Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub
[blocks in formation]

LECTURE

XII.

considered to have an hereditary tenure.' It is not necessary that the sunnud should express that the holding is hereditary, if it has been so held for a sufficient time.

It has been held that a ghatwallee tenure ceases when, in consequence of the Government having made other provisions for Police, the services are no longer required.3 In this case the ghatwals were liable to dismissal for neglect of duty, and Government had never interfered in their appointment or dismissal of them. When ghatwallee lands have been assessed as part of a zemindary, the Government cannot resume or claim further revenue from the zemindar. But, on the other hand, it has been held that an auction-purchaser of the zemindary cannot resume on the suggestion that the services have ceased, at least if the Government has a joint interest with the zemindar in the continuance of the services and opposes the resumption. In this case the zemindars paid as revenue the same amount as the ghatwals paid as rent. It has been further held that even when the grant is upon condition of service, the zemindar cannot by dispensing with the

1 Raja Lilanund Sing Bahadoor v. The Government, 2 B. L. R., A. C., 114, at p. 122.

2 Baboo Kooldeep Narain Singh v. Mahadeo Singh, 6 W. R., 200; B. L. R., Supp. Vol., 559, s. c. Kooldeep Narain Singh v. The Government, 11 B. L. R., 71; 14 Moore's I. A., 247, s. c.

3 Rajah Neelanund Singh v. Nusseeb Singh, 6 W. R., 80. Rajah Leelanund Singh v. Kunhya Lall, 17 W. R., 315. Tekayet Jugomohun Singh v. Raja Leelanund Singh, S. D. A. (1857), 1812; s. c. on review, S. D. A. (1858), 1471. Raja Anundlal Deo v. Government, S. D. A. (1858), 1669.

Rajah Lelanund Singh Bahadur v. The Bengal Government, 6 Moore's I. A., 101; 4 W. R., P. C., 77, s. c.

Kooldeep Narain Singh v. The Government, 11 B. L. R., P. C., 71; 14 Moore's I. A., 247, s. c.

[blocks in formation]

service put an end to the grant. This applies to all service tenures. And where the Government consented to dispense with the ghatwallee services as regarded the zemindar, and took from him instead additional revenue, it was held that nevertheless an auction-purchaser from the zemindar could not dispossess the ghatwals, although the sunnud was of a date subsequent to the Permanent Settlement. This was in the Kurruckpore zemindary. But in the same zemindary when the appointment of ghatwals rested with the zemindar, it was held that the Government having dispensed with the ghatwallee services, the zemindar was not bound to make any fresh appointment.*

The ghatwallee tenures of Beerbhoom have been the subject of legislation. Regulation XXIX of 1814, after reciting that those tenures are hereditary and subject to a fixed rent and services to be rendered to the zemindar, and that these rents have been recently adjusted and made payable direct to Government, enacts that the ghatwals shall not be ejected or their rent enhanced, so long as they observe their own obligations;5 but that the tenure may be sold for arrears in the same way as other tenures, or transferred by the Governor-General in Council to some other person, the zemindar taking any increase of revenue

'Baboo Koolodeep Narain Singh v. Mahadeo Singh, 6 W. R., 199, at p. 203. The Government of Bombay v. Damodhar Parmanandas, 5 Bom, H. C. R., A. C., 202.

2 Raja Lillanund Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Munorunjun Singh, 13 B. L. R., 124, at p. 132.

3 Ib., p. 134.

⚫ Mahaboot Hossein v. Mussamut Putasoo Koomaree, 1 B. L. R., (A. C.), 120; 10 W. R., 179, s. c.

• S. 2.

LECTURE

XII.

LECTURE
XII.

Mokuddumee tenures.

[blocks in formation]

thus obtained.' And Act V of 1859, after reciting that it has been held that the holders of ghatwallee lands contemplated by Regulation XXIX of 1814 have no power to create an interest extending beyond the life of the holder, enacts that, they shall have the same power of granting leases as other proprietors; but not to extend beyond the grantor's life or incumbency unless granted for certain specified purposes and approved by the Commissioners. It has been since held that ghatwallee tenures are not liable for the ancestor's debts in the hands of his successor or heir.4

3

We have noticed the other officers of the zemindary and their emoluments and tenures. It has been held that the zemindar cannot extinguish a mokuddumee tenure in Cuttack, since such a tenure is not derived from the zemindar.5 And it has been held that the hereditary pergunnah officers appointed to keep the accounts are still entitled to their fees when the pergunnah is granted in enam or jageer, and that whether they perform services or not if willing to do so.6 And the mokuddums of Bhaugulpore have been held entitled to all the privileges of maliks, and to be quite

1 S. 5. See Chittro Narain Singh Tekait v. Commissioner of the Sonthal Pergunnahs, 14 W. R., 203.

2 See proceedings of the Legislative Council, Vol. IV, p. 687.

3 S. 1. See Mukinbhanoo Deo v. Kostoora Koonwaree, 5 W. R., 215. Deputy Commissioner of Beerbhoom v. Rungololl Deo, W. R., F. B., 34; Marshall 117, s. c. Hurlal Singh v. Jorawun Singh, 6 Sel. R., 169. Sartuckchunder Dey v. Bhugut Bharutchunder Singh, S. D. A. (1853), 900. Grant v. Bangsi Deo, 6 B. L. R., 653.

4 Binode Ram Sein v. The Court of Wards, 6 W. R., 129; s. c. on review, 7 W. R., 178.

• Goursham Jana v. Mussamut Kunneeka Debea, S. D. A. (1860),

504.

• Beema Shunkur v. Jamas Jee Shapor Jee, 2 Moore's I. A., 23.

[blocks in formation]

independent of the zemindar or chowdhry. These mokuddums are consequently not liable to pay any chuckladaree fees. Nor is the zemindar liable to pay mokuddimee chowdraee or chuckladaree dues. Again in the Madras Presidency, a palki huk was held to be annexed to the office of desai and not to be resumable by Government.*

'Morley's Digest, Vol. I, p. 406 (note). Runglal Chowdhry v. Ramanath Dass, 2 Sel. R., 114.

* Munsurnath Chowdhry v. Bhowany Churn, 4 Sel. R., 126.

'Kulian Chowdhree v. Raja Ikbal Ali, 4 Sel. R., 215.

The Government of Bombay v. Desai Kullianrai Hakoomutrai, 14 Moore's I. A., 551.

LECTURE

XII.

APPENDIX.

The following specimens of sunnuds and grants may be usefully studied.1

I.-A ZEMINDARY SUNNUD.

Form of a Sunnud for a Zemindary, granted in the time of Akber Shah.

"BE it known to the present and future mutsuddies, chowdries, canoongoes, talookdars, ryots and husbandmen of Pergunnah belonging to Chuklah

depen

has

dent on the Soobah of Bengal; that the office of zemindar of Pergunnah been bestowed from the commencement of the year -on agreeably to the endorsed particulars, on condition of his paying mohurs. It is required that, having performed with propriety the duties of his station, he deviate not from diligence and assiduity in the smallest degree; but observing a conciliatory conduct towards the ryots, and exerting himself to the utmost in punishing the refractory and expelling them from his zemindary, let him pay his revenues into the treasury at the stated periods; let him encourage the ryots in such a manner, that signs of an increased cultivation and improvement of the country may daily appear; and let him keep the high roads in such repair, that travellers may pass and repass in perfect safety. Let there be no robberies or murders committed within his boundaries. Should any one, notwithstanding, be robbed or plundered of his property, let him produce the thieves with the stolen property; and after restoring the latter to the rightful owner, let him assign the former over to punishment. Should he fail in producing the parties offending, he must himself be responsible for the property stolen. Let him moreover be careful that no one offend against the peace of the inhabitants by irregularities of any kind. Finally, let him transmit the account required of him to the Huzzoor, under his own and the canoongoe's signature; and after having paid up his revenues completely to the end of the year, let him receive credit for the muzcoorat agreeably to usage. Let him abstain from the collection of any of the abwabs that have been abolished or prohibited by Government. It is also required of the aforesaid mutsuddees, &c., that having acknowledged the said person zemindar of that Pergunnah, they consider him as invested with the powers and duties appertaining to that station. Regarding this as obligatory, let them deviate not therefrom."

1 See also Patton's Asiatic Monarchies, Appendix I, p. 333. Galloway's Law and Constitution of India, 43. Orissa, Vol. II, 229, 230 and the Appendix to Baillie's Land Tax.

2 Harington's Analysis, Vol. III, 252. See Rouse's Dissertations, Appendix No. I and No. II, for specimens of zemindary sunnuds.

« ПредишнаНапред »