121 



force of arms, have recognized and confirmed the 

 rights of the people, or concluded a treaty of peace 

 and made a settlement with them, the proprietary 

 right in the soil vests in the people, subject always 

 to the claim of the State for khiraj or revenue.* 



But from the extracts and observations cited 

 above, it will be seen that as regards the reclamation 

 of wastes, according to neither Hindoo nor Moham- 

 madan Law, can mere occupancy confer any right 

 of property whatever. 



Indeed the prominent features of both the Hindoo 

 and Mohammadan systems are, that they clearly 

 lay down the principle, that to create property in 

 waste land, it is essential that such land be occupied 

 with the consent of the Sovereign ; that it be culti- 

 vated j and that revenue be paid for it. Failing the 

 first of these conditions absolutely, or the latter two 

 within the limits defined, the Sovereign can take the 

 land away and give it to another. 



The prominent feature of the English system, I - 

 am afraid, is, that it does not clearly define any 

 principles. The collector is informed that where 

 there exist ' rights of property or of exclusive occu- 

 pancy either active or latent,' or other exclusive 

 rights, the land cannot be sold ; but what consti- 

 tutes a right of property, or what a right of occu- 

 pancy, the public and the collector the latter 



* The Mohammadan Law has been the law of the land, if 

 it can be said that there ever was a law of the land in India, 

 for the last three or four hundred years. January, 1807. 



