ccxlvi 



over them ; or they fattened on extortion where the influenue and 

 authority of the Empire or its lieutenants had grown weak. In 

 neither case was the State benefited ; 



" That the object steadily kept in view by the framers of the Per- 

 manent Settlement was to remedy these crying evils by re-adjusting 

 matters ; in order to which they proposed to relinquish to the Zemin- 

 dars an ample allowance for their personal benefit, out of the average 

 State demand in past years on the Zemindari, and to fix the Zemin- 

 dar^s payment unalterably for ever, leaving to him all the benefits 

 derivable from extension of cultivation and improvements in the 

 culture of the lands, but to restrict his demands on the ryot to the 

 rate or share established for Government by prescription, which rate 

 was to be registered in the village by ofiicers appointed for the pur- 

 pose ; while the actual demand on the individual ryot was to be 

 recorded in a puttah or written engagement in accordance with this 

 established rate or share, which puttahs when granted not ' without 

 limit of time ' but ' for one year/ should be renewable at its close, 

 or be in force till renewed ; 



" That a limited time (six months) was allowed to each Zemindar 

 after the Permanent Settlement of the State demand on his Zemindari, 

 for the necessary arrangements with the ryots, after which time he 

 became liable to fine if he failed to grant puttahs to ryots on demand ; 



" That when disputes arose regarding the rates to be specified in 

 those puttahs, whether of assessment in specific quantities of grain or 

 sums of money for a specified extent of land, or of shares in the 

 produce^ they were to be determined with reference to the rates in 

 force in the particular case in the year jpreceding the Permanent 

 Settlement of the State demand, or where that was not ascertainable, 

 then according to the rates in force in the case of neighbouring land 

 of similar quality ; 



" That no ryot can be ejected from his holding, so long as he 

 pays, or is willing to pay, this established rate ; 



'^ That the Collector has summary powers to give decisions in 

 such cases in a q^uasi judicial capacity, and may refer them for the 

 decision of Punchayet when the parties agree ; 



'' That appeals lie by regular suit to the Courts from the Collector's 

 decisions, but that the Punchayet^s decision is final where unimpeach- 

 able on the ground of corruption." 



(2) Note on Judicial decisions affecting the rights of Zemindari Ryots. 



It is noteworthy that the decisions of the Madras High Court 

 which really jeopardized the status of Zemindari ryots were not passed 

 with reference to Zemindari ryots, but with reference to Government 

 ryots. The decisions in Chockalinga Pillai versus Vythilinga Pandara 

 Sannadi and Mrs. Jessie Foulkes versus Eajarathna Mudely (YI 

 Madras High Court Reports, pages 164, &c., and 175, &c.) are sup- 

 posed to have rendered the tenure of Zemindari ryots precarious. 

 In the fifst case, the tenant on whose behalf occupancy right was 

 claimed was a porakudi and the landlord was a Government ryot 

 entitled to kudivaram and not melvaram. In the second case, the so- 

 called puttadar was the lessee of the melvaram rights of a mittadar. 



