250 



principles, especially if consonant with our own 

 sense of right, is useful as an index to guide us when 

 legislating for a people less advanced than ourselves, 

 in preserving to them those privileges, to which 

 they may be justly considered to have a prescrip- 

 tive right. 



Now Hindoo and Mohammadan Law differ in 

 at least one important particular as regards land 

 tenure generall}'. According to Hindoo Law, 

 though the subject may obtain a subordinate or 

 usufructuary property by cultivation, the royal or 

 superior right of property in the soil, vests in the 

 Sovereign. Nor can he divest himself of it, except 

 by sale or gift. By the Mohammadan Law, on the 

 contrary, should a King on subduing a country by 

 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 proprietory 

 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 



