Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

LECTURE

IX.

[blocks in formation]

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Government, while their own rights had been left to take care of themselves, the right to Government interference being withdrawn except in specified cases.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,

[blocks in formation]

a summary suit, or distraint. These latter provisions are
repealed by Act X of 1859, section 1.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 under-
tenants, 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 abate-
ments 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, pro-
vides 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

LECTURE
IX.

IX.

[blocks in formation]

LECTURE agreement may be annulled under the Regulation than was demandable by the former malgoozar except in the cases specified in section 32 of Regulation XI of 1822. This section was also repealed by Act I of 1845, re-enacted by section 27 of that Act, and ultimately repealed by Act XI of 1859. Act XI of 1859, section 37, provides that nothing in that section relating to the right of the purchaser at an auction-sale to avoid under-tenures shall entitle any such purchaser to eject any ryot having a right of occupancy at a fixed rent, or at a rent assessable according to fixed rules under the laws in force; or to enhance the rent of any such ryot otherwise than in the manner prescribed by such laws, or otherwise than the former proprietor, irrespectively of all engagements made since the time of settlement, may have been entitled to do. The same provision is found in Act VII of 1868 (B. C.), section 14. Khoodkasht holdings are in some parts transferable without the landlord's consent, but in other parts not.1

Mokurreree tenures.

With regard to mokurreree holdings or holdings at a fixed rate, provision is made by the Regulations of 23rd November 1791 and Regulation VIII of 1793, that mokurreree leases to persons other than the proprietors of the land, if granted or confirmed by Government, or obtained before the accession to the Dewanny, are to be continued in force during the lives of the lessees; but on their death the settlement is to be made with the actual proprietors of the soil. This provision clearly refers to mokurreree malgoozars. It is also provided that mokurreree grants to the actual proprietors of the soil are under the same circumstances to be

2

1 Joykissen Mookerjee v. Rajkissen Mookerjee, 1 W. R., 153.

Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 15. Regulation VIII of 1793, s. 16.

ISTEMRARI AND MOUROOSEE TENURES.

347

LECTURE
IX.

continued, without limiting the continuance to the holder's life. Further, mokurreree holders of lands, of which such holders are not the actual proprietors, under grants obtained since the accession to the Dewanny, and not sanctioned by Government, are to be dispossessed, and the settlement made with the proprietors, but with an allowance to the dipossessed holders if they have held for more than twelve years. These last mokurreree holders are supposed to be originally tenants who have ousted their landlords, or mere wrongdoers who have obtained possession without the consent of the landlord. They are classed as tenants in the Regulation, and therefore we may deal with them here, but as I have already pointed out there was no such relation of tenure between the zemindar and the subordinate holder of land; and the mokurrereedars in question do not seem to have held under leases for terms, but were probably merely subordinate revenue payers of a superior class to the bulk of the ryots, and who held at a fixed revenue. Istemrari Istemrari and and mouroosee tenures are of the same class. An istemrari tenures. or mouroosee tenure is a permanent hereditary tenure: if it is also mokurreree it is held permanently at a fixed rent or revenue. Istemrari tenures are mentioned in the Regulations for the Decennial and Permanent Settlements. The holding in perpetuity seems to have been considered less in the nature of an encroachment on the proprietary rights than the holding at a fixed rate; probably because the latter appeared to leave the supposed proprietor a less beneficial

Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 16. Regulation VIII of 1793, s. 17.

2

Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 17. Regulation VIII of 1793, s. 18.

Wilson's Glossary.

mouroosee

LECTURE

IX.

[blocks in formation]

property in the land, but to give the fruits of all improvements or increase in the cultivation to the mokurrereedar. Accordingly istemrardars are spoken of as not having got possession to the exclusion or without the consent of the proprietors, as the mokurrereedars are supposed to have done. They are looked upon as holding of the proprietors by lease, and are to be considered as a species of pottah talookdars, and the settlement is to be made with them,' so that they are put in the position of direct revenue payers, although they were assumed to have been before subordinate to the zemindar; while the mokurrereedars, who would seem to have been paying revenue direct, are placed in a lower class. It is further provided that istemrardars, as they are called, of the nature of those described as mokurrereedars, holding lands of which they are not proprietors under grants since the accession to the Dewanny, and who have held more than twelve years at a fixed rent, are not to be liable to be assessed with any increase, either by Government or by the zemindar or other actual proprietor, in case he engages for his own lands. In other cases, if the zemindar or other actual proprietor has bound himself by deed not to enhance the rent, he cannot enhance; but in case the zemindary is held khas or let in farm, the Government or farmer may demand the general rate of the district. By Regulation III of 1828, section 11, clause 2, it is provided that persons succeeding to the possession of any lands held on a mokurreree jumma, on the decease of a former occupant, or by gift, purchase

1 Regulations of 23rd November 1791. Regulation VIII of 1793, 8. 19.

'Regulations of 23rd November 1791, arts. 51, 52. Regulation VIII of 1793, ss. 49, 50.

« ПредишнаНапред »