242 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S . XV, 
an almost unlimited authority within their respective Zamin- 
same condition (vide para. 63 above). And finally we have 
Agnew’s report from which I have already quoted para. 16 
above to place the matter beyond the reach of dou 
7 ese arguments must finally dispose of Mi Hewitt’s 
statement aniede ing the ‘‘ immediate control” of Chhattisgarh 
by the Haihaibansi kings. Mr. Hewitt was doubtless misled 
the term Khalsa used in the old Deshbahi to describe the 
consisted in its indication not that the Chhattisgarh were 
under the centralized authority of the Rajput kings, but that 
they were under relatively close control compared with the 
ee tributary states in the hands of almost indepen- 
t Rajas, and t at they constituted an integral portion of the 
nena ur kingdom. The intrinsic inconsistency of Mr. Hewitt’s 
position is exemplified by his remarks about the old Chaurasis 
of Suarmar and Kowrea. The old holders of these estates still 
retain possession of their ancient Garhs. So Mr. Hewitt writes : 
+ “Suarm mar and Kowrea held by Gonds, were Khalsa Parganahs 
‘in the time of Kulhan Sen, but being held continuously by 
** the old Talooqdars their descendants have established a claim 
the record of their estates as Khalsa Perganahs in 1560 and 
therefore under the king’s immediate control does not trans- 
pire. 
74. Captain Blunt in his Narrative of 1795 gives a good 
idea of the real distinction between tributary States and 
‘‘ Khalsa Perganahs.”” Matin is one of the best known of the 
Chhattisgarh Zamindaris. It has been in the possession of 
its present horediiaey chief for centuries, and ae to the 
present chief’s family a Gond chieftain is known to have 
held the estate. Yet Captain Blunt when he pee the 
estate on March 3rd, 1795, writes—“ crossing the river Hasdo 
we entered upon ‘ The Mahrattas’ Khas Purgunnah of M ahtin.” 
Obviously he merely means that Matin formed an integral part 
of the Maratha dominions; and doubtless this is all that was 
meant by the term Khalsa Pergunnah i in the old Deshbahi of the 
Haihaibansis 
75. I ‘ive established sufficiently, I think, the fact that 
the old native documents do disclose a system of feudal, or 
mixed feudal and tribal, devolution of control over the greater 
part of the country held by the Haihayas in the 16th century. 
But in regard to the details of the cata’ yt at that period 
we get very little help from what Messrs. Hewitt and Chisholm 
— from these old contemporary records. Both of these 
cers seem to have made rather an uncritical examination of 
