• This arrangement of land income was organized in the late eighteenth century by Sir Thomas Munro, Governor of Madras in 1820.
• This was applicable in the Madras and Bombay zones, just as Assam and Coorg areas.
• In this framework, the workers or cultivators were viewed as the proprietors of the land. They had possession rights that permitted them to sell, home loan, or gift the land to whomsoever they wished to.
• The charges were straightforwardly gathered by the public authority from the proprietors.
• The rates were fifty percent in dryland and sixty percent in the wetland and it was non-debatable.
• The rates were high and not at all like the Permanent System, where they available to being expanded.
• If they neglected to cover the assessments, they were evicted by the public authority.
• Ryot implies laborer cultivators.
• Here there were no brokers as in the Zamindari framework. Be that as it may, since high assessments must be paid distinctly in liquid money (no choice of paying in kind as before the British) the issue of moneylenders came into the show. They further troubled the laborers with substantial loan fees and they kept on abusing the farmers.
Results of the British land income system
• Land turned into a product.
• Earlier there was no private responsibility for the property, even the kings and cultivators didn’t think about land as their ‘private property.
• Due to the extremely high expenses, farmers turned to developing money crops rather than food crops. This prompted food weakness and even starvations.
• Taxes on farming produce were moderate during pre-British occasions. The British made it high.
• Insistence on cash installment of income prompted more obligation among ranchers. Moneylenders became landowners at the appointed time.
• Bonded work emerged on the grounds that credits were given to ranchers/workers who couldn’t take care of it.
• When India accomplished independence from frontier rule, 7% of the locals (Zamindars/landowners) possessed 75% of the horticultural land.