PERMANENT SETTLEMENT 55 will march against you after the rains and settle your business.' Jugal Kishore Singh seems to have refused to comply with the Governor's orders and Robert Barker was despatched to Bettiah in the beginning of 1766 to demolish the fort and punish the defaulting Zamindar. On Barker's arrival Jugal Kishore Singh at first thought of offering some resistance to the Company's forces but realizing the futility of such an action he quietly fled away .... Barker brought his Zamindari under the direct management of of the Company .... During the absence of Jugal Kishore Singh the management of the Raj was entrusted by the Company to Sri Krishna Singh of Sheohar and Ahdhut Singh of Madhuban.... But it seems that the Bettiah raj did not prosper and revenues were collected with great difficulty. In June 1771, the Supervisor of Sarkar Saran, Edward Golding, informed the controlling Council of Revenue at Patna that Cham" par an was in a state af desolation and ruin, and suggested that the restora' tion of Jugal Kishore Singh would help in fts recovery. The Revenue Council forwarded this letter to the Controlling Committee of Revenue at Fort William . ... He supported the reinstatement of Jugal Kishore Singh and suggested that Parganas Majhwa and Simraon be restored to Jugal Kishore Singh because, the people of those paraganas were attached to him;97 Main Consideration It is, thus, clear that the control that the ^amindars had on their tenants or people was considered to be of immense value by the British because they did not have much contact with the people at that time nor did they have any administrative network of their own to collect the revenue directly from the people. This is substantiated by Heber who was told by the judge and magistrate of Monghyr: ^Thc Zamindaris in this neighbourhood are mostly very large and possessed by the representatives of ancient families, who by the estimation in which they arc held have the more authority over the peasants. Though a Zamindar of this kind has no legal control over his people, he possesses greater effective control than a great landowner in England exercises over his tenants".8 This kind of integration between the intermediaries and the peasants was the result of a long social custom. In this context two Mughal firmans relating to Bihar arc significant. The first is the firman of Emperor Akbar granting Kanoongoi and Choudharai of Sarkar Tirhut to Gopal Thakur9 and the second of Emperor Aur-angzcb granting Rajai and Choudharai of the said Sarkar to Raja Rudranarain.10. In both of these firmans the concern for ryots is pointedly brought out. The local rajas and choudharis, it seems, had