# Permanent Settlement and Ryotwari Settlement The Permanent Settlement and the Ryotwari Settlement were two important land revenue systems introduced by the British East India Company in India during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Both were designed primarily to secure regular and substantial land revenue for the colonial government, but they differed significantly in their treatment of landholders, peasants, assessment methods, and the relationship between the state and agricultural society. The Permanent Settlement was introduced mainly in Bengal, Bihar and parts of Orissa in 1793 under Lord Cornwallis, while the Ryotwari system developed primarily in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies, particularly through the work of Thomas Munro and Alexander Read. The Permanent Settlement was based on an agreement between the colonial government and the zamindars. Under this system, zamindars were recognised as hereditary proprietors of land, subject to the payment of a fixed amount of land revenue to the government. The settlement was made permanent, meaning that the government would not ordinarily increase the revenue demand in the future. The zamindar was required to collect revenue from cultivators and pay the stipulated amount to the state. If a zamindar failed to pay the government revenue on time, his estate could be auctioned. The system therefore strengthened the position of zamindars and created a class of landed intermediaries with a direct economic interest in agriculture. The principal objective of the Permanent Settlement was to ensure a stable and predictable source of revenue for the colonial state. The British also believed that zamindars, after acquiring secure property rights, would invest in improving agricultural production. The government expected that permanent ownership would encourage them to improve irrigation, drainage, cultivation methods and other agricultural infrastructure. Another objective was to create a politically loyal class of landlords who would have a vested interest in supporting British rule. In practice, however, many zamindars did not make significant investments in agricultural improvement. Since the government demand was fixed, increases in agricultural production and prices could increase the zamindars' income, but there was little compulsion for them to improve the condition of cultivators. Many zamindars employed agents to collect rent, while some lived away from their estates. The burden of revenue and rent frequently fell on peasants.