Governing property, making the modern state - PSI424

which in 1895 had been held by Salim bin ‘Ali al-Mufakkar. The mutation stated:
‘Muhammad held half a share for more than thirty years without a tapu deed; it
came to him from Salim bin ‘Ali al-Mufakkar on the basis of occupancy (wad‘
al-yad) and usufructuary possession; Salim bin ‘Ali al-Mufakkar’s name was
entered in the tax register but the real possessor (al-mutasarrif al-haqiqi) was
Muhammad who paid the miri taxes and whose name was entered in the list of
1911, only until now there was no link to registers of ownership.’ The statement
went on to say that Muhammad died on 7 February 1912 and was succeeded by
his two sons, all this in accordance with Administrative Council ruling number
126 of 10 March 1921. 36 Two points are of note. First is validation by reference
to an entry in a tax register in the name of someone who never had formal title
to land. Salim bin ‘Ali al-Mufakkar belonged to Kufr Jayiz (a village bordering
Bait Ra’s to the north west) but had been part of a sub-group holding eight
shares led by Na’il Gharaiba and his siblings (see Figure 9.5; sub-group A). He
also appears in a register of 1919–27, lending money to Gharaibas in 1922 on
the security of land. 37 What the ‘real’ relations were between Salim bin ‘Ali and
Na’il or Muhammad Gharaiba are unclear. Secondly, the half-share claimed by
Muhammad Gharaiba’s sons from Salim bin ‘Ali was distinct from what had been
in Muhammad’s own name or that of his son Qasim in the tax register of 1895:
Muhammad’s two shares were claimed by the heirs of four other brothers of Na’il,
while Qasim’s half-share was not the subject of a mutation in 1921 since it had
conformed with his entitlement in 1895 and was subsequently transacted in the
proper manner. Of the half-share claimed from Salim bin ‘Ali, Qasim would sell
his quarter-share in 1925, leaving him with nothing. 38 We return to the dynamics
of Gharaiba management of land in Chapter 11.
What motivated the Administrative Council to bring certain entries in the
tapu register of Hawwara up to date in 1921? Mutations of the tapu register
were the responsibility of the parties involved, whereas tax was above all the
concern of government. From the examples given it will be clear that being
listed in a tax register was crucial for validating a claim to title. But this was
not a complete resettlement of rights as in Bait Ra’s, nor was it the result of full
judicial procedure, nor in fact did everyone bring their entitlement into line with
their possessions. 39 Given the position of the Gharaibas in the village, it is not
surprising that so many of the 1921 mutations concerned them. From the evidence
for Hawwara, tax registration under the Ottomans was one thing, registration
of title another, and there was no obligation to marry the two. But from the
beginning of the Mandate, first the vergi tax registers were updated according
to existing procedures, then tapu registers were brought into line with facts on
the ground as validated by tax registers (including a crop tax register of 1911),
and finally in 1926 there was an order to keep entries in the vergi tax register
in line with tapu entries. We document this briefly before going back to look in
closer detail at the relation between what was represented in the tax register of
1895 and the state of entitlement to land at that time.
137
Two plains villages