30 SOCIAL SCIENTIST revenue paid by those who had managed to retain their estates accounted for less than one-third of the annual revenue demand on the temporarily settled areas. Though a market in proprietory (zamindari) rights emerged, this right did not immediately become an attractive asset. The average sale price of zamindari right, sold by auction for failure to meet the revenue demand, during 1805-19 was between half to equal of the annual revenue demand.8 The new (urban based) zamindars who came to hold land through auction-purchase were more severe in rackrenting their ryots, perhaps because they were uninhibited by any 'patron-client* relation that might have restrained the earlier zamindars. Moreover, they came down heavily upon the intermediary tenure holders, such as mokaddams and sarbarakars, without whom they could collect and appropriate more. The intermediary tenure holders had hitherto enjoyed near sovereignty, the privilege of sale or mortgage with respect to their rights, as in the case of their superiors, viz. zamindars and talukdars. During the early years of British rule the zamindars subjected the intermediary tenure holders to the same treatment which the zamindars had received from the Marathas, a very large section of the intermediaries was dispossessed. In the estates of the auction purchasers they were 'very generally annihilated1, and in the few estates where they survived they were reduced to 'mere leaseholders'. By 1837, the sub-proprietary tenure holders in the temporarily settled zamindari estates were responsible for collecting less than one-fourth of the annual revenue; the rest was collected by the zamindars directly from the ryots.9 During 1837-45, the first efforts were made by the government to enquire into the various questions relating to the fixation of revenue and rent. A detailed survey of the assessed area was made. The rent and revenue were fixed by field-to-field enumeration, considering the quality of the soil and crops grown, etc. All the rights to land such as those of the numerous undertenures were ascertained. The total revenue demand was fixed at Rs. 16,89/630, of which Rs. 13.82 lakhs were on the temporarily settled area. Although the overall high revenue demand was maintained, the inequality in distribution of the total demand was reduced to some extent. The settlement took effect from 1837 and was originally intended to expire in 1867.10 However, due to the Great Orissa Famine of 1866, the term of the settlement was extended up to 1897. During the initial years of British rule the zamindars had experienced great hardship in meeting the revenue demand and their share in rent was small compared to the revenue collected by the government. By the settlement of 1837 they (in the temporarily settled areas) were allowed 36 per cent of the total assets as malikana. The conclusion of the settlement operation was followed by a drastic fall in agricultural prices. The prices continued to be low up to 1855 and then