« ПредишнаНапред »
however apply to derivative tenures which were held at that date above mentioned by a jageerdar or other tenant under a temporary or conditional tenure : such parcels of land shall follow the condition of the principal tenure. The burden of proof of possession at the date above mentioned, and of the hereditary nature of the tenure, where the holders are not the original grantees, is to be on the parties claiming to hold the lakhiraj tenure; the general principle as to the primary right of the State to a share of every beegah of produce being again asserted. And one or more successions shall not alone be sufficient to establish a right of inheritance. The provision on this point in Regulation XIX of 1793 was omitted with reference to badshahee grants in Regulation XXXVII of 1793, so that with reference to these the present rule was already in force.
The authorities whose grants of lakhiraj are to be Requisites of
recoglakbiraj grants nised are enumerated, including the kings of Dehli and the British rule. soubahdars of Bengal. The grants of these authorities are
good if (1) they were made or confirmed within the period during which the person granting or confirming such tenures possessed and exercised supreme power within the territory within which the lands specified in the grants are situate; (2) the grantee actually
the grantee actually and bona fide obtained possession of the land within the same period; and (3) the grant was not subsequently resumed by the Government for the time being, before the British acquisition of the territory; or if so resumed, where the competence of the officer who resumed shall have been expressly disallowed by the Governor-General in Council. Grants not made
1 S. 3, cl. 2.
S S. 3, cl. 4.
or confirmed by the Supreme Power (except those included in clause 2) must have been made or confirmed by some authority expressly declared competent by the GovernorGeneral in Council, and there must have been actual bona fide possession and no subsequent resumption.' This Regulation does not affect religious or charitable grants coming under the Regulations and which do not exceed ten beegahs."
Regulation III of 1828 provides that persons succeeding Further provito revenue-free lands and lands held on a mokurreree jumma, whether by transfer or inheritance, shall give notice to the Collector. Omission to give such notice renders the land liable to immediate attachment by the revenue officers and a fine of a year's rent. This provision is designed as a security for the revenue and not for private interests. Tenures not duly registered, or to which the specification does not show an hereditary title or that it is a perpetual endowment, shall be and be held to have been liable to resumption, unless they have been declared to be hereditary by a final decree of a Court on the demise of the persons in possession at the date of Regulations XIX and XXXVII of 1793. The Collectors and other officers authorised to do so are to assess, and, if necessary, attach, all lands liable to resumption as above in the same manner as in the case of a lapsed farm. The Regulation then provides for ascertaining the nature of claims to exemption from assessment by the whole deed and not merely from the designation of the tenure. Jageers consequently shall
· S. 3, cl. 8. S. 4,
S. 11, cl. 2. • Umrithnath Chowdhry v. Koonjbehary Sing, W. R., F. B., 34.
not be held to be for life only if the tenure granted is clearly hereditary; nor shall any tenure be considered hereditary unless expressed to be hereditary or perpetual.'
With regard to the sale of lands of lakhiraj tenure, it is provided by section 9, Act VII of 1868 (B.C.), that when such lands have been sold before that Act for arrears of revenue or demands in the mode provided by Act XI of 1859, the sale shall have the same force and effect against the
person liable to pay the revenue or demand as a sale
in execution of a decree. Cases upon re
Upon the above Regulations it has been decided with sumption.
regard to the holder of land resumed by Government that the proprietor must be settled with; he must be assessed, not evicted. The zemindar of course has, since the Permanent Settlement, no power to free any part of his land from payment of revenue: he may however still make rent-free grants. A zemindar seeking to resume must make a primâ facie case that rent has been received on account of the land sought to be resumed since 1790, or that the lands in question were part of the mal lands of his zemindary at the Permanent Settlement. The holder must
I S. 12.
See a review of them in Mabaraja Dheeraj Raja Mahatab Chund Babadoor v. The Bengal Government, 4 Moore's I. A., 466.
* Hurryhur Mookhopadhya v. Madub Chunder Baboo, 14 Moore's I. A., 152. Mahomed Israile v. Wise, 13 B. L. R., 118. See however Bheekoo Singh v. The Government, 10 W. R., 296.
Mutty Lall Sen Gywal v. Deshkar Roy, 9 W. R., 1, where such grants are fully discussed. Rajah Nilmoney Singh Deo o. The Government, 6 W. R., 121. Ahmudoollah v. Mithoo Lall, 3 Agra R., 186. As to the zemindar's power to grant free of revenue, see Sonatun Ghose o. Moulvi Abdul Farar, B. L. R., Supp., Vol. 109, at pp. 150, 151. And as to altumghas for charitable purposes, see Jewun Dogs Sahoo v. Shaik Kubeerooddeen, 2 Moore's I. A., 390, at pp. 403, 408 to 410 and 419.
then, in order to maintain his plea of exemption, show that the lands were rent-free before 1790.1
A dependent putneedar (shikamee) can resume invalid lakhiraj within his putnee. But the manager of a religious endowment, to which the zemindar has granted the profits of a certain number of villages after paying revenue, cannot resume invalid lakhiraj within the limits of the grant: that right remains with the zemindar. After resumption of a grant made before 1790, the zemindar is entitled to rent but not to possession of the land.* It has been held that resumption by Government does not destroy under-tenures; but the under-tenants can be compelled to pay the assessment in addition to their rent, or to give up their tenures.5 This however must be taken to be subject to the ordinary limitations of the zemindar's power of enhancing the rents of his tenants. Resumption suits were comparatively rare
' In the matter of Mudhoosoodhun Chuckladar, S. D. A. (1853), 365. Parbati Charan Mookerjee 0. Rajkrishna Mookerjee, B. L. R., Supp. Vol., 162. Maharaja Dheeraj Raja Mahatab Chund Babadoor v. The Bengal Government, 4 Moore's I. A., 466 at p. 497. Hurryhur Mookhopadhya v. Madub Chunder Baboo, 14 Moore's I. A., 152. Omesh Chunder Roy v. Dukhina Soo dery Debia, W. R., F. B., 95 ; 8 B. L. R., 566, s. C.
· Rao Ram Shunker Raee o. Moulvee Syud Ahmad, S. D. A. (1848), 234. In the matter of Rajkishore Raee, S. D. A. (1849), 66. Rajkishore Raee o. Soomer Mundle, S. D. A. (1850), 498.
3 Nobinchunder Roy Chowdhry v. Pearee Khanum, 3 W. R., 143.
* Mugnee Ram Chowdhry v. Baboo Gunesh Dutt Singh, W. R., (1864), 275.
5 Fuzal Banoo v. Azeezunnissa Beebee, 3 W. R., 72, overruling Mohunt Sheodass v. Bibi Ikram, S. D. A. (1850), 167. Annundmoye Chowdharain 0, Ramkunth Sein, S. D. A. (1860), 660. Pratap Narayan Mookerjee v. Madhu Sudan Mookerjee, 8 B. L. R., 197. Mussamat Farzhara Banu v. Mussamat Azizunnissa Bibi, B. L. R., Supp. Vol.,
before 1848, but an impetus was given to such suits in that year and again in 1855. The zemindars before 1848 seldom sought to dispossess the holders of invalid lakhiraj, there being little competition for land.'
I have already described the various kinds of tenure included under the head lakhiraj. It remains to bring down the law to the present time. In order to sustain a claim to an hereditary lakhiraj tenure, the claimant must prove a grant before 12th August 1765, and possession taken thereunder, or enjoyment of the lands as lakhiraj and hereditary at and since that period.”
With regard to royal grants, it has been held that a jageer, according to ancient usage, was only a life tenure.” A grant of a jageer is a grant of the Government rights; and it has been held that the jageerdar must allow the zemindar malikana. A jageer in Chota Nagpore granted on an hereditary tenure for military services has been held to be resumable by the zemindar on failure of lineal heirs of the grantee. The zemindar in this case appears to have resumed such grants as he pleased, before the British rule: and resumption for want of heirs was found to be customary in that district. A fouj serinjam grant, or grant for military services, was held not resumable by Government
1 Sonatan Ghose v. Moulvi Abdul Farar, B. L. R., Supp. Vol., 109, at pp. 114, 143.
? Maharaja Dheeraj Raja Mahatab Chund Bahadour v. The Bengal Government, 4 Moore's I. A., 467, at p. 497. 3 Collector of Bareilly v. Martindell, 2 Sel. Rep., 188.
Moohummud Ismail Jemadar v. Rajah Balunjee Surrun, 3 Sel. Rep., 345, a Cuttack case.
• Thakoorain Mussamut Roopnath Konwur v. Maharajah Juggunnath Sahee Deo, 6 Sel. Rep., 133.