Land Revenue Systems in British India: Zamindari, Ryotwari, Mahalwari

Permanent/Zamindari System

The Zamindari system (Permanent Settlement) was launched in 1793 by Governor-General Lord Cornwallis. Under this system, zamindars (hereditary landlords) collected revenue from peasants and paid a fixed sum to the government.
Cornwallis’ regulations “fixed” the land revenue permanently with zamindars, who were then treated as landowners. In practice, each zamindar entered a contract with the East India Company: if he paid the agreed revenue punctually, he kept the land and his traditional rights (except magisterial powers). 
The zamindar retained a small share (about 1/11) and remitted the rest (10/11) to the state. The Zamindari system was implemented mainly in Bengal, Bihar, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and parts of Madhya Pradesh. These zamindars were officially “recognised as the permanent owners of the land” under the agreement.

Features: 

• Zamindars held hereditary rights, collected rents from tenants, and paid a permanent fixed tax to the Company (later Crown). 

• The settlement was meant to incentivize zamindars to invest in land improvement, but instead they often exploited tenants and took high rents. 

• The British treated zamindars almost as landlords: “provided they paid their land taxes punctually, [they were] treated as landowners”.

Effects: 

• It created a powerful landed elite. The Cornwallis Code itself noted that this system “provided the British with an Indian landed class interested in supporting British authority”. 

• In return for this stability, however, small cultivators were neglected. By one account, the Permanent Settlement gave Bengal “social and political stability” at the price of neglecting the rights of the lesser landholders”. 

• In short, zamindars benefited politically and economically, but the peasantry often suffered—high rents, indebtedness, and insecurity of tenure were common. Famines also worsened as cash crops were prioritized to meet fixed revenue.

Shortcomings: 

• Cultivators rebelled against extortion. Many peasants took loans (often from moneylenders) to pay the high rents and were evicted on failure. Zamindars found the government’s revenue demands too high and risked losing estates if they defaulted. 

• Since revenue could not be raised further (being “permanent”), the colonial government also suffered: as agricultural prices rose, the Company’s income stagnated. 

• Over time this system was criticized as exploitative, and it was eventually abolished after independence (land reform laws in 1950-1951 removed zamindari rights).

Ryotwari System

The Ryotwari system was introduced in the early 19th century, notably by Sir Thomas Munro in the Madras Presidency around 1820. As its name implies (from ryot meaning peasant), it cut out landlords. Under Ryotwari, individual cultivators (ryots) paid land tax directly to the government.
Each ryot was recognized as the proprietor of his plot. In Munro's administrative correspondence and reports from the 1820s, every landholder under Ryotwari 'is recognised as its proprietor, and pays direct to Government' and 'cannot be ejected by Government so long as he pays the fixed assessment'.
The ryot had full rights: he could sell, lease, or mortgage his land, and was entitled to remissions during bad years. The assessment (tax amount) was usually fixed for a certain period (often annually revised initially, later every 30 years).

Features: 

• Direct settlement with cultivators; no middleman. Ryots paid a fixed money rent (originally as high as 50% of produce, later reduced by Munro to about one-third). 

• It eliminated the zamindari intermediary and often gave peasants more security of tenure. Munro extended this to large parts of Madras and later to Bombay, Assam, Coorg, and even parts of Punjab and Sind.

Effects: 

• It was meant to empower peasants, and did allow them a greater ownership feel. However, it also meant the state had to re-survey land constantly to assign revenue. 

• Over-assessments caused resentment. Local moneylenders (mahajans) often filled the void left by absentee zamindars, lending to ryots at high interest and foreclosing on land. The power of revenue inspectors grew unchecked. 

• Still, Ryotwari ended the Permanent Settlement’s boundaries in the south and west, and recognized the idea of peasant proprietorship in colonial law.

Mahalwari System

The Mahalwari system was a hybrid approach introduced in 1822 (with major revision in 1833). It was mainly applied in the North-Western Provinces (modern Uttar Pradesh), Punjab, and Central India. The name mahal (from Persian, meaning “estate” or “village”) indicates that revenue was settled at the village or group-of-villages level.
Implemented first in 1822 by Holt Mackenzie and his successors. Its aim was a middle path: neither sole zamindar ownership nor purely individual settlement. In a Mahalwari settlement, the entire village (or “mahal”) was treated as a single unit. The government surveyed the village lands and fixed the total revenue demand for that mahal. 
Each farmer was then collectively responsible via village headmen (lambardars) for the dues. The system was later refined by Lord William Bentinck and Sir Robert Merttins Bird in 1833 – Bird is often credited with formalizing the survey procedures.
Mahalwari covered the North-Western Provinces (later UP), parts of Punjab, the Central Provinces (Madhya Pradesh), parts of the Gangetic valley, Agra, Awadh, and Bundelkhand. 

• Features: 

  • Land was divided into mahals (often overlapping with villages or estates). A village headman collected tax from all cultivators. 

  • Revenue was not permanent; it was reassessed periodically (usually every 30 years) based on yields and prices. 

  • The government took the largest share (often two-thirds of the estimated value), leaving the rest among cultivators. Famines or bad crops could generate widespread defaults.

• Effects: 

  • It recognized a village community structure, but in practice it often burdened peasants heavily. 

  • Poor survey methods and greedy officials led to inflated assessments; many cultivators fell into debt or lost land. 

  • Unlike Permanent Settlement, zamindars did not become sovereign owners, but village headmen had new power. 

  • The Mahalwari system was later simplified (state share reduced to ~50%) but remained complex and often seen as a failure. It never gave as much security as Ryotwari did, nor the fixed guarantee of Zamindari.