234 



mode of adjusting disputes regarding rates of assessment, 

 were intended to apply only to the first occasion of issuing a 

 puttah after the permanent settlement of an estate, that there 

 was nothing in the regulation to preclude an enhancement of 

 the demand in future years, that, on the contrary, such 

 changes were contemplated was shown by the fact that the 

 regulation provided for puttahs being renewable every year, 

 that the terms "just and correct rate" and the "just rate 

 prescribed" used in Regulation 5 of 1822 were equivalent to 

 " fair and equitable " rate, and that to suppose that rents 

 were intended to be limited by the Regulations of 1802 was 

 incompatible with the declaration in Regulation 4 of 1822, 

 viz., that those regulations were not intended to define, 

 infringe, or destroy the rights of any parties. 



Mr. Collett's decision left it in doubt whether he objected 

 to the money value of the share of the produce representing 

 the Zemindar's rent being considered as limited, or to the 

 share of the produce itself being limited ; and also whether 

 the " fair and equitable rate " referred to by him had reference 

 to rents payable according to customary usage, or to rents 

 determined by the application of the principle of competition. 

 In the latter case, the value of the ryot's interest in the land 

 would, of course, be destroyed. A similar case had arisen in 

 Bengal about the same time and it was decided that the 

 principle of competition was to be appealed to in settling 

 rates of rent and it was only in 1865 that this decision was 

 overruled by the Calcutta High Court in what is known as 

 the " Great Rent case." The Madras Board of Revenue, 

 justly apprehending that the rights of the ryots were imper- 

 illed by Mr. Collett's decision, exhaustively reviewed the 

 whole question and communicated their views to the Select 

 Committee of the Legislative Council appointed to settle the 

 lines of the proposed legislation.^"^ In the report submitted 

 by the Committee they stated that they unanimously agreed 

 with the Board that the Regulations of 1802 were intended 

 to protect the occupants of land under Zemindars by fixing 

 the maximum rent demandable from them and forbidding 

 their ejectment so long as the rent was paid, and that Regu- 

 lations 4 and 5 of 1822 were passed for the increased protec- 

 tion of such occupants of land, in consequence of passages 

 in the Regulations of 1802, which made mention of a pro- 

 prietary right having been conferred on Zemindars, having 

 led to doubt and misapprehension as to the rights of the 



''^*' The conclusions arrived at by the Board in their Proceedings, dated 2nd Decem- 

 ber 1864, No. 7848, are printed as appendix VI.-B. (1). ' 



