771 3 years 2602 A
4. Gopinath Ha~o Kansari 1771 1 year 625
5. Purohit Gokul j i Tughni 1771 3 years 3001 Bhikhaj i
6. Jasot Singh Kankor 1771 3 years 1500
Solanki
7. Sahib Khan Madhuheri 1771 3 years 31C3 pathan
8. Vohra l1adhoram Gandiphali 1745 2 years 8202
PARGANA SANGOD
1. Arjun Rathore Mauza Gura.:i..tho : 1 year 3251 1765 and Sakarpuro
2. Vyas Balkishan Punyaheri 1165 3 years ~8.0
3. Purohit Gokul j i Rampuro 1767 J years 1201 Bhikaji
4. Purohit Gokuji Kakanheir 176.7 3 years 4352 Bhikaji Kacholia
Gaon-2
5. Vohra Harichand Amratkheri 1832 3 years 5403.0 Pamlakheri Machlo
6. Dayarm Nirwan Hasradyo 1832 4 years 246 s. 75
----------------------------------------------------------contd----
290
contd •• Table 6.2
-------~------~------------------------~-~------------------~---S.No. As ami Mauza v.s, Period Value (R.S)
--------------------~--------------~----------&8------------------PARGANA SUKE'l'
1. Pancholi Kudailo 1837 3 years 772.20 Nandram
2. Pandit Nimaji Nahravad, 1837 3 years 4819.35 Arotyo
3. Patel Raj Singh Hamlyakheri 1837 years 2124.6 0
PARGANA BARAN
1. Patel Chitra Susavani 1838 5 yectrs 49 22. 35 and Gumani
2. l?a tel LakhiRam Gomandpuro 1838 5 years 5643
3. Shah Rajmal I' GO!palpuro 1838 5 years 726 3, 50
4. Patel Mans a ram !'',asai 1838 1 year 125
--------------------------------------------------------------------
291
Table - 6.3.
UJ2ati Muga~
~ Pargana Gaghron ka Izara __ ka gaon& 1772 v .,s.
---------------------------------------------------------------~--s.No. As ami Mauza Chak Nalayak Hakat Asli Sair Total
Bigha Bigha Bigha Patta ~s. Due to state
--------------------~---------------------------------------------1. Nathurarn Jhala Jhadod 8000 7000 1000 66.50 9.10
2. Jhala Aj aipal Arno 2000 1700 300 23~45 6. 35
3. Bhil Hathu Durbhya 600 400 200 s.o 5.50 Khedi
4 •. Patel Kanha Patyapu•lOOO 300 700 41.0 7.35 ro
5. Sf:l'afa Singh Patikh- 500 100 400 63.45 8.90
eri
6. R90p Patel Kajalpu 1000 700 300 43.0 7. 45 -ro
7. Patel Bala Vavdikh 1000 600 400 29.35 6. 40 -edo
8 • Gujar Madho Bandarv-1000 700 300 51.0 8.35 . -3.nd Mano ai
9. Bhil Kanycb Valyov- 1000 800 200 36 .o 7 0 25 a no
10. Bhil l!ai:Jj.t Vasgh2- 500 400 100 20.0 5.60 ti
11. Bhil Ishar Nallo 700 400 300 64.0 9.0
1 2. Patel Ramo Manpuro 2000 1600 400 31.0 6.90
1 3. Sukhram Hado Morat- 500 300 200 35.0 7.15 sukho
1 4. Bhil Nathu Kishanp. 1000 800 200 :i.l. 75
-uro
-------------~~---~-~----------~-----------~--------~------------·
292
Table - 6.4
Pargana Panchpahar
Muqata ka gaon tariz Muquatis, 1876 v.s.
------------------------------------------------------------------------s. No. Asami t-·L:mza Bigha Value Concession Balanee Bab
Asli Gharuhala Patta
Ka
-----------------------------------------------------------------------1. Devi Singh Gudopati
2. Patel Sada Khodar · Ahmed
3. Chandel Lalo Khoti and Bhopo
4. zamindar Ummed Singh
Kadlya Kheri
3218.50
992.0
95.85
883.80
5. Patel Udayo Gangpuro 2015.75
6. Qasba Ka Qasba 7089.75 Chandel i_)anch p
ahar
7. zamindir Guradyo Nathruam
8. Patel Kishan Kheta Kheri
9. Jai Singh Kothnyo Bawala
3494.35
1531.60
1143.75
1 o. f-atel of the the Village
Gudo Udai 3218.5 Singh Ko
563.0
651.0
285
375
1701
2401
36 25
1125
535
1125
11. ~indar Gqqrado 2683.60 11925 Ummed Singh
1 2. Paratap Guradi 1481.0 Patel and Patel Bhimo
1 3. Zamindar Jai Singh
1 4. Patel Ambavo
1 5. P arta Patel
16. Swarup Singh
Rali Talai 1244.o
Kharvo 1369.75
Kharkhedi 1012.35
Kotdo 2805.35
1001
575
561
575
1201
5.0
6.0
5.0
12
20
20
8
5
1_0
20
6.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
8.0
558.0
645.0
246.0
70..35
81.35
31.35
375.0 46.85
1689.0 122.60
2381.0 288.12
3605 328.10
1117 140.60
530 66.75
1115.0 140.60
1905.0 240.50
995 125
571.0 71.90
557. 77.10
570.0 71.85
1193 150.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------
293
Table - 6.5
Mugato Jaqati (Qasba Madhkargarh)
Monthly Instalments to be paid by Muqati to state
------------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Asami Asoj Kartik Aghan Maha Posh Falgun Chaitra Baisakh Jyestha
---------------------------------~-----------~----------------~--~--------1. Shah Pokaram 60 55.75 63.75 57.25 48.50 49.30 49.30 67.75 67.75
1746 v.s. 2. Shah Kheto 44 61 33 67.0 65.:__-: 67 48.0 75.0 75.00
Me to, 1748 v.s.
3. Shah Kheto 44 67 69 37 77 51.0 79 79
Neto
1748 v.s.
Asadh Sharawan Bhadwo
1. Shah Pokaram 61.0 40.60 40.60 1746 v.s.
2. Shah Kheto Neto ss.o 41.0 41.0 1747 v.s.
3. Shah Khet .i:~eto 59 44
1748 v.s. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mugato Mapo nav rahgiri (Pargana Kota)
S.No. As ami Asoj Kartik Aghan posh Falgun Chaitra
--------------------------------------------------------------------1. Subachand Baliram 27 32 33 43 34 42
1749 v.s 2. Shah Kheto, Chaud- 37 32 33 43 34 '42
hary SubhaChandetc. 1745 v.s.
------------------------------------------------Baosakh Jfestha Asadh Shrawan Bhadwa Khalihal Iraph•
1. Subhachand 37 42 39 23 23 23 2'~ Baliram
2. Stiah Kheto Subachand 37 42 39 23 47 15" Baliram
---------~-----~---------------------~----------·---------------------~----
294
Table - 6.6
Pargana Delhnapur and Khata Kheri Ko Muqata Jagati Ko, 1836 v.s.
Monthly instalments to be pa~d to the state.
-----------------------~---~------------------------------------Muqati Shah Ugarchand Manorathram
Asami Rs. on Pargana Rs.on Rs.on Delhnapur and Qasba Qasba
~----------~-~~~~--~~~~!-kh~E!--------------~2~2£ ______ y~2~~-Shrawan 225 25 20
Bhadwa 175 20 16
Asoj 250 35 24
Kartik 350 41 32
Aghan 375 45 36
Posh 400 45 36
Maha 401 45 36
Chaitra 375 45 51
Baisakh 400 60 35
Asabh 375 51 35
--------------~--~---~---------------------------------------·
295
Ta-b:-le - 6 ... 7
Ta~sim Pargana Sangod Mugata Ka gaon Ki Upati
---------------------------------------------------~----------------S.No. As ami ~o.of Total U~ti Upati Upati Upati aqzas Chak 1829 1830 .1831 1832
Bigha
----------------~-----------------------~----------------------------1. *oh5a Veerji 3 3200 1125.35 1801 1801 1801
e aon
2. Dyaram Narvan 1 1500 478 467.75 710 710
3. Mala Kulaka 2 2900 3300 3300 3300 330 Gaon
---------------------------------------------------------------------MugataKa gaon
---------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Asarni v.s Total Muqata Asli Mazra Total Upati Gaon Ka Gaon Chak
----------------------------------------------------------------------1. Pargana Urmal 1749 57 2 146.25
2. Pargana Gaghrone 1722 43 14 14 20300 59 2. 90
3. Delhnapur 1798 172 33 32 1 30200 7306.75
4. P.Sangod 1829 71 6 6 7600 4903.40
5. P.Suket 1837 34 24 22 2 45405.2510258.35 I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
296
-Table - 6. 8
Mugata Ka gaon
Pargana Barsana '
1798, v. s.
---------------------~-------~---------------------------------s.No. Asami Total Muqata Asli Mazra Chak Upati Tappu gaon Ka gaon
----------------------~----------------------------------------1. Shergar 15 6 2 4 13000 2512
2. Mau 36 3 3 0 4500 477.65
3. Kakurni 24 13 6' 7 2000 4782
4 .. Khanpur 16 9 7 2 24900 7652
5. Golana 26. 9.5 6.5 3 17300
6.· Jpolpo 22 5 2 3 18500 2650
7. Pathavada 40 6 3 3 14000 3288
8. Mahi 14 6 5 1 25000 6333.65
9. sarahedo 60 7 6 1 22200 3830.75
1 o. Harigarh 21 3 3 5700 678.75
11. Baltha 31 25 24 1 49600 5774.50
1 2. Sarahedo 27 25 24 2 16700 4889.50
1 3. Ratlai 35 24 22 3 24700 6 236
1 4. Kudi 45 12 9 3 3550 9022.50
1 5. Bared 140 33 32 1 44200 9981.35
16. Atrohi 37 6 6 0 25200 3531.75
17. Vasthuni 56 22 21 1 24100 3401 .. 75 . 1 8. Gadgutha 148 41 32 9 46600 986 3. 40
19. Bakahani 38 32 31 1: 42600 11556.75
2 o. Delhnapur 172
21. Venai 111 98 13 134800 30075.60
------------~-~---------------------------------------------------
297
Table - 6-. 9
Muqata taken by Maharao of Kota Fram Mughal Mansabdars
--------~-~------------------------------~----------------------Asami · v. s. Dam Value of
Muqata
-------------------------~--------------------------------------
Atone 1751 165000 859.35
Gudavad 1752 200000 624.00
Itawa 1752 240000 1000.00
Luhavad 1752 300000 1406.35
Chachurni 1752 300000 1240.00 •
Ghatoli 1753 80000 509.35
Urmal 1751 107e5
Urmal 1755 1294213 12807. 75'
Baran 1764 800000 12506
Bared 1765 1402885 8766.10
Sangod 1765 2334380 14589.75
Baran 1765 7461133 466 32.00 ... ----------------------------------------------------...--------