Question

do you think the ryotwari settlement was less impressive than the permanent settlement​

Answer 1

Answer:

yes

In the Permanent Settlement, the taluqdars were the owners of the land. They paid a fixed rent to the Company. They distributed their land among the peasants. They earned the desired interest from them. In other words, the Permanent Settlement benefitted most the rich Zamindars. They had to pay the revenue that was fixed in perpetuity. The state was unable to claim its share in the enhanced income of the farmers. On the contary, under the Ryotwari system, the government got tax from those who cultivated lands with their own hands.

Under the Ryotwari system, all the middlement were removed. This system was better than the Permanent Settlement of revenue. It increased the rights of the farmers. It also increased the income of the state. Infact the Ryotwari Settlement was introduced to alleviate the drawbacks of the Permanet Settlement.

Answer 2

$Hope \: it \: helps \: you :)$

❏Realizing the disadvantages of the Permanent Settlement as also due to administrative difficulties the East India Company introduced settlements in other parts of India which were quite different from the line adopted in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.❏

❏In the Deccan, for example, new land settlement was introduced which came to be known as the Ryotwari Settlement. In this system settlement of land was directly made between the government and the ryot, i.e. the cultivators or tenants. Moreover, in the ryohvciri settlement the revenue was fixed for a period of thirty years and not on a Permanent basis as was in the case of Permanent Settlement.❏