AGRARIAN RELATIONS IN COASTAL ANDHRA 21 harassed by the exactions of heavier assessments on inferior lands., were saddled with overwhelming arrears. L^nd held directly by the government in coastal Andhra was called haveli. Under Muslim rule certain lands situated around the capital towns were set apart for the provisioning of garrisons. The East India Company made additions to these havelis by acquiring lands of the rebellious zamindars. Two modes of revenue collection prevailed in the havelis. One was aumani, and the other leasing out land on stipulated rent. Revenue Collection in Haveli Lands The principal features of the aumani settlement was that government received the land revenue in kind. The amil (government officer of revenue) would visit the village, inspect the books of the karnam and grant leases to the ryots specifying their customary share. At harvest time the amil would report to the fon^dar who would depute nnchandars (estimators) to value the crops. The fouzdar would invite the ryots to give their own estimates of the produce and if any difference was found between these two, he would ask a trusted third person to make the third estimate. If the third estimate differed from the earlier two, the fouzdar would settle the difference at mean value. The share of the cultivator varied from one half to one third.7 The second method of revenue collection was to rent ouc the land to leading inhabitants in portions, sometimes as big as a pargana. The ^head inhabitants" {pettandar) would in turn sub-rent to individual ryots. Sometimes village communities were asked to settle among themselves the amounts of their respective rents, the inhabitants becoming jointly and severally responsible for the aggregate demand upon the village. The share of the government with reference to market price of the grain or its average price over a certain number of years, was called the grain rent. These settlements were far from perfect, made neither on the basis of surveys nor of pallahs issued to the cultivators.8 The poorer » ryots were always at the mercy of the ^head inhabitant55 in a system ( ^ of oppression which appeared to be quite intense in the havelis ofi Masulipatam. The collection of land revenue was either in specie or in kind, generally the former. Expenses of the ^renter55 on his staff consisting of an amaldar and a few sibbandy (subordinates) were usually not more than four per cent of the revenue though it was stated to cost around ten per cent. A portion of the gross produce was in general appropriated, apparently for repairs of tanks and the like, but its outlay was always so insufficient that the ryots were frequently obliged to make a collection among themselves for this purpose. The karnams had their own ways of exploiting the ryots:. In Ellore.. many villages have three or four karnams instead of one,