2Zi 



whicli Mr. Green way was one of the judges) had in several 

 decisions declared that Zemindars had no power to alter the 

 rate of division of crop obtaining in the year preceding the 

 permanent settlement, although the money value of the 

 Zemindar's share of the crop was a matter to be settled by 

 mutual agreement by the Zemindars and ryots and to be 

 entered in the puttahs issued to the latter, and that by the 

 Act of permanent settlement, the government transferred to 

 Zemindars " the proprietary right exercised by itself " and 

 that " it could not do more without infringing the rights of 

 others." '' 



85. The enactments passed in 1822 continued to regulate 



the relations between Zemindars and ryots 



^^Rent legislation in ^^^^^^ jgg^ ^^len they wcrc supcrscdcd by 



Act VIII of 1865. The immediate occa- 

 sion for amending the old law was the necessity for the 

 provision of summary remedies to enable Inamdars to recover 

 their rents from their tenants, as the procedure prescribed 

 by the old regulations was understood not to be apphcable 

 to estates which did not pay revenue to Government. The 

 reduction of assessments granted by Government in the case 

 of ryotwar lands and the great rise which had also taken 

 place in the value of the ryot's interest in land had brought 

 into existence a class of sub-tenants under ryotwar holders, 

 and it became necessary to provide for the recovery of the 

 rent due by such sub-tenants. While the proposed legislation 

 was under the consideration of the Madras Legislative Coun- 

 cil, Mr. Carmichael, the Collector of Vizagapatam, brought 

 to the notice of the Board of Revenue a decision which had 

 been passed by Mr. Collett, the District Judge, and which 

 raised very important questions respecting the right of the 

 Zemindar to enhance the rents payable by his ryots. A 

 Zemindar of a permanently settled estate had applied to the 

 Collector for the issue of an order for ejectiug certain ryots who 

 had refused to accept puttahs providing for the payment of en- 

 hanced rent. The Collector rejected the claim on the grounds 

 that the Zemindar's demands on the ryots were absolutely 

 hmited by the Eegulations 28 and 30 of 1802, and that rent 

 could not be enhanced beyond the $ums entered in the puttahs 

 issued in accordance with the provisions of those regulations. 

 Mr. Collett reversed the Collector's decision holding that sec- 

 tions 8 and 9 of Regulation 30 of 1802, which provided a limit 

 of time for the issue of puttahs on demand and prescribed the 



''^ See decisions quoted by the Board of Revenue in thcif Piocecdingi of 2nd 

 December 1864, No.'7843. 



80 



