Графични страници
PDF файл
[ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

phulkur, bunkur, and juikur. With regard to liability and compensation, it was enacted (1) that collection of the saver 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 This Regulation was repealed by Act XXIX of 1871 as having become obsolete.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;2 and that the REMISSION OF REVENUE. 327


1 Land Tenure by a Civilian, 70.

* Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 35.

malikana lands in Behar were likewise resumed, a percentage Lkcturk "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.3 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,

1 Regulations of 23rd November 1791, arts. 34, 40.

* Regulation XXIII of 1817. Regulation II of 1819, 8. 81, el. 1.

'Rajah Lelanund Sing Bahadoor v. Government of Bengal, 6 Moore's I. A., 114. 4 Regulation XIV of 1793, 8. 8.

* 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, 8. 4, cl. 2. Regulation IX of 1833, 88. 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.

[blocks in formation]

Lkcturk and the fine levied in the same way as an arrear of revenue:1 ix. . J .

— 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.8 This last provision however was repealed as to Bengal by section 1 of Act X of 1859. Contumacy. Stringent provisions were also enacted in case of con

tumacy 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 * Preserving the The zemindars were originally responsible for the peace peau. 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 ;s 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

■Act XX of 1848,8.1.

* Regulation IX of 1833, s. 14.

* Regulations of 8lh June 1787, art. 12. Harington's Analysis, Vol.H 53. Colebrooke's Supplement, 253.

« Regulation XIV of 1793, ss. 15, 16, 18.

* Arts. 69 and 70. Colebrooke's Supplement, 253. Harington's Anfllysi>, Vol. II, 53.



Decennial Settlement1 the landholders are still to be res- Lkoturk ponsible for the peace of their districts and are to act — under rules to be passed. These provisions were however repealed by the Regulations of the 7th December 1792, re-enacted and amended by Regulation XXII of 1793, which is itself repealed as obsolete by Act XXIX of 1871. They were nevertheless still bound as landholders to afford every assistance in apprehending offenders, and in default were still liable to forfeiture upon conviction. And by Regulation VI of 1810 it is declared that all zemindars and other proprietors of land, whether lakhiraj or malgoozary,—all sudder farmers and under-renters, dependent talookdars, and others, are specially bound to give information of robbers within their boundaries.2 The Regulation then prescribes fine and imprisonment for neglect to give such information, and forfeiture in case of harbouring robbers or sharing in the plunder.3 These latter provisions have also been repealed by Act XVII of 1862.

I have noticed the anxiety of the Government to pro- Exactions and

. . , oppression.

tect the ryots and under-renters from oppression and exactions. The Regulations for the Decennial Settlement provide that exactions by the zemindars from their dependent talookdars and oppression of them shall be punished by the separation of. the talook.4 This provision is omitted from the Regulations for the Permanent Settlement.5 ■ Further provision is made in both for a

1 Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 72. Colebrooke's Supplement, 308. 'S. 2. » Ss. 3, 4.

4 Art. 5.

5 Regulation I of 1793, s. 6.


Lecturk penalty of double the amount in case of such exactions,1 — It is further provided that no new abwab or mathoot Ce«»es. shau be imposed upon the ryots under any pretence what

ever: and a penalty of three times the amount exacted is to be paid in case of such imposition.* It is further provided that the cess called najay is not to be exacted : this, it will be remembered, was an exaction from the remaining ryots to make up the rents of those who had absconded or died.3 We have seen that exactions of all kinds are still levied* These provisions were only intended to prevent the imposition of any new abwab, and not to disallow imposts in force before the Decennial Settlement5 Consequently nuzzerana and mehuranee have been allowed.' On the other hand, the following cesses have been held illegal:—burUana, for the subsistence of the zemindar;cutwallee, a cess for tobacco; and batta or exchange ;1 chandaf parobi, a cess for performing festivals ;9 and zabita batta, an excess of half an anna in the rupee on the jumma, although, in this instance, the cabooleut stipulated that the farmer, the defendant ■in the case, should pay such sums,

1 Arts. 53, 54. Regulation I of 1793, s. 51.

Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 58. Regulation I of 1793, s. 55; see Regulation IX of 1825, s. 9.

• Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 68. Regulation Iofl79S, s. 63; Dhalee Purmaniek v. Anund Chunder Tolaputtur, 5 W. B. (Act X), 86.

See a list of twenty-seven such in the Twenty-four-Pergunnahs, Campbell's Administration Report, pp. 24, 25. See Robinson's Land Tenures, 81.

5 Rajah Madho Singh v. Rajah Bidyanund Singh, S. D. A. (1848), 442.

• lb.

7 Chucken Sahoo v. Roopchand Panday, S. D. A. (1848), 680.

8 Megnath Thakoor v. Meliss, S. D. A. (1852), 4.

'Kamalakant Ghose v. Kalu Mahomed Mandal, 3 B. L. R. (A. C), 44: 11 W. R.395, s. c.

« ПредишнаНапред »