Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, or the Central and Western Rajput States of India v1.c20.s9.t2.17

v1.c20.s9.t2.17

The emperors of Delhi, in the zenith of their power, bestowed the epithet zamindar upon the Hindu tributary sovereigns: not out of disrespect, but in the true application of their own term Bhumia Raj, expressive of their tenacity to the soil; and this fact affords additional evidence of the proprietary right being in the cultivator (*ryot*), namely, that he alone can confer the freehold land, which gives the title of Bhumia, and of which both past history and present usage will furnish us with examples. When the tenure of land obtained from the cultivator is held more valid than the grant of the sovereign, it will be deemed a conclusive argument of the proprietary right being vested in the ryot. What should induce a chieftain, when inducted into a perpetual fief, to establish through the ryot a right to a few acres in bhum, but the knowledge that although the vicissitudes of fortune or of favour may deprive him of his aggregate signiorial rights, his claims, derived from the spontaneous favour of the commune, can never be set aside; and when he ceases to be the lord, he becomes a member of the commonwealth, merging his title of Thakur, or Signior, into the more humble one of Bhumia, the allodial tenant of the Rajput feudal system, elsewhere discussed.² Thus we have touched on the method by which he acquires this distinction, for protecting the community from violence; and if left destitute by the negligence or inability of the government, he is vested with the rights of the crown, in its share of the *bhog* or rent. But when their own land is in the predicament called *galita*, or reversions from lapses to the commune, he is ‘seised’ in all the rights of the former proprietor; or, by internal arrangements, they can convey such right by cession of the commune.