The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c16.s7.5

c16.s7.5

The jurists decided that the man who had constructed the canal was entitled to 10 per cent. It is significant that neither question nor finding mentions the state or the *imām* or the *bait-u'l-māl*. This I take to mean that Fīrūz had constructed these canals out of his own funds and wanted to levy *haqq-i-shirb* in his personal capacity. Hence an inquiry into the nature of private *amlāk* will prove useful. The state often gave tracts of uncultivated land to men of learning and piety so that they might bring it under cultivation. They had to pay only the *‘ushr* on it. If they did not cultivate the land themselves, they could induce peasants to settle in those areas and pay them the usual twenty per cent of the produce; out of this they paid the *‘ushr* (ten per cent of the produce) to the state (*Sirat-i-Fīrūzshāhī*, p. 147; *Inshā-i-Māhrū*, Letter XXVIII). Sometimes the state did not realize the *‘ushr*, but this concession was considered to be exceptional (*Inshā-i-Māhrū*, Letter XVI). If the grantees were rich, they, in certain instances, dug canals to reap greater benefit from their lands. They had, of course, to obtain permission from the state. Once a canal had been dug by a private individual, the state insisted that he should maintain it. The reason was that the state usually retained an interest in these *amlāk* and realized the *‘ushr* (*ibid.*). Besides a canal was a public asset. The fact that the state realized *‘ushr* is confirmed by Ibn Baṭṭūṭah (ii, p. 89) who says that when he was appointed as the guardian of Sulṭān Quṭb-u'd-dīn's tomb, he was ordered to buy thirty villages which would be attached to the tomb. He would get ten per cent of their produce for its maintenance. The traveller probably bought these villages from some *amlāk*.