portion of a field may have been in occupation previously to the survey. The X. act of including his field and those of his neighbours in one number is one in Revenue Survey and Assessment which he has no voice, and it should not place him in a worse position than that under the Bombay in which he stood previously. 31. Rule 9 is approved. 32. Rule 10, being in conformity to the views expressed in the Government letter (No. 390) of the 12th February 1847, is approved. 33. Rule 11.-His Lordship in Council is of opinion, that the rules prescribed in the Government letter last quoted, for regulating the power to cut down trees, should be upheld, and that when one tree is felled, two should be required to be planted. Presidency. 34. Rule 12.-The objects of this rule, as well as that of Rules 7 and 8, [50] his Lordship in Council understands to be to discourage the subdivision of fields, so that by being retained entire, their sale and transfer, under the provisions of Rule 9, may be promoted. 35. It would be a hardship to refuse to recognize shares of fields already entered in the Government books, and the rights of the holders of such shares are protected by Rules 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. In giving out waste for cultivation, however, which is the case provided for in the rule under consideration, no prior rights are involved, and we have merely to look to the method best calculated to promote the interests of the ryuts and Government. 36. If fields are to be permitted to be split up without limit, and the occupant of every fractional share recognized as holding direct of Government, the inevitable results will be the ultimate subdivision of the whole land into very minute occupancies, accompanied by the impoverishment of the whole agricultural class. Farms will become so small as barely to provide subsistence for those occupied in their tillage, and the surplus from which the assessment is to be paid so trifling, that the slightest deficiency in the ordinary crop will suffice to annihilate it. With every precaution, it may be impossible to prevent the subdivision of farms as population increases, but assuredly no opportunity should be lost of checking this tendency. 37. In the case of a ryut, in whose name a field is entered, and who holds it jointly with others, dying, the want of a record to show the liability of the other sharers would be of but little consequence, for they would be amenable for the revenue under the provisions of sections 3 and 5 of Regulation XVII. of 1827; and the desire of retaining possession of the land would more probably make the inferior holders anxious to defray their shares of the revenue, in order to obtain receipts from the village accountant, with a view to strengthen their claims to continue in possession. 38. But were even the rule to involve the certain sacrifice of balances of revenue due by ryuts dying under the circumstances contemplated by you, instead of the remote possibility of such a contingency, it would still be better to submit to the loss, than to sanction the alternative of an unlimited subdivision of fields. 39. Rules 14 and 15 are approved. 40. Rule 16 only reserves for free pasturage a portion of the fields alluded to in Rule 13, as unsuited in their then state for cultivation, and unassessed. This indulgence will, therefore, be limited to the villages in which such waste fields are to be found, and his Lordship in Council agrees with you in thinking that the farther restriction (already imposed in Government letter of the 16th October 1844, No. 3621) of the privilege to the case of villages which have hitherto enjoyed the right of free pasturage should be continued. 41. The practice of selling the waste, field by field, enjoined by this rule promises to be more acceptable to the villagers, and more productive of revenue to Government, than the plan of selling the entire wastes of several villages or districts in the lump to parties engaging for the whole. 42. Rule 17, 18 and 19 are approved. 43. Rule 20.-His Lordship in Council considers there is some force in your objection to the ryut, wanting to take up new land, being obliged to proceed for this purpose to the mamletdar's kucheree. In villages very distant, and especially during the few first years after the introduction of the survey, when it may be presumed that much new land will be taken up, the collector may be authorized to dispense with the strict observance of the rule. 44. Adverting to your suggestion that the period for giving notice of intention [51] to throw up lands be extended to the Mrigsal, Government considers that, if 45. Rule 21.-The Governor in Council doubts whether the question of the 46. Rules 22, 23 and 24 are approved. 47. His Lordship in Council is confident that the introduction of a simple and uniform system of accounts through all the surveyed districts would add so much to the efficiency of our native establishments as to render unnecessary additions, now urgently required, to their numerical strength, and would also considerably lessen the labour of the collectors and their assistants in checking the work of the subordinate hoozoor, district and village agents. 48. I am directed to request that you will immediately report how far, and with what results, you have carried into effect the instructions conveyed in the Government Letter of the 24th April 1846, No. 1925, and that you will transmit, for the opinion of Captain Wingate, whatever forms of accounts you may have approved, in concert with the Revenue Commissioner, Northern Division. 49. The instructions of Government on the subject of remissions were conveyed in the Government Letter to you, No. 3899, of the 5th October 1847. 50. In conclusion, I am directed to convey the acknowledgments of the Right honourable the Governor in Council to Mr. Goldsmid, and Captains Wingate and Davidson, for the able and lucid report they have now laid before him. It will serve as a manual in all future surveys; and it should be printed as soon as any modifications to be made in the rules contained in it have been deter mined. I have, &c. (signed) J. G. Lumsden, No. 5594 of 1848. Territorial Department, Revenue. From J. G. Lumsden, Esquire, Secretary to Government, to Dr. A. Gibson, Sir, Bombay Castle, 22 September 1848. 2. I have at the same time been instructed, with reference to Mr. Chief Secre- No. 716 of 1848. From Dr. A. Gibson, Conservator of Forests, to J. G. Lumsden, Esq., Sir, 2. As I understand the question (founded on Rule 2d of the joint report) to refer to the sale of the annual produce of fruit trees only, it appears to me that, as applied to the more open country, the rule may be safe, particularly since the preservation of a succession of trees by planting is provided for by the Resolution of his Lordship in Council, para. 33, under date 22d instant; viz. "that the rules regulating the power to cut down trees should be upheld, and that when one tree is felled, two should be required to be planted." 3. But for this proviso, I think the system of summary sale would be pernicious, as experience has (I respectfully submit) shown us that the natives. cannot, in the present state of their habits, be safely trusted with a property in nearly all the trees in the open country; for, in the parts of the country hitherto surveyed, there may be said to be few or no trees, excepting in land which is arable. 4. With respect to the extension of the rule to the Mawul and Conkan districts, and supposing it to be applied (as seems to be intended) to all trees whatsoever, I think it may require, previous to being so extended, mature consideration in the various and more extensive bearings which it will there have, either on the property or the resources of Government; and that it may, from particular local circumstances, require some occasional modification. Thus, by ancient prescriptive right, cultivation has been allowed within the precincts of certain Government lands, as around hill-forts, as at Singhur, &c. ; but in these, supposing the right to cultivate is enam (as in many cases it is), the right of the cultivator is acknowledged not to extend beyond the grain crops. 5. Now it seems to me obvious that the general application of a rule, such as No. 2, would at once deprive Government of much valuable property in trees; for a peremptory sale by auction would hardly compensate for the permanent alienation of choice timber, particularly when we know that, under the mawul mode of cultivation, this timber would gradually disappear. 6. Another case in which the rule would require consideration, if not modification, is the property in the produce of the wild date. This is, in many parts of the country, an article of valuable annual farm. 7. It appears to me doubtful in how far it would be prudent to part with this source of revenue for the result of precarious biddings made at a peremptory auction sale. 8. The same rule will apply to the farm of other trees in the Conkan, such as teak, &c., where these grow in land now at the disposal of Government, but which, under a survey, might be taken up by a cultivator. 9. On the above grounds, I think that the rule requires further consideration ere it can be adopted as a general one for the future administration of survey settlements. 10. I deem it very possible that I may have somewhat misconceived the scope and tendency of the intended rule. In such case, I will be happy to give it my further consideration on another reference being made to me. X. Revenue Survey and Assessment under the Bombay Presidency. [53] [54] No. 6358 of 1848. Territorial Department, Revenue. From W. Courtney, Esq., Acting Secretary to Government, to Captain Sir, Bombay Castle, 18 October 1848. WITH reference to the joint report made by yourself, Mr. Goldsmid and Captain Davidson, under date the 2d August 1847 (submitted to Government through the Revenue Commissioner, Southern Division), on the practice and objects of your respective surveys, I have been directed by the Right honourable the Governor in Council to transmit to you, for any observations you may have to offer, the accompanying copy of a letter from the conservator of forests, No. 716, dated the 29th ultimo, submitting his opinion on the plan proposed in Rule 2, para. 84, of the joint report, for disposing of the produce of fruit trees standing in fields, and of the restrictions to be placed on the cutting of trees. I have, &c. (signed) W. Courtney, Acting Secretary to Government. [55] 1. Letter to Government, No. 91 of 18th April 1848. 2. Letter to Mili tary Board, No. 151 of 8th August 1848. No. 206 of 1848. From Captain G. Wingate, Superintendent Revenue Survey and Assessment, Sir, Superintendent's Office, Dharwar, 26 October 1848. In compliance with the instructions of the Right honourable the Governor in Council, contained in your letter of 18th instant, No. 6358, I do myself the honour to submit the following observations in reference to the remarks made by the Conservator of Forests, in his letter, No. 716, dated the 29th ultimo, upon Rule 2, para. 84, of the joint report by Mr. Goldsmid, Captain Davidson and myself, for the disposal of fruit and other trees standing within the limits of fields in surveyed districts. 2. It will have been observed by Government that the above quoted rule is, by para. 84 of our report, strictly limited "to the collectorates above the Ghauts, already surveyed, or in course of being so," which renders it unnecessary for me to follow Dr. Gibson in the arguments adduced in his 4th and following paras., on the supposition of its extension to the Conkans. I have further already had the honour of submitting my views on the general question as to property in trees, and restrictions to be placed on cutting them, for the consideration of Government and the Military Board, in my letters noticed in the margin; and I shall, therefore, confine myself to points which have not been noticed in these despatches, or appear to require further elucidation. 3. I am unable to admit the justness of the remark, made by Dr. Gibson in the 3d para. of his letter under consideration, that the system of sale proposed by our rule would be pernicious, as experience has shown us that the natives cannot, in the present state of their habits, be safely trusted with a property in nearly all the trees in the open country." My belief is, that they may be so trusted with the utmost safety, and this assurance rests on the fact that all the fruit and other trees now found growing on cultivated lands, with very rare exceptions, owe their existence to private individuals. In all localities favourable for the growth of trees, such as gardens, they are invariably planted and preserved; and even in the open fields, though the cultivators consider them to be there prejudicial to their crops, as attracting birds, they are, nevertheless, raised in sufficient numbers to supply wood for the manufacture and repair of agricultural implements. In numerous localities, chiefly in the neighbourhood of towns, groves of fruit trees have been planted in this collectorate, subsequent to the introduction of the revised assessment, on the faith of this assessment being the sole demand to be made on behalf of Government, and that whatever was produced X. duced on the land would belong to the holder. I can also very well recollect the increased interest taken by the cultivators in the planting and preservation Revenue Survey of trees, on the introduction of the new assessment into the Sholapoor collec- and Assessment torate. 4. I see, therefore, no reason whatever for apprehending any wanton destruction of trees from constituting the holder of every field the proprietor of all the trees standing upon it On the contrary, I entertain the strongest conviction. that no one cause has tended so much to prevent the extension of planting in Government land as the assertion of a claim of property in trees growing on it by the state. It appears to me vain to expect a cultivator to lay out cap tal in the formation of an orchard of fruit trees, or other plantation, without being able to claim a right of property in it when grown up. And every interference on the part of Government, with the view of restricting the powers of the holder of a field over the trees standing upon it, cannot fail, in my humble opinion, to impede the acquirement of a feeling of property in the soil, which must be established before we can reasonably anticipate much outlay of capital in the improvement of land. But, as this subject will have to be considered in my reply to a reference by the Revenue Commissioners, Southern Division, regarding the points connected with the joint report, reserved for further discussion by the Government letter of 22d ultimo, No. 5593, I shall not further enlarge upon it here. 5. With reference to the observations in the 5th para. of Dr. Gibson's letter, I would explain, that Rule 2 was not intended to enjoin a peremptory sale of trees, unless a fair price could be obtained for them; and the provision in the concluding sentence of the rule was intended to meet such a case. When trees are to be sold under the rule, the collector would have to place an upset price upon them, beyond which the biddings must proceed to admit of the trees being sold at all, or the land being entered in the name of the purchaser. 6. It would, however, seem desirable to exempt from the operation of the rule the precincts of the hill-forts, alluded to in the 2d para. of the conservator's letter, as well as other localities in the mawuls, or elsewhere, intended to be reserved for the growth of teak or other forest timber. This course I have already recommended in my letter to the Secretary to the Military Board, quoted in a previous para., and the proposal has met with Dr. Gibson's approval, as appears from his letter to the same authority, dated 26th August last, No. 630, with a copy of which I have been favoured. The selection of such localities might be accomplished with the greatest ease by the collectors, or superintendents of survey, in communication with the conservator of forests; but to withhold the general operation of the rule, of which the main object is to create a feeling of property in the soil, for the sake of a few exceptional cases, which admit of being specially provided for, would, in my humble opinion, be in the highest degree inexpedient. 7. Another objection to the rule brought forward by Dr. Gibson in the 6th and 7th paras. of his letter. is the sacrifice it would entail of property in the produce of the wild date, which he states to be in many parts of the country an article of valuable annual farm, and is doubtful how far it would be prudent to part with this source of revenue for the result of precarious biddings at a peremptory auction sale. I would here observe, that the auction sales contemplated in Rule 2, refer to timber and fruit trees, but not to the wild date, the right of cutting down which, as of any other jungle encumbering the land, is secured to the bolder of a field by Rule 11 of the joint report. 8. The produce of the wild date, referred to by Dr. Gibson, is an intoxicating liquor obtained by tapp ng the tree; and the privilege of drawing off and selling this juice forms, in this collectorate, part of the monopoly of the sale of spirituous liquors, which is annually farmed out to the highest bidder; but in other parts of the surveyed collectorates it may be farmed out separately. Subsequent to the introduction of the new assessment here, the provision in the liquor contractor's lease regarding these trees has been limited to the right of tapping those standing in Government waste; for it would be wholly at variance with the principles of the settlement to allow him a right of intrusion upon fields in cultivation; but I am not aware that the restriction has had any injurious effect on the sale of the liquor contract. Nor need any be apprehended; for, unfortunately, this is a branch of revenue that might be increased almost at will. All that is needed to bring about this result is to increase the number of places 999. under the Bombay Presidency. [56] |