« ПредишнаНапред »
MOFUSSIL TALOOKDABS. 341
other similar tenures created since the time of settlement, LiecruRB
and held immedately of the proprietors of estates, when duly — registered under the Acta; and by clause 2 also exempts from annulment tenures existing at the time of settlement "whether held at a fixed rent or not; but makes the latter tenures liable to enhancement. The provisions as to talookdary tenures are omitted from Act VII of 1868 (B.C.), but are not repealed. The provision in clause 2, section 37 of Act XI of 1859, is re-enacted by Act VII of 1868 (B.C.), section 12; but the period from which the tenures are required to have been in existence is the time of the Decennial Settlement. The Privy Council in one case intimated that they considered there was great weight in the contention advanced before them that the mofussil talookdars referred to in Regulation XI of 1822, section 32, were those who were actual proprietors within the meaning of Regulation VIII of 1793, section 5, and not those whose talooks had been created since the Decennial Settlement; and who, under Regulation VIII of 1793, section 7, are declared not to have the property in the soil, but to be mere lease-holders; and they remark that the contention in question derives support from Regulation I of 1801, section 14.1 With regard to the tenures contemplated by Regulation VIII of 1793, section 51, it has been held that it does not include kudeemee (old) ryotee tenures, but only talooks properly so called;2 and although it was long considered that in order to bring a talook within section 51 it must be registered, recorded, or recognized under section 48
1 Khajah As9anoolah r. Obhoy Chunder Roy, 13 Moore's I. A., 317, at p. 326; 13 W K., 24, s. c.
* Ramchunder Dutt v. Jogeshchunder Dutt, 12 B. L. R., 229, overruling previous cases, such as Rujkisheu Roy v. Bydouath Nundee, S.D. A. (1858), 902.
of the same Regulation, it has now been decided (in 1869) that it is sufficient to show that the tenure existed and was capable of registration at the time of the Decennial Settlement.1
The putteedars referred to in Regulation XI of 1822, section 32, are occupant sharers of a revenue-paying estate, each managing his share separately, but paying hia revenue through one of the sharers called a lumberdar: the whole of the estate is liable for the revenue; but in case of default, the defaulter's share is first proceeded against.2 Upon* sale for arrears, the sharers became occupancy tenants at fixed rents,3 which was possibly their original condition. This mode of holding is found chiefly in the North-West Provinces, where the settlements with the villages were also upon the same principle under Mr. Bird's settlement. In other parts this mode of settlement was practised in conjunction with the zemindary and ryotwary methods, as in the Saugor and Nerbudda territories*
By Act X of 1859, section 15, and Act VIII of 1869 (B. C), section 16, it is enacted that "no dependent talookdar or other person possessing a permanent transferable interest in land, intermediate between the proprietor of an estate and the ryot, who holds his talook or tenure (otherwise than under a terminable lease) at a fixed rent, which has not been changed from the time of the Permanent Settlement, shall be liable to any enhancement of such rent, notwithstanding anything in section 51 of Regulation VIII KHOODKASHTS. 343
1 Radbika Chowdrain v. Bamasundari Dasi, 13 Moore's I. A., US; 4 B L. K., P. C, 8, s. c.; 13 W. R., P. C, 11, s. c.
* See Regulation 1 of 1841, repealed as obsolete by Act XVI of 1874. Robinson's Land Revenue, 11, 46, 76.
'Robinson's Land Revenue, 15.
* lb., 76.
of 1793 or any other law." These provisions have been held to Luctdrk include the howalas and neem-hwoalas of Backergunge and — the jotes of Rungpore, which are mouroosee and hereditary, but not mokurreree, or held at fixed rents.1
With regard to khoodkasht ryots little provision is Khoodkasht made, and no definition is given of the nature of their holdings: but it seems apparent from the whole scope of the Regulations for the Decennial and Permanent Settlements that, whatever misconceptions may have existed as to their position, their rights were not intended to be affected. The object of the Legislature was to define the conditions under which the zemindar should be settled with for ten years or permanently, and not to define the terms upon which he should become absolute proprietor. It is provided, with regard to the khoodkashts, that the landholders and farmers shall not cancel their pottahs, except on proof that they were obtained by collusion; or that their rents for the three years before the Permanent Settlement were below the pergunnah nirkbundy; or that they had obtained collusive deductions from their rents; or upon a general measurement of the pergunnah for the purpose of equalising and correcting the assessment.2 This is immediately preceded by. a provision that all leases to under-farmers and ryots made before the conclusion of the settlement, and not contrary to any. Regulation, are to remain in force during their term, unless proved to have been obtained by collusion or from unauthorized persons.' And these provisions are included
1 Hurry Molnm Mookerjee v. Ranee Lalun Monee Dasee, 1 W. R., 5.
'Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 64. Regulation VIII of 1793, e. 60.
* Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 63. Regulation VIII of 1793, s. 60.
Lecturr in the restrictions subject to which the zemindar or other
—- actual proprietor of land is to let the remaining lands of his
zemindary or estate in whatever manner he may think proper.
But it does not appear that the zemindar was vested with
the right of any of the other persons interested: he was not
to be interfered with by Government so long as he adhered
to the conditions laid down; but it by no means follows
that those conditions were an exhaustive description of
his true position. The khoodkasht ryots then still retained
their existing rights, but no doubt they were in a very
unfavourable situation for enforcing them, having to
contend with a zemindar whose rights had been recognized
by the Government, while their own rights had been left
to take care of themselves, the right to Government
interference being withdrawn except in specified cases.
The rights of the khoodkashts are noticed in Regulation
VIII of 1819 (the Putnee Talooks' Regulation), section 11,
clause 3, which provides that nothing in that Regulation
shall entitle the purchaser at a public sale for arrears
of rent of an intermediate tenure to eject a khoodkasht
ryot, or resident and hereditary cultivator, nor to cancel
bond fide engagements made with such tenants by the
former holder without proof in a suit by the purchaser
that a higher rate would have been demandable at the
time such engagements were made by the purchaser's
predecessor. And section 18, clause 5, excepts such ryots
from the operation of clauses 2 and 4 of that section, which
provide for sending a sezawul to attach the lands of
intermediate holders and to collect rents in case of default,
provided a summary suit had been instituted, and which
also make provision for cancelling the leases of such holders.
The khoodkasht ryots may be proceeded against by arrest,
a summary suit, or distraint. These latter provisions are Lkctum repealed by Act X of 1859, section 1. Again Regulation XI —of 1822, section 32, before cited, provides that the rules in that or any other Regulation, enabling persons to annul engagements between former proprietors and their undertenants, shall not entitle a purchaser at a public sale to eject a khoodkasht kudeemee ryot, a resident and hereditary cultivator having a prescriptive right of occupancy; or to demand from such ryot a higher rate of rent than was receivable by the former malgoozar, save when such tenants may have held their lands under engagements stipulating for a lower rate of rent than would have been justly demandable for the land, in consequence of abatements having been granted by the former malgoozars from the old established rates by special favour, or for a consideration, or the like; or in cases in which it may be proved that according to the custom of the pergunnah, mouzah, or other local division, such under-tenants are liable to be called upon for any new assessment or other demand not interdicted by the Regulations. This section was repealed by Act XII of 1841, section 1, which by section 27, clause 31, saves from annulment by a purchaser at a revenue sale in the permanently settled districts lands held by khoodkasht or kudeemee ryots having rights of occupancy at fixed rents, or at rents, assessable according to fixed rules under the Regulation in force. This section again was repealed by Act I of 1845, and re-enacted by section 26 of that Act, which again was repealed by Act XI of 1859. Regulation XII of 1841, by section 28, provides that in the districts not permanently settled, nothing in the Act shall entitle such purchaser to demand a higher rate of rent from any person whose tenure or