The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c16.s7.7

c16.s7.7

Then remains the question of *haqq-i-shirb*, which, let it be noted, ‘Afīf puts in a different category from ‘the produce of new villages’. Thus the *haqq-i-shirb* would accrue only in areas which were already under cultivation when the canal was dug. The digger of the canal, therefore, could not claim that he had brought waste land under cultivation and, therefore, he could not claim to be its owner. In such instances, the jurists decided, he was entitled to a tenth of the produce as *haqq-i-shirb*. The net percentage which he received was the same as would accrue to him from the new villages, but the legal position was different. In this instance, he was not the owner paying *‘ushr* to the state, but the owner of irrigation works charging the state a tenth as his dues. To sum up, then, if the canal passed through an area already paying *kharāj*, the sultan charged ten per cent. as *haqq-i-shirb* and paid the rest into the state treasury; thus the sultan and the state each received ten per cent. of the produce. If new land was brought under cultivation on the banks of the royal canal, the peasant still paid twenty per cent. but the sultan claimed to be the owner of these villages and paid only half of what he realized as *‘ushr*. Thus the privy purse gained only by ten per cent.