Page 48 - Muzaffargarh Gazzetteer

The superior proprietors, Malikan Ala, claimed to be owners of all
unappropriated land, and entitled to a small share of the crop produced in
the appropriated land. The Malikan Adna, who were full proprietors of the
land in possession, subject to the payment of the share of the old proprietors,
were not liable to eviction on failure to pay it, and were entitled to introduce
tenants without reference to the superior proprietors. Since annexation, the
fortune of the superior proprietors had varied. In some villages, the tenure
had disappeared. In others, especially where little unappropriated land was
left, the lambardari, which was a novelty, took the place of the superior
proprietary right. The superior proprietors, as such, had no right to interfere
in the management of the cultivation of the appropriated lands of a village.
The settlement had in no case been made with them. Except where they were
also inferior proprietors, their rights were restricted to receiving their fee in
grain or cash and to disposing of the unappropriated waste land in the
village. The name of the superior proprietary right was zamindari,
muqaddami or milkiyat ala. The share of the produce was haq zamindari, haq
muqaddami and malikans; or more often the specific rate at which the share
was fixed; e.g. adh-sera man and pai path were used instead of the other
generic terms. In Kot Addu and Layyah tehsils, it was called “Satten panwen",
or the seven quarters of a rupee. The institution fee was called jhuri saropa,
pag and lungi.
The Multani Pathans
One set of superior proprietors was formed by the direct action of the British
Government. They were the persons known as the Multani Pathans. Under
the Pathan Governors of Multan, a number of Pathans had settled in the
district. They enjoyed grain allowances which were given as a deduction from
the mahsul, or Government share of the produce. When the Sikhs in 1818
took Multan, the Pathans fled from the country. In 1848, they joined Major
Edwards and rendered services in his operations against Mul Raj. When the
country had become quiet, the Pathans claimed restoration. The rules of
limitation were set aside in their favour, and the Board of Administration
prescribed rules for the regulation of the trial of suits instituted by the
Pathans of Multan for the recovery of their ancestral rights, of which the
following is an extract.
“Rule 2 --To establish the right of a party to sue, irrespective of the statute
of limitation on the merits of his claims to repossession of zamindari
property, he must prove that he was a Multani Pathan present with Major
Edwards’s force, or that he is a member of a family of Multani Pathans, some
of the members of which family were present with Major Edward's force”.
In pursuance of those rules, cases continued to be heard up to December,
1852, and the Pathans obtained decrees for Kasur (rent of the inferior
proprietors) in the villages of Jalalabad, Pipli, Ran, Khanghin, Mehra Faraz,
Wafadarpur, Mehra Nasheb, Ghazanfargarh, Doaba, Jarh Latukran, Langar
Sarai and Lalpur. It was not observed at the time that under the Pathan
Governor, this Kasur was paid as a deduction from the revenue, and that if

43