Administrative System of the Marathas c18.s6.1

c18.s6.1

The chief man in the village was the Patil. He was the chief revenue officer, the chief Police Magistrate, and he united in him the function of the chief judicial officer also. He acted as an intermediary between the villagers and the Peshwa's officer and served as a link between the village and the suzerain state. In the village he had the advantage of acting as the exponent of the Peshwa's authority, and before the Kamavisdar or the Mamlatdar he appeared as the authorised representative of his village. As the officer responsible for revenue collection, he was consulted by the Kamavisdar at the time of assessment; if the assessment was too high, he had the right to protest, and in case the Kamavisdar still remained obstinate, the Patil could bring him to reason by leaving the village and making any collection whatever impossible. That they actually had recourse to this step in extreme cases can be proved by a letter, dated 1773-74. It runs: "A sanad to Gopal Rao Bhagwant Kamavisdar, Pargana Indapur. The *kharif* and *rabi* crops of the aforesaid Pargana failed owing to drought. The Patils wanted a new inspection of the fields to be made and the rate of rent revised accordingly; and they retired to Tenbhurni (to enforce their claim). You wrote that they should be brought back and an inspection of fields made, and collection made accordingly" (1773-74 Madhava Rao II).³ The prayer was granted in this case. Another document says that "The Zamindars and Patils of Taluk Shivner, being dissatisfied, left their place and went to Kasba Ale. A Karkun was sent to them and they made known their grievances. You sent a written account of these grievances to the Huzur and they were as follows.⁴ It is needless to say that in this case also the Patils succeeded in making their grievances heard and in getting them redressed. On another occasion (1775-76) the Patils of Pargana Sinnar succeeded in compelling the Kamavisdar to accept the Zamindars as sureties for the cultivation of land and payment of revenue.⁵ But it was only in extreme cases that the Patil had recourse to this extreme measure. Generally they would represent their case to the Peshwa as did the Patil and Kulkarni of Mauja Rajapur, Pargana Wan.⁶