IX. 324 CHANGES IN THE ZEMINDAR'S POSITION. 2 LECTURE such assessments, which was required by the Regulations of the 23rd November 17911 to be furnished by the zemindars, was dispensed with; the Regulations for the Permanent Settlement, although re-enacting the Decennial Settlement rules, having omitted this provision. 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 zemindar's position. I shall first notice some of the changes made up to this time in the zemindar's position. One of the most imporagainst collecting either tant of these was the prohibition ' Arts. 43, 44. * Reg. VIII of 1793. "See Harington's Analysis, Vol. II, 74 to 79, 80 to 82. • Ib., 19, 76. 3 Ib., 77. 6 Ib., 77, 226 to 232. SAYER COLLECTIONS PROHIBITED. 325 LECTURE IX. The sayer taken away. left with the zemindars.' But by the Regulations of the 11th June 1790 the right of the zemindar to collect the sayer was taken away, compensation being given for the loss collections of the right to collect these duties. The revenue derived from these collections was consequently excluded in assessing 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 ' Colebrooke's Supplement, 286. 2 lb. 3 Regulations of 23rd November, 1791, art. 32. Colebrooke's Supplement, 308. Regulation I, 1793, s. 8, cl. 2. LECTURE Reg. IX of 1825, s. 9. Resumption. 326 SAYER COLLECTIONS PROHIBITED. phulkur, bunkur, and juikur. With regard to liability and compensation, it was enacted (1) that collection of the sayer without the sanction of Government being illegal, all such collections since the acquisition of the Dewanny should be accounted for: (2) that no compensation should be granted with respect to collections contrary to any prohibitory order of Government: but (3) the consideration of the case of those reduced to distress thereby was reserved: (4) holders of lakhiraj land, who had been authorised to collect duties on gunjes, bazars, and hauts on their lands, were to be entitled to compensation equal to the annual profit derived therefrom: and (5) as to malgoozary landholders they were to get one-tenth of the net collections as compensation. It is further stated that the Government had found the collection of sayer so impolitic that it had been altogether abolished. This Regulation was repealed by Act XXIX of 1871 as having become obsolete. It appears that these Regulations prohibiting the collection of sayer were supposed by some to forbid the collection of certain items of sewaee1 levied by the malgoozars and others for local purposes. This misconception was removed by Regulation IX of 1825, section 9, which authorizes the collection of such imposts, when sanctioned by the authorities, and not being taxes on the transport, export or import of goods or merchandise, nor specifically prohibited. The extent to which such cesses could still be lawfully levied will be presently noticed. We have seen that the zemindar's nankar, khamar, and neej-jote lands were resumed and assessed, unless held from before the accession to the Dewanny; and that the 'Land Tenure by a Civilian, 70. 2 Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 35. LECTURE revenue. malikana lands in Behar were likewise resumed, a percentage being allowed instead.1 As to waste lands, such as were included in the zemindary, when settled for were not liable to further assessment upon being brought into cultivation, one of the main objects of the Permanent Settlement being to encourage the cultivation of the waste, which was said to extend over one-third or one-half of the country. We have also seen that remissions of revenue Remission of were by Regulation I of 1793, section 7, no longer to be allowed; and by Regulation II of 1793, sections 38 and 42, although the Board of Revenue might grant a temporary suspension of the demand of revenue, they could not grant remissions without the sanction of the Governor-General in Council; the defaulter however was not to be imprisoned if his default was occasioned by drought, inundation, or other calamities of season, or any cause not originating in the neglect, mismanagement or misconduct of the proprietor or farmer. The zemindar was still bound to render accounts in some Accounts. cases, as in case of default; and putwarries were to be appointed to keep such accounts where such officers were not already existing.5 A farmer or proprietor not attending with such accounts, when required by law, might be fined, 2 3 Regulation XXIII of 1817. Regulation II of 1819, s. 31, cl. 1. Rajah Lelanund Sing Bahadoor v. Government of Bengal, 6 Moore's Regulation VIII of 1793, s. 62 (repealed by Regulation XII of 1817, s. 2). Regulation VII of 1799, s. 23, cl. 4. Regulation I of 1819, s. 4, cl. 2. Regulation IX of 1833, ss. 12, 14. As to the nature of zemindary accounts, see Smyth's Zemindary Accounts, and Harington's Analysis, Vol. II, 70 to 73, and Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 295, 296. Preserving the peace. and the fine levied in the same way as an arrear of revenue: and while in default in not depositing such accounts, he was precluded from ousting his ryots or tenants for nonperformance of the conditions of their tenure, or on any other pretext; as well as from distraining or suing for arrears, or for the breach of any agreement. This last provision however was repealed as to Bengal by section 1 of Act X of 1859. Stringent provisions were also enacted in case of contumacy or resistance to process by the zemindar. We have seen that the lands of zemindars might be confiscated, and farmers might be imprisoned for such resistance.3 Similar provisions were contained in Regulation IV of 1793, sections 2, 22 and 24, in Regulation V of 1793 (since repealed by Act X of 1861), and in Regulation VI of 1793. The forfeited estate might be conferred on the heirs of the ejected zemindar, or sold at a public sale. The GovernorGeneral in Council might however commute the forfeiture for a fine. The zemindars were originally responsible for the peace of their zemindaries: and conniving at robbery was one of the most frequent grounds of forfeiture of their holdings. This penalty is prescribed for the offence by the Regulations of the 8th June 1787;5 and it is provided that in such a case none of the zemindar's family shall succeed to the forfeited zemindary. By the Regulations for the 2 3 'Act XX of 1848, s. 1. Regulation IX of 1833, s. 14. Regulations of 8th June 1787, art. 12. Harington's Analysis, Vol. II, 53. Colebrooke's Supplement, 253. 4 Regulation XIV of 1793, ss. 15, 16, 18. Arts. 69 and 70. Colebrooke's Supplement, 253. Harington's Analysis, Vol. II, 53. |