152 Appendix. 



(a) Whether the provision of Sections 18, 19, and 20 of Regula- 

 tion XII of 1817, authorize the Collector to take such steps as the 

 Commissioner proposes ; (b) and whether if such a proceeding as is 

 suggested were drawn up under the orders of the Collector, it would be 

 accepted by the Civil Court as establishing a valid local custom under 

 which the zamindar could recover from the ryots the whole or the 

 part of the patwarts remuneration. 



2. Upon both these points the Board feel considerable doubt. 

 The difficulty raised by the Commissioner and the Judge appears to be 

 that in some villages the ryots are bound (or are alleged to be bound) 

 by custom to pay to the zamindar the whole or a part of the patwarfs 

 salary. The Court treat this claim as a demand for an illegal cess and 

 refuse to decree the amount. The zamindar is still liable to pay the 

 patwari, but he is unable to make the ryots contribute. The Commis- 

 sioner proposes that a proceeding should be drawn up stating what 

 the custom in each village is, and he considers that if a copy of this 

 proceeding were attached to the plaint in a civil suit brought by the 

 zamindar to recover from the ryots the contribution payable for the 

 pativari, the Courts would recognize this proceeding as evidence of 

 what Section 1 8 of the Regulation calls the mode of payment, and 

 would decree the zamindar's claim. 



3. But the Board are inclined to think that the mode of payment 

 mentioned in Section 1 8, refers only to the distinction between pay- 

 ment in money, in grain or in land, and has nothing to do with the 

 question of the parties liable to pay the amount. The whole tenor 

 of the Regulation seem to imply that the remuneration of pativari is a 

 question for the Collector and not for the Civil Court. Section 34 

 expressly prohibits the Court from taking cognizance of the complaint 

 of a patwari that he has not received his remuneration, and the same 

 principle would equally seem to prohibit a zamindar from suing his 

 ryots in the Civil Court for contribution towards the patwarfs pay. 



4. The Board's records do not show that any orders under Sections 

 18, 19, and 20 of the Regulation have ever been issued in any district for 

 determining the mode of payment of the/a/wa/7>, and the Board can- 

 not think that the present time is opportune for giving effect to a 

 provision which has remained dormant during so many years. 



