258 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XV, 
into 33 Parganahs; and the Parganah officials consisted of a 
These were ‘‘ entrusted with the duty of extending cultivation 
‘in the Parganah, watching that no villages fell to waste and 
‘making the yearly settlements. The Deshmukh was first i in 
‘rank and probably exercised a control over the other two.” 
Outside the Khalsa were the feudal estates of the chieftains 
who are now known as Zamindars. 
99. Chhattisgarh presents a striking contrast to these 
other types of mediaeval rule in so far as there are no indica- 
tions throughout the length and breadth of the country of the 
existence prior to the Maratha conquest of any official class. 
udkars or Revenue peons, but they were employed 
within the Garh by the Zamindar or Diwan. The only other 
‘‘ official’ to whose existence in Haihaibansi times any reference 
is made is the Panj, whose functions have been described 
in para. 86 above and who was obviously a survival of the tribal 
period rather than a creation of the central power. The whole 
administration of Chhattisgarh was carried on by hereditary 
Chieftains in charge of Garhs and Talugs who regulated the 
village communities within their boundaries. Their position 
were certainly not officials, for their tenure was hereditary. 
Though originally accepted by their overlord the family claimed 
. position more by virtue of its authority among the peo ople 
an by virtue of any appointment by the king. This absence 
a an official class was an essential — of the local system, 
and thoroughly characteristic of the mixed tribal and feudal 
organization which I have attempted pe im cribe. 
That there was no official class is nies beyond doubt, 
firstly, by the absence of any tradition or record of their exis- 
nce in Haihaibansi times, and secondly by Major sn 
Agnew’s specific statement that ‘‘Under the Haihaiban 
* Rajah the feudal principles of their rule precluded see NE in 
‘* the nature of a system of revenue.’ 
. Let us contrast what we have seen here with what 
Sir W. Hunter tells us of the history of tenures in Orissa (Orissa, 
oir II, page 214): *‘ Under the Hindu dynasties the land 
angements in our three Districts of Orissa nye to 
‘‘The ownership rested in the sovereign; the right of occu- 
Bt Ae ae ; Re 
*“* mediate tenures or - proprietary rights to grow up betw 
“themselves and the actual cultivator but treated heir 
