Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

LECTURE
V.

The talookdar's emoluments.

Subordinate interests.

154

THE TALOOKDAR'S EMOLUMENTS.

he either has a zemindar above him, and then gets only a share of the profits of collection; or if there is no zemindar, he yields a portion of those profits to a representative of the former zemindar.1 When neither of these restrictions is present, he is practically a zemindar; although he may still be called by the name of talookdar, after he has outgrown its limitations. It is certain that in some cases the talookdar enjoyed full zemindary rights, although in others he did not.

In any case his chief direct emolument was, like that of the modern zemindar, the surplus revenue, or a share thereof, after paying the sum engaged for, although he had also julkur and similar rights; and as the talookdars grew powerful and the Government grew weak, they contrived always to be very lightly assessed. So that one of the results of the re-distribution into larger districts, which was intended to destroy the old zemindars, was ultimately to create a more powerful class of talookdars. The talookdars are said to have cultivated only a very small portion of the talook themselves, sufficient to supply their establishments with food; so that they derived no benefit from this source. Their main emoluments were the surplus revenue and the other perquisites which were independent of the cultivation of land by them.

The talookdar's claims did not override the subordinate rights to quite the same extent as in the case of the zemindar, the subordinate interests being still recognised. Thus in talook Moorsaun in zillah Allyghur the

[blocks in formation]

TALOOKS CREATED BY ZEMINDARS.

2

155

talookdar was found to share his profits with certain village proprietors called zemindars and biswahdars who seem to have been the representatives of the old headmen :1 while in other villages the talookdars claimed the sole right and appropriated the whole of the profits, the talookdar's claims in the latter case having overborne those of the village headmen. Again the ryots were entitled, whether under a zemindar or a talookdar, to hold in the customary way. But this right also was liable to be overridden. In Lower Bengal the talookdars were less numerous in British times than in other parts, the country being chiefly in the hands of zemindars; but in the NorthWest Provinces the talookdary rights are said to have exhibited distinctive features down to a late period.5

LECTURE
V.

Talooks created by zemin

There is another way in which talooks have grown up in modern times; namely, by the zemindar allotting por- dars. tions of the zemindary or its revenue as a provision for dependants and relations, or as a reward for services. Some are also said to have been created in order to bring waste into cultivation. These were probably granted at a low rate of revenue, and both kinds of grant were sometimes of the nature of jageers. These talookdars also in turn under-let in the same way as the zemindars.6

the talookdar's

As in the case of the zemindar I shall conclude my Discussion of account of the talookdar by quoting some of the descrip- position. tions of his position which are to be found in the authorities. Thus Mr. Grant says "that within the larger zemin

[blocks in formation]

V.

[blocks in formation]

LECTURE dary jurisdictions, sometimes the proper official possessors of these, and in many instances other natives called talookdars, hold certain copy-hold rights of property, otherwise independent of the zemindary; and which being of inconsiderable extent, of accurately ascertained value, and fixed rental, frequently acquired by purchase, though generally in the first instance through Court favour, bestowed on wealthy individuals resident in or near the Mussulman capitals, are usually allowed to descend by the rule of inheritance; and with the special sanction of the dewanny or financial administration may be otherwise transferred or sold at the discretion of the actual occupant; reserving always to the Crown its proper original dues of rent." This passage appears to refer mainly to the dependent talooks, created for the purpose of affording a provision for the talookdar, and on which as a rule the Government demand, made through the zemindar,remained fixed.

[ocr errors]

The following is Mr. Shore's account of the talookdar :— "The word talookdar means the holder or possessor of a dependency. The tenures held by persons under this description are dispersed over the whole country, and too various to be minutely ascertained. The principal distinction in the rights of talookdars arises from the privilege which many possess of paying their rents immediately at the khalsa or exchequer, instead of to the zemindars, from whose authority they are wholly exempt; being immediately subordinate to that of the Government. Talookdars of this description differ but little from zemindars; except in the limited extent of territorial jurisdiction. They are all equally bound in the performance of the same services and Harington's Analysis, Vol. III, 361.

1

2 Ib., 247.

[blocks in formation]

the payment of rents. Lately, they have with them been made subject to an enhancement of their rents; but this I understand to be contrary to more regular practice and usage. These talooks in general appear to have been originally portions of zemindaries, sold or given by the zemindars; and to have been separated from their jurisdiction, either with their consent, or by the interest of the talookdars with the governing power. Some may perhaps have been conferred by the special authority of the dewan or nazim in default of legal heirs, or in consequence of the dismission of the former talookdars for delinquency. When the separations took place the rents of the talooks were regulated by the standard of the toomar with an accumulation of subsequent imposts and charges: and this is a reason assigned for the former established practice of limiting the talookdary rents to a fixed sum, not admitting of any increase.

The talookdars, whose lands have not been separated from the zemindary of which they are portions, pay their rents to the zemindars by various rules; some at a fixed rate consisting of the toomar jumma and an addition for expenses; others are assessed according to the variable demands of the Government upon the zemindar, and pay their proportion of all the charges for which he is answerable. In Behar the talookdars pay according to the produce of their lands; and enjoy the same allowance which the zemindars themselves possess of ten per cent. malikana. Talooks of the latter description have chiefly been acquired by purchase, gift, or on condition of cultivating waste or forest lands; and far exceed the proportion of those separated from the zemindary jurisdiction. Some talookdars are little better than ryots, with a right of perpetual occupancy whilst they discharge

LECTURE

V.

V.

[blocks in formation]

LECTURE their rents agreeably to the terms of their pottahs or leases. It is generally understood as an universal rule that talooks ought not to be separated from a zemindary unless the zemindars should be guilty of oppression or extortion upon the talookdars. The latter are as anxious to obtain the immunity, as the former are strenuous in opposing it; for exclusive of the diminution of their jurisdiction, they would by this separation lose, what perhaps they have no right to exact, a russoom or fee which they generally levy over and above the established rents of the talooks. This, when talookdars are in other respects treated with lenity and justice, is acquiesced in without demur. All talookdars, unless restricted by the terms of the grants under which they hold, have a right to dispose of their lands by sale, gift, or otherwise; still subject to the same dues to which they themselves were liable; and indeed this practice prevails in opposition to the conditions of their pottahs. A zemindar has no power to resume or dispose of the lands of a talookdar. From this explanation it must appear extraordinary that a talookdar, or holder of a dependent jurisdiction, should (as has been asserted) possess a right which is denied to his superior; that of disposing of his lands by sale. In my opinion the acknowledged right of all talookdars, whether paying their revenues to the khalsa or to the zemindars, to sell their lands, is as strong a proof as can be adduced of the zemindars being invested with the same right; for we cannot on any principle admit that the latter could convey a privilege to others which they do not themselves possess."

There are two other permanent hereditary revenue officers of whom some account will be useful. These are the canoongoe and putwarry.

« ПредишнаНапред »