« السابقةمتابعة »
Specification on the reverse.
,Pergunnahs 22, Nizamabad پرگنات حسب ضمن بست دو ,Kowreea Tilhenee, Gopalpore پرگنه نانکار یک لک ۲۰ هزار پرگنه -Suggree, Mahomedabad, Goh نظام آباد پرگند کوریه سلهني پر -na hosee, Chukeysur, Nu گوپال پور پرگند سگري پرگنه پرگنه محمد آباد برگنه گهو سي
thoopoor, Cheriakote, Keriat Mittoo, Belhabans, Deogaon,
Mownat, Bhunjun, Shadee
جکسر پرگنه نتھو پور پرگنه چریا ,abad, Behreerabad, Puchotur دوت پرگنه قریات متو پرگنه بلها
Seydpoor, Bittree, Zuhoora
گانو پرگند نانات بانس پرگنه دیو .bab, Bhudaon بهنجن پر گنه شاد یا باد پرگنه
Nankar 1,25,000 Rupees,
گنه بچو تر پر گنه بهيري آباد پر
گنه ظهور آباد Zemindarry dues per village سیدپور بتري پر .Rs per cent 1 Rs 2 پرگنه بهد اون ابواب زمينداري و غيره سيصد يكروپيه
31st. If the holder of this Sunnud had been in power when we first acquired the country, it is not improbable that we should have acknowledged him sole proprietor of all this tract of country, and have reduced the real proprietors to the rank of mere tenants.
32nd. From these revolutions the Pergunnah of Mahol was generally exempted. A family of Seyuds obtained possession of it in a Zemindarry grant at a very early period, the tradition of which is now lost. They contrived to locate themselves firmly in the Pergunnah. Branches of them entirely suppressed the Rajpoot communities in many of the villages. The Rajah was dispossessed of the government by the Nuwab of Oude, previous to our acquisition of the country, but he still retains many villages as his private property. Some of these have passed from him, by sale for arrears of revenue, to the hands of the notorious Amil Sheo Lall Dhoobe, and yet in some of these villages the old Rajpoot communities exist, though they have long been broken down, and the members reduced to the rank of mere cultivators on fixed rates. Instances sometimes occur of the strength with which ancient proprietary associations are maintained, even long after all exercise of the rights has ceased. The two contiguous villages of Mohujah and Newadah had long been held by
the Mahol Rajah. Soon after the cession they passed, by public sale, into the hands of Sheo Lall Dhoobe. No proprietary right had ever been claimed by the village communities, and yet in 1834 they fought regarding their common boundary, and lives were lost on both sides.
33rd. The above historical facts have been mentioned merely to illustrate the mode in which the proprietary right was generally exercised, and how this right was transferred, and the present existing diversity of tenure introduced. I suppose the original conquest of the Rajpoots to have been the general foundation of the existing proprietary right in the soil. That right we often still find exercised in its original purity, but in many places no trace of it can be found. A few instances in which the mode of its annihilation, and the rise of a subsequent right is known, may account for these irregularities.
34th. Tuppah Hurbunspoor extends along the south bank of the Touse, opposite to Azimgurh. It was held originally by a tribe of Sukrawar Rajpoots, a remnant of whom still survive in Oonchagaon. In order to strengthen their fort, the Rajahs of Azimgurh determined to lay waste a great part of this tract, and encourage the growth of jungle upon it. The Sukrawars were accordingly expelled, and the country depopulated. The soil however is rich, and in time, when the whim of the day had passed away, it was considered desirable to bring this tract again under cultivation. The Sukrawars were, however, then broken and ruined, and in no condition to assert their rights in opposition to the Rajah of the time. In this space, accordingly, to the south of Azimgurh, in its immediate vicinity, we find all sorts of tenures existing. The village of Siddharee was given to Baboo Baz Bahadoor, a member of the family, and added to his Talookah. He located cultivators upon it, and it is now his absolute property. A portion of land, formerly called Sarungdurpoor, was given to Ikram Khan, who brought it into cultivation, and there located a body of Puleear Rajpoots from Sumaidah, in Tuppah Behrozpoor, Pergunnah Mahomedabad, and called the place Ikrampoor. He passed away, and the resident Rajpoots became recognized as the proprietors. Thus too Jaffurpoor is formed out of the land of the old villages of Pooranahpoor, Bullaisur, and Golwarah. Baboo Jaffur Khan brought the land into cultivation, and located some Dhoonwar Rajpoots, who afterwards, on the extinction of his family, became the proprietors. Another tract of this waste land was assigned to some Buneeahs, who brought it into cultivation, built a large village, and have left traces of their industry and wealth in numerous topes, and some artificial bunds for irrigation. This village was called Bodhaitah. In the days of the Chukladars it was plunder
ed, and the inhabitants massacred; since which time it has remained without one inhabitant (Be-chiragh). In default of other claimants, the Canoongoe of the Pergunnah engaged for it, and now holds it in proprietary right as his Zemindarry. A Bunniah in Azimgurh, who claims his descent from the old proprietors, attempted to establish his right in the Special Commission Court, but failed. Ask any intelligent resident in the neighbourhood, who is the rightful Zemindar?-he he will answer, the Bunniah. Question him more strictly, and he will admit the prior right of the Sukrawar Rajpoots. Tradition reaches no higher.
35th. Achar, and its dependant villages in Pergunnah Mhownat Bhunjun, was held by a tribe of Kaut Rajpoots. The Dhoonwars of the neighbouring estate of Khabseh were the more powerful: they attacked, and massacred most of them. The little mud Ghurree is still shown where the last who held their ground were put to death. This took place only a few years before the cession. Some of the family fled into the neighbouring district of Ghazeepore, then in our possession, and have in vain since attempted to recover their rights.
36th. A family of Chundel Rajpoots emigrated from the Juanpore district and settled in Pergunnah Nuthoopore, where they acquired much land about the place where the Durgah of Kullooah Bund has since flourished. A chur was subsequently thrown up between the Kuttooby Talow and the river Goggra. Of this chur the Chundels took possession. Their prosperity kept pace with the increase of the chur, and the Chundels of Doobarree are now one of the most flourishing clans. Their Talookah till lately was included in Pergunnah Secunderpore; it has now been annexed to Nuthoopore.
37th. In many cases the origin of the present Zemindarry right has been the rent-free grant of waste land to the ancestors of the present proprietors, such grant having been made by the actual sovereign, the Emperor of Delhi, or his local representative. The grantee brought the land into cultivation, and as the former proprietors had passed away, on resumption of the grant by some succeeding ruler, was acknowledged as proprietor. Some terms of this sort are said to have had their origin in grants by the Sherki sovereigns of Juanpore.
38th. The appropriation of waste lands was sometimes, however, founded on mere acts of usurpation by powerful individuals or communities, or has grown up by sufferance. Thus the powerful Pulwars of Kowreeah have encroached on the neighbouring forest land in Pergunnah Nizamabad. Their occupation of Kadarampoor is a case in point. The rise of some Aheer communities appears to illustrate the latter mode of appropriation noted above. These people
were familiar with the forest, fixed their residence on some favorable spot, and began to cultivate; and when a settlement came to be made, appeared to be the most convenient persons to admit to engagements for the land. Thus the villages of Tumbolee in Tuppah Phurchuk Havelee, Pergunnahs Nizamabad and Muhason, in Tuppah Chitpore, Pergunnah Mahomedabad, are held by Aheers.
39th. These instances serve to show in what way the original proprietary right, resting on conquest, may have often terminated, and been replaced by another right founded on grant of the ruling power, actual usurpation, or voluntary act, sanctioned by sufferance. It is immaterial now to discuss the validity or the legality of the circumstances, which originally created the right previous to our rule; it was asserted and maintained whenever there was strength enough to support its assertion. Since our rule commenced, it has been recognized, legalized, and consolidated. When no other private rights are prejudiced by the recognition, its admission must be beneficial.
40th. Under the circumstances stated above, the proof of the proprietary right is of very different degrees and nature.
41st. It is of course strongest where the village communities have flourished for centuries, and where they have been powerful enough to hold together, and to keep out intruders. In other cases, where the origin of the right is not so clear, we find it settled on the prescription of many years, and capable of immediate adoption. Generally in the formation of a settlement, possession is the point regarded, and if this be for only a few years, it is still sufficient to give a title, till a better be shown; it being always borne in mind, that possession is only good as far as it goes, and that a Talookdar who has been recorded by us as Zemindar, may still have below him bodies of people, exercising full proprietary rights, and entitled to the recognition and confirmation of all those rights. In the settlement however of Towfeer Mouzahs, and of resumed Maaffees, the greatest difficulty often occurs. Here the proprietary right has been long in abeyance. All around a proprietary right is exercised, and has been so for ages, so that there is every reason to believe it has existed on the spot in question, but it has been in abeyance once, and perhaps disputed for so many years as to be difficult of determination. If wells have been dug, or trees planted, or bunds erected on the spot, these are always appealed to as proofs of old proprietary right. The enjoyment of the fruit of the trees, or of the fish of the ponds, or of any other of the spontaneous products of the soil, are adduced as proofs of possession of that right. It is a common and convenient practice to refer to the Canoongoe's records, though these are of doubtful authority. Under present rules the case
is referred to a jury, but even they are often perplexed, and I have known cases where contending parties have agreed to leave the determination of the point to lot.
42nd. In rent-free lands some neighbouring Zemindar has generally acquired some recognition of his proprietary right from the Maafeedar, either by direct money payment, or by an allowance of land called dobiswee (i. e. equal to two biswas in the beegah, or ten per cent. of the whole area) free from the payment of rent, or by cultivating a large portion of the land on favorable terms. Generally too the Zemindar appropriates to himself the sayer, or spontaneous productions of the land, but all these of course often depend on the relative Strength of the Maafeedar and of the claimant of the Zemindarry.
43rd. In the large co-parcenery villages, intricate questions sometimes are raised by the claimants of shares, and it becomes difficult to decide whether a man is a sharer or not. A member of a village community often falls into distress, either because his share is really inadequate to his support, or because he has become impoverished by his own fault, or by misfortune. Under these circumstances he may make over his share to a co-parcener, or let it lie waste. In either case he may leave the village, or continue to reside in it. If he continue to reside in the village, he may still have his share of the sayer, though he have no cultivation. If a partition of waste land attached to a village takes place, he immediately asserts his claim, and if the settling officer were to take the determination on himself, he would find the task no easy one.
44th. I have thus endeavored to show the probable origin of private proprietary right in the land, and of the forms under which it is found to be at present exercised. I will proceed next to classify these forms, and to point out the principal features which characterize them.
45th. The proprietary right in the land may rest either in a single individual, or in a community of people. This community may divide amongst themselves the profits of the estate either according to their ancestral shares, or according to some arbitrary rule, having reference to the quantity of land which each member cultivates. Of the two latter tenures the former has been sometimes styled the Zemindarry, the latter the Putleedaree, or Bhyachara. None of these terms have local application. The term Zemindar is generally applied in the district to any one having a proprietary right in the land, whilst Putteedar is restricted to those members of the village community who are not under engagements directly with the Government. The term Bhyachara is not known.
1:|::ང བ དེ མས སུ མ ལ འགནི་