Mahalwari, Ryotwari and Zamindari systems

Mahalwari System:

In 1833, the Mahalwari Settlement was introduced in the Punjab, the central provinces and parts of north western provinces (Present UP). Under this system the basic unit of revenue settlement was the village or the mahal. As the village land belonged jointly to the village community the responsibility of paying the revenue rested with the entire mahal or the village community. So the entire land of the village was measured at the time of fixing the revenue. A modified Mahalwari system called Gram Vyavastha or Village Settlement was introduced in the Punjab. Though the Mahalwari system eliminated the middlemen between the govt. and the village community & brought about improvement in irrigation facility yet its benefit was largely appropriated by the govt.

Whereas the Zamindari the Ryotwari settlements were inferior adoptions respectively of English & French systems the Mahalwari settlement was an improvisation of the traditional India system of an economic community

Ryotwari System:

Where the land revenue was imposed directly on the ryots -- the individual cultivators who actually worked the land—the system of assessment was known as ryotwari. Under the Ryotwari System every registered holder of land is recognised as its proprietor, and pays directly to Government. He is at liberty to sublet his property, or to transfer it by gift, sale, or mortgage. He cannot be ejected by Government so long as he pays the fixed assessment, and has the option annually of increasing or diminishing his holding, or of entirely abandoning it. In unfavourable seasons remissions of assessment are granted for entire or partial loss of produce. The assessment is fixed in money, and does not vary from year to year, in those cases where water is drawn from a Government source of irrigation to convert dry land into wet, or into two-crop land, when an extra rent is paid to Government for the water so appropriated; nor is any addition made to the assessment for improvements effected at the Ryot's own expense. The Ryot under this system is virtually a Proprietor on a simple and perfect title, and has all the benefits of a perpetual lease without its responsibilities, inasmuch as he can at any time throw up his lands, but cannot be ejected so long as he pays his dues; he receives assistance in difficult seasons, and is irresponsible for the payment of his neighbours. . . . The Annual Settlements under Ryotwari are often misunderstood, and it is necessary to explain that they are rendered necessary by the right accorded to the Ryot of diminishing or extending his cultivation from year to year. Their object is to determine how much of the assessment due on his holding the Ryot shall pay, and not to reassess the land. In these cases where no change occurs in the Ryots holding a fresh Potta or lease is not issued, and such parties are in no way affected by the Annual Settlement, which they are not required to attend

Zamindari System:

Zamindari system was a way of collecting taxes from peasants. The zamindar was considered a lord, and would collect all taxes on his lands and then hand over the collected taxes to the British authorities (keeping a portion for himself). The similarities to medieval feudalism are evident.
Under the British, they resembled landed gentry (although they lived similarly privileged lives under the Mughals) and sometimes styled themselves as little kings, or rajas. Some new Zamindars were old Rajas.