PATTIDARI, meaning co-sharing or shareholding, was, like misldari, a system of land tenure during the Sikh period. The basic principle traced its roots to the time-honored institution of joint family and inheritance of property in equal shares by descendants (male only) whenever a division occurred, as the rule of primogeniture was practically unknown among the common people in India. Patti in Punjabi means a share as well as partnership, and pattidar refers to a shareholder, co-sharer, or partner. This system emerged in the initial stages of Sikh rule in Punjab.
As Henry T. Prinsep records in his The Origin of the Sikh Power in the Punjab and Political Life of Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1834): “When the misls acquired their territorial possessions, it became the first duty of the chiefs to partition out the lands, towns, and villages among those who considered themselves as having made the conquest, shamil, or in common.”
A village allotted by the sardar or chief of a misl to a “sarkarda or leader of the smallest party of horse that fought under the standard of the misl” was held jointly by the allottee’s family or was further divided according to common law of inheritance.
In some instances, a single village would be allotted to more than one person or family, resulting in the land being divided into proportionate shares called pattis or tarafs (lit. side or direction), with each sharer owning a taraf. The residential area of the village would also be divided into wards, usually on a clan basis, which are still called pattis in Punjabi. More often than not, the entire village land was not fully divided, and a portion was kept as shamlat or village common land, managed by the panchayat, a council of village elders.
Land held under the pattidari tenure was heritable but could not be sold, though it could be mortgaged. Over time, the division and redivision of a pattidari holding gradually reduced the holders to the status of subsistence jagirdars. Since this tenure was permanent and hereditary, these holders were ultimately absorbed into the general category of peasant proprietors.
References:
- Prinsep, H.T., The Origin of the Sikh Power in the Punjab and Political Life of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Calcutta, 1834.
- Banga, Indu, Agrarian System of the Sikhs
More Information:
Agriculture was the oldest and the largest important occupation, and land was the chief means of livelihood for the people of southeast Punjab. The land revenue was a major source of income for the governments. As such, the British authorities also paid attention to agriculture and land revenue policies as soon as they assumed power in the region. Before the British occupied this land, there were no records of rights in land, and peasants cultivated land individually. However, their rights over the land were defined and limited by the social structure of the village communities. In all villages, the right of property in the land was clearly recognized among the present agricultural inhabitants by descent, purchase, or gift.
Each village was imagined to have belonged primarily to one caste or clan of inhabitants, such as Jats or Gujjars, etc. Smaller villages more generally preserved their integrity in this respect than larger ones. In deserted villages, the proprietary right had not been clearly stated to be in the parties inhabiting them; it was, however, pretty well understood to have belonged to them. The villages were usually divided into an indeterminate number of superior divisions called Panas, seldom exceeding four or five in a village. These divisions were further subdivided into Tholas, of no fixed number, which were subject to still smaller separations. The divisions by Panas and Tholas were more nominal than practical with respect to defining either the extent of proprietary rights in the lands or the proportion of the public demand. Nevertheless, families, clans, or classes regulated the quota of the aggregate Jumma or public demand chargeable.
After the advent of the British in southeast Punjab, they observed that the public assessment upon land had never been fixed. According to established usage and custom, the rulers exercised their discretionary and despotic authority. The government, therefore, decided to develop a policy of settlement and determined the type of land tenure in each region. The salient features of the settlement policy in southeast Punjab included a proper field survey with the results embodied in a field map and register, a thorough inquiry into the rights and liabilities of all persons having an interest in the soil, and the recording of these rights and liabilities in permanent registers. The settlement in the southeastern region was ‘Mahalwari,’ wherein the assessment unit was an ‘estate’ or groups of holdings owned under one title—for instance, by a single owner, a community, or a proprietary body.
The tenures of southeast Punjab were classified into four categories:
- Zamindari
- Pattidari
- Bhaichara
- Mixed or imperfect Pattidari/Bhaichara
The Zamindari tenure was possessed with full proprietary rights by a single owner; Pattidari tenure covered cases in which land was divided and held ‘in severalty’ by different proprietors according to ancestral or customary shares. In Bhaichara tenure, land was held ‘in severalty’ without reference to ancestral or customary shares. The fourth category, mixed Bhaichara/Pattidari, involved lands held partly in severalty and partly in common, with the measure of right in common land being the share or extent of land held in severalty. In Pattidari tenure, each share was regulated by the revenue payable; in Bhaichara tenure, the revenue payable regulated the share.
In Hissar and Rohtak districts, a few ‘Zamindari’ villages were of the northwestern type, i.e., villages originally formed by individuals who had become landlords. In other villages, groups consisting of owners of older proprietary rights mixed with new settlers formed ‘Bhaichara’ bodies—with minimal reference to the original meaning of the term. A Zamindar of the first rate possessed four ploughs; otherwise, he was considered part of a group that united their means to cultivate lands.
A new method of Chaubacha tenure was introduced in the Hissar district during the first ten years of settlement (1816–1825) by Fraser, the collector, to facilitate the collection of revenue. The Chaubacha or fourfold rate referred to a mode peculiar to this part of southeast Punjab for distributing, among individual members of a village community, the sum levied by way of revenue upon it as a corporate whole.
The Sukh Lambari tenure was famous in Hissar and Sirsa tehsils. These tenures were created in 1819 by granting waste lands to officers and soldiers of nine disbanded cavalry regiments. Succession was regulated by Muhammadan or Hindu Law, as the case might be.
The circumstances from which talukdari rights had sprung were very diverse. In a good many cases, the superior owners were descendants of persons who once exercised political sway or enjoyed a lordship over the soil. Although they were ousted during the dominion of the Sikhs, they managed to collect, at harvest with varying regularity, some small proprietary fees, such as a ser for every maund of produce from the persons actually in possession of the land.
The tenure of land in the Delhi district was not complex. Of the 810 villages in the Delhi district, nearly 12% were of zamindari, 41% were of pattidari, and 46% were of bhaichara tenure. In Karnal district, of the 833 villages classified for the purpose of settlement, 7% were of zamindari and 93% of mixed or imperfect pattidari or bhaichara. In Hissar district, three classes of village tenures existed: 25% were zamindari, 15% were pattidari, and 60% were bhaichara. In Gudah, Fazilka, and Khadar land in Sirsa district, out of 358 villages, 85% were zamindari, 14% were pattidari, and 1% were bhaichara. In Gurgaon district, out of 1,233 total villages, 13% were zamindari, nearly 1% were pattidari, 26% were bhaichara, and 60% were mixed.
Two groups of landholders were identified in southeast Punjab: those having 1–20 acres and those having 25–50 acres. The former were taken into account because 1–20 acres were easily accessible and operated, while the latter required support from laborers and had long-term consequences. Regarding the first category, all districts excluding Hissar had almost 18% of the land held by owners with 1–20 acres, or slightly more (up to 1–2%) in operation.
Besides the actual owners of the soil, among whom the village lands were either divided or undivided, and with whom the right of property rested as heirs to those of earlier days, there were four classes of cultivators: the old residents (royat), the itinerants (pahee), the hired (kamera), and the partial cultivators (kameen).
The Old Residents (Royat)
The old residents or royat were usually ancient family residents of the village and had cultivated the same lands. They attained the highest rights in the village, subordinate to those of the proprietors. As long as they discharged their proportion of the public assessment due, they were not liable to ejectment. If they failed and no individual sharer had exclusive rights, the land reverted to the division.
The Itinerants (Pahee)
The itinerant or pahee cultivators were residents of a different village. These cultivators could abandon their lands, and the owner of the land could prohibit their return at their discretion. However, the proprietors generally favored them, offering favorable terms that equated to one-fourth less of their produce compared to established cultivators.
The Hired Cultivators (Kamera)
The hired cultivators or kamera were daily laborers, referred to in India under the denomination of coolies. They earned three to four rupees per month or agreed to receive one-sixth of the produce of the land, along with half a seer of grain per day and seasonal clothing during harvest. Proprietors encouraged their settlement.
The Partial Cultivators (Kameen)
The partial cultivators or kameen were those whose occasional leisure from primary occupations permitted them to cultivate a few beegahs of land. They contributed to the realization of taxation imposed by proprietors, as noticed in the choubacha plan. They were compensated for professional assistance by proprietors with an allowance of grain from each plough.
The agriculturist castes included Ahirs, Jats, Rajputs, Ranghars, Meos, and Gujjars. The non-agriculturist classes were Brahmins, Banias, and menials who received dues at harvest time for fixed services. These menials were divided into two categories:
- Those intimately concerned with agriculture (e.g., blacksmiths, carpenters, tanners).
- Those offering services in other ways (e.g., weavers, barbers, potters, watermen, washermen, sweepers).
To summarize, agriculture was the chief means of livelihood for the people of southeast Punjab, and land revenue was the primary source of government income. Before the British era, there were no records of land rights, and peasants cultivated land individually. After the British advent, records of rights were established to determine liability for revenue, primarily dependent on cultivating possession. The land tenure system of southeast Punjab was divided into four groups: zamindari, pattidari, bhaichara, and mixed or imperfect pattidari. Zamindari dominated Sirsa (85%), pattidari existed in 40% of Delhi, bhaichara covered 60% of Hissar, and mixed tenures were prevalent in Karnal (93%) and Gurgaon (60%). Cultivators were also divided into four classes: old residents (ryats), itinerants (pahee), hired cultivators (kamera), and partial cultivators (kameen).
Manoj Kumar
