Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Decennial Settlement' the landholders are still to be responsible 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 These provisions were however repealed by the Regulations of the 7th December 1792, re-enacted and amended by Regulation XXII of 1793, which is itself repealed as obsolete by Act XXIX of 1871.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. 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. These latter provisions have also been repealed by Act XVII of 1862.

LECTURE
IX.

oppression.

I have noticed the anxiety of the Government to pro- Exactions and 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. This provision is omitted from the Regulations for the Permanent Settlement.5. Further provision is made in both for a

1

1 Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 72. Colebrooke's Supplement, 308.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Cesses.

IX.

LECTURE penalty of double the amount in case of such exactions.' It is further provided that no new abwab or mathoot shall be imposed upon the ryots under any pretence whatever 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. 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 Settlement. Consequently nuzzerana and mehuranee have been allowed. On the other hand, the following cesses have been held illegal:-burdana, for the subsistence of the zemindar; cutwallee, a cess for tobacco; and batta or exchange;' chanda; 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 I of 1798, s. 63; Dhalee Purmanick v. Anund Chunder Tolaputtur, 5 W. R. (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, 31.

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

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

[blocks in formation]

over and above the agreed jumma, as were realized in the mofussil under that head. This is said in another case to have been so held because the exact sum to be paid was not specified. Again a claim for russoom kuzza, or kazee's fees, was held illegal; although the ryot had paid it until a judge by proclamation declared it illegal, and although the assessment at the Decennial Settlement was alleged to have included it.3 On the other hand a claim for dustooree batta and poonia nuzzerana (presents on assessment or on payment of the first instalment of rent) have been held valid, when the cabooleut specified these items; the Court considering that section 3 of Regulation V of 1812, which authorizes the landholders to grant such pottahs as they may think fit, with the proviso that this should not legalize arbitrary or indefinite cesses, legalized customary cesses when specified in the pottah or cabooleut: since the Regulation goes on to provide that, while all stipulations for such arbitrary or indefinite cesses were to be held null and void, the definite clauses of the engagements should be carried into effect, and payment of such sums as were specifically agreed upon enforced. Other illegal cesses that have come before the Courts are purvi-bhika, a present to the zemindar on his son's first eating rice; and the zemindar's claim to a certain proportion of every maund of goor (molasses) manufactured. By Act X of 1859, section 10, and Act VIII of 1869 (B.C.), section 11, exactions beyond the rent specified in the pottah subject the landlord to damages not exceeding double the amount of such exaction.

Radha Mohun Surma Chowdhry v. Gungapershad Chuckerbutty, 7 Sel. Rep., 142.

2 Bhoor Pasban v. Khemchand Mahtoon, S. D. A. (1857), 1508. Luckhee Debea Chowdraiu v. Sheikh Ahta, S. D. A. (1852), 552.

LECTURE

IX.

LECTURE
IX.

Proportion taken by the

State.

Disqualified proprietors.

[blocks in formation]

The jumma, as we have seen, was fixed for ever. The proportion professedly taken from the zemindars was tenelevenths of their rents, leaving them one-tenth of the jumma paid. But the proportion was altered in the course of time, and appears to be now about a half instead of tenelevenths. The zemindaries were allowed to be freely transferred and divided. I shall notice the provisions for division and alienation hereafter. These powers and the fixity of the jumma led to that vast development of undertenures which is so marked a feature of the Bengal land system.

Disqualified zemindars were excluded from the settlement. This disqualification was according to the Regu lations of the 12th April 1784, founded upon notorious incapacity, legal disability or debt. In the Regulations of the 25th April 1788 the grounds were minority, sex, lunacy, contumacy, notorious profligacy of character, or nonperformance of engagements. And in the Decennial Settlement Regulations, females, idiots, minors, lunatics and others incapable of managing their estates by reason of natural defects or infirmities of whatever nature, and those deemed unfit through notorious profligacy or contumacy, were excluded, provided they were not sharers with qualified proprietors; in which case all were required to join in electing a manager, those disqualified voting through their guardians. The estates of disqualified proprietors were to be managed by persons appointed by the Government to that trust. The

1 Colebrooke's Supplement, 234.

9 Ib., 266, 269.

3

Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 19. Regulation VIII of 1793, s. 20.

4

Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 20. Regulation VIII of 1793, s. 21.

JULKUR, BUNKUR, AND PHULKUR.

333

Regulations of 15th July 1791' provide for the establishment of the Court of Wards for the purpose of taking charge of such estates; and Regulation X of 17932 lays down rules for the guidance of the Court of Wards. But by Regulation VII of 1796 those provisions which relate to contumacy and profligacy as grounds of exclusion are rescinded. The disqualified proprietors had a voice or were consulted in the choice of a manager until Regulation VII of 1799, section 26, abolished this privilege, as having led to managers being appointed who were totally disregardful of the public interest, and directed that the manager should thenceforth be appointed without any reference to the wishes of the proprietor or to connexion with him. This completed the exclusion of such zemindars as were disqualified.

LECTURE
IX.

The zemindars retained those rights known as julkur, Julkur, bunkur, pbulkur. bunkur, phulkur, &c.: and having come to be regarded in the light of English landlords these rights came to be treated as incorporeal hereditaments, and transferable separately from the zemindary as well as from the land. It has consequently been held that a julkur right, or a right to dues from fisheries and water, might be thus transferred, and that no proprietary right passed with it: this is in fact restricting the right to its primitive form, but separating it from the zemindary. The same principle has been laid

' Colebrooke's Supplement, 298.

2 Modified by Regulation L of 1793 as to female proprietors.

3 S. 20 of Regulation VIII of 1793, and s. 5, cl. 4, of Regulation X

of 1793, are repealed by Regulation VII of 1796.

Forbes v. Meer Mahomed Hossein, 12 B. L. R., 210, at p. 216. Lukhee Dassee v. Khatima Beebee, Sel. Rep., 51. Suroop Chunder Mozoomdar v. Jardine Skinner & Co., Marsh., 334. Bissen Lal Dass v. Ranee Khyrunnissa Begum, 1 W. R., 79.

« ПредишнаНапред »