Графични страници
PDF файл


aurungs, or iron manufactories, in Beerbhoom. The suit Lectcrk

T. r. vm

was one to recover the possession of those manufac- —

tories, and also to recover the proprietary dues levied on the iron ores there manufactured. It appeared on the first hearing that the aurungs were situated in pergunnah Mullarpore in the zemindary of Beerbhoom; that the sums derived by the former zemindar of Beerbhoom from the iron ore had always been collected separately, and kept distinct from the collections for the land, and formed a distinct branch of the zemindar's revenue under the name of the loha mehal; on account of which he had also paid a separate jumma, the accounts of this jumma being kept distinct in the Collector's books. The zemindary of Beerbhoom came afterwards under the management of Government, and the loha mehal was then farmed separately. The late zemindar had sold to the defendant the zemindary, specifying in the instrument the mehals sold and the rights conveyed, but not mentioning the loha mehal; and the Government had conveyed the loha mehal to the plaintiff at a specified jumma. The question was decided in the first instance in favour of the plaintiff. A further enquiry was then directed as to the nature of the plaintiff's rights, when it appeared that the ore was purchased by dealers from the persons who dug or collected it, but it did not appear who those persons were. The ore was then sold to the manufacturers, who paid certain dues at the aurungs on the quantity manufactured. Dues were also levied on the ore when dug, and these dues were paid to the holder of the loha mehal; and the zemindar as such had no right to interfere with the working or manufacture. The Court, upon the whole of the facts, declared the plaintiff entitled

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

to the exclusive right to receive the dues paid at the aurungs as well as on the ore dug; as also to require the ore to be manufactured at his aurungs. It was further declared that the defendants were not entitled to establish aurungs or to interfere with the digging or manufacture of the ore; but, on the other hand, that the plaintiff could not establish new aurungs without the license of the possessor of the land: but that he might open new mines, making full compensation for the injury to the surface. It was further declared that these rights could only be exercised in the customary way.1 This case shows that in practice the right to the soil itself is found separated from the right to the cultivation. The separation in this case does not seem to have originated with the zemindar, but to have been all along insisted upon by the Government: and the Permanent Settlement does not seem to have been considered to entitle the zemindar to the minerals as part of the soil for which he was settled with as actual proprietor. It is true the settlement for the minerals had been made with the zemindar, the convenience of such a course being obvious; but the separate assessment and separate conveyance of the loha mehal were considered sufficient to show that the loha mehal was held in a different right from the zemindary.

The Permanent Settlement led to a great extension of cultivation ;2 the waste which is said to have been one-third or one-half being much reduced: the cultivation of waste land was one of the objects of the Settlement.*

Extension of

1 Gooroopershad Bose v. Bisnoochurn Heyra, 1 Sel. Rep., 337.
'Kobinson's Land Revenue, p. 29.

* Rajah Lelanund Sing BuLadoor r. The Bengal Government, 6 Mooru's I. A., 114.



The zemindars freed from Government interference—Changes in the zemindar's position—The saver collections taken away—Regulation IX of 1825, s. 9— Resumption—Remission of revenue—Accounts—Contumacy—Preserving the peace—Exactions and oppression—Cesses—Proportion taken by the State— Disqualified proprietors—Julkur, bunkur, phulkur—General effect of the Permanent Settlement upon the zemindar's position—Position of the zemindar's tenants—Pottahs—Cabooleuts—Dependent talookdars—Separation of independent talooks—Assessment of talooks excluded from the Permanent Settlement—Enhancement—Enhancement by auction-purchasers—Putteedars—Intermediate permanent tenures—Khoodkasht ryots—Mokurreree tenures—Istemrari and mouroosee tenures—Statutory mokurreree tenures of ryots—Mokurreree intermediate tenures—Mokurreree istemrari—Such tenures proved by long possession—Right of occupancy—Acquisition of the right.

We have seen that the policy of the Permanent Settlement The zemindars was to secure to the zemindars and other proprietors settled Government with the enjoyment and free disposition of their holdings under certain restrictions. The interference of Government with the zemindars was reduced as much as possible, and on the other hand the State resumed the functions which it had hitherto performed through the zemindar, with the exception of those functions which were originally performed by the zemindar as an officer of the State in connexion with the assessment and realisation of the revenue paid by the cultivators. These were considered, as no doubt they had to a great extent come to be, part of the proprietary right of the zemindar. He was therefore permitted to assess the under-tenants, as we may now call them, within his zemindary without interference by the Government in its executive capacity. Even the record of


Lkcturk such assessments, which was required by the Regulations of — the 23rd November 17911 to be furnished by the zemindar*, was dispensed with; the Regulations for the Permanent Settlement, although re-enacting the Decennial Settlement rules, having omitted this provision.2 In fact the ancient system of minute scrutiny and supervision was almost entirely abandoned, in the expectation that the zemindar, being free from Government interference, would look to the improvement of his zemindary as a source of profit rather than to exactions from the ryots. The abandonment of the old system was not however without its disadvantages; and in particular it was no easy matter to determine questions as to the resumption of alienated revenue, or the compensation to be awarded for the abolition of the sayer. Other questions which would have presented equal difficulties, such as allowances for bad seasons, floods, and other calamities, were settled by the abolition of such remissions.3 Changes in the I shall first notice some of the changes made up to this


position. time in the zemindar's position. One of the most important of these was the prohibition against collecting either the bazee jumma or the sayer.4 The bazee jumma thus abolished was supposed at the time to consist merely of fines and forfeitures, but it was afterwards found that it included many taxes of an unexceptionable nature.5 The sayer chelunta was first abdlished,6 and the customs generally put upon a different footing, the collection being still

[ocr errors]


left with the zemindars.1 But by the Regulations of the Lecturk 11th June 1790 the right of the zemindar to collect the —

° ... The sayer

sayer was taken away, compensation being given for the loss collections
of the right to collect these duties.2 The revenue derived
from these collections was consequently excluded in assess-
ing the jumma at the time of the Decennial and Permanent
Settlements.* The Regulations upon this subject, with the
practical rules for estimating and paying the compensation
to be given, were afterwards collected in Regulation XXVII
of 1793. This Regulation recites that the imposition and
collection of internal duties being the immemorial privilege
of Government, it had consequently been a well known law
that no one could establish a gunge, haut or bazar without
the authority of Government. This privilege had however
been exercised by the landholders under certain restrictions:
but those restrictions had proved insufficient to prevent
abuses, and the Regulations of the 11th June 1790 were
consequently passed. The consequences of this measure were
expected to be the abolition of many vexatious duties on
exports and imports, and the suppression of many petty
monopolies and exclusive privileges which had been secretly
continued to the great prejudice of the lower orders. It was
also hoped that benefit to trade and ease to the inhabitants
would result therefrom. A further but minor object was to
give an opportunity of augmenting the revenue hereafter.
It was then recited, as in the previous Regulations, that
what was really rent for ground or buildings was not
intended to be included in the resumption of sayer; nor

1 Colebrooke's Supplement, 286.

* Regulations of 23rd November, 1791, art. 82. Colebrooke's Supplement, 308. Regulation I, 1793, s. 8, cl. 2.

« ПредишнаНапред »