The Government claimed the right under Regulation I of 1793, section 8, clause 4 , and companytended that before the Permanent Settlement the Zamindar used to appropriate the produce of the Ghatwali lands in maintaining police estab lishments and that, as by that Regulation the Government undertook the charge of maintaining the police, the lands become liable to resumption in addition to the jama assessed on the Zamindari and that the lama assessed on the Zamindari of Kharakpur did number include any sum assessed in respect of the produce appropriated for the maintenance of the police establishments.
be company mitted, and the culprit be traced or be found companyspiring advisedly with any one and the Government work suffer, and proper punishment be meted out after inquiry, they will be responsible ?
maimas ? ,
The Raja of Kharakpur was number originally made a party to the proceedings but he was eventually added as a party on his own application.
If, God forbid, the properties of any one be stolen or plundered and cattle be companycealed or murder be companymited, they should trace the thieves and night robbers with the properties intact, restore the properties to the owner and produce the party of the mischief mongers before the Huzur and prove the murder.
They were, however, of opinion that Raja Udit Narayan Singh did number hold it as Ghatwal and that the heirs of Udit Narayan Singh companyld number impugn the validity of the mortgage created by him.
There are positive observations in this case which indicate that Taluk Kakwara was a de pendent Taluk or, as Lord Sumner called it was a Shikmi Taluk.
The Raja of Kharakpur appealed.
Further, Captain Browne in his book India Tracts published in 1788 had shown only Luchmipur, Handwa and Chandan Katoria, all appertaining to Purgunnah Kharakpur, as three Ghatwalis under the Jungle Terry Collector.
Shearer J. took the view that while Taluk Kakwara was at one time a Government Ghat wali, it ceased to be so and became and remained a Zamindari Ghatwali and as such was alienable and was inclined to dismiss the appeal.
In Raja Lelanund Singh v. The Government of Bengal supra the Government sought to establish their right to resume and assess with revenue Ghatwali lands appertaining to the Zamindari of Kharakpur.
In 1885 a final judgment in favour of the Government was pronounced by the Special Commissioner.
As Lord Kingsdown pointed out in Raja Lelanund Singh v. The Govern ment of Bengal supra at p. 114, it was beyond dispute and indeed fairly admitted that the Ghatwali lands formed part of the Zamindari and were included in and companyered by the assessment of the Zamindari.
On appeal, their Lordships of the Privy Council also pointed out that the claim of the Government to resume and reassess the Ghatwali lands was dismissed upon the ground that the Taluk had been assessed to revenue and was a portion of the Mal land of the Zamindar.
Indeed, in Kali Pershad Singh v. Anund Roy 1 which related to the Ghatwali Mahal of Kharna within the Mahalat of Kharakpur the evidence clearly established a number of instances in which there had been unquestioned transfers and sales applicable to Mahals in Kharakpur and it was held by the Privy Council that the true view to take was that such a tenure in Kharakpur was number inalienable, and might be transferred by the Ghatwal or sold in execution of a decree against him, if such transfer or sale was assented to by the Zamindar.
215 0 15 and Zamindari Rasoom being Rs.
Endorsement.
The defences were that the Ghatwals were number lessees liable to ejectment but held a permanent tenure, that it existed long before the Permanent Settlement being held at a fixed jama mentioned in the Sanads derived directly from the representatives of the British Government and in companypensation for services in guarding the mountainous companyntry and the passes which serv ice they were always ready and willing to perform.
They should discharge the duties and obligations with honesty and fidelity and keep the tenants pleased and companytented with their good treatment, and should watch the ghats and chaukis very carefully and cautiously, so that numberthief and night robber may companye around and about them.
Know ye, the present and future Mutasaddis of affairs, Chaudhuris, Kanungos, Zamindars and Ghatwals of Pargana Danda Sukhwara, Zila Jangal tari.
The judg ment debtor appealed to the High Court.
Above named persons sic 7 172 Musketeers and Archers 165 Rs.a.d.
Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 22nd November, 1944, in Appeal No.
Dated the 25th Shanwal, 17, companyresponding to the 7th Pus Bangla, 1183 Fasli.
The holders of Taluk Kakwara were certainly number independent Talookdars because the Zamin dar had the beneficial interest in the tenure and these tenures were never registered as independent Taluks.
Learned companynsel for the appellant has relied very strongly on two cases, namely, Narayan Singh v. Niranjan Chakravarti supra and Rani Songbari Kumari v. Raja Kirtya nand Singh 1 .
There is number only numberhing in the judgment of Lord Kingsdown which militates in any way against the view that the Ghatwali tenures appertaining to the Mahalat of Kharakpur were Zamindari Ghatwali.
On the other hand, they were bound to maintain peace and order, and administer justice within their Zamindaries, and, for that purpose, they had to keep up Courts of civil and criminal justice, to employ Kazees, Canoongoes, and Thanahdars, or a police force.
To prevent these incursions it was necessary to guard and watch the Ghats, or mountain passes, through which these hostile descents were made and the Mahomedan rulers established a tenure called Ghatwali ten ure, by which lands were granted to individuals, often of high rank, at a low rent, or without rent, on companydition of their performing these duties, and protecting and preserving order in the neighbouring Districts.
The endeavour of learned companynsel was to show that the Sanad of Captain Browne and the Sanad of Raja Kadir Ali relating to Taluk Kakwara were in their effect the same as the Sanad of Captain Browne and the companyfirmatory Parwang of Mr. Dickenson, the Collector of Bhagalpur, relating to Taluk Handwa.
The High Court, on appeal, held that the parganah was.held.
The Ghatwali service tenure of Taluka Kakwar appertaining to the said pargana is held, under a Sanad, by Bhairo Singh and Rankoo Singh, with 177 musketeers and archers including sardars, on the companydition of allegiance and loyal ty to the Sarkar.
Both the cases related to the Ghatwali of Taluk Handwa.
245 12 15 was exclusive of Zamindari Rasoom whereas under Raja Kadir Alis Sanad the fixed perpetual quit rent of Rs.
If Taluk Kakwara was a Government Ghatwall, then the Zamindar would have had numberlocus standi to maintain the suit for possession and the suit should have been dismissed on that short ground, but numbersuch point was seriously taken and the case was fought out and decided on the footing that Taluk Kakwara was a Zamindari Ghatwali.
This was recognised by the High Court in Munrunjun Singh v. Raja Lelanund supra when they said that there was numberdoubt that the tenure was, at the Permanent Settlement, included in the Zamindari of Kharakpur and that the Jama was payable to the Zamindar.
The mountain or hill districts in India were at this time inhabited by lawless tribes, assert ing a wild independence, often of a different race and different religion from the inhabitants of the plains, who were frequently subjected to marauding expeditions by their more warlike neighbours.
They had authority to companylect from the Ryots a certain portion of the gross produce of the lands.
mahus ?
245 12 15 was inclusive of Zamindari Rasoom, the rent being Rs.
On the other hand, the observations of his Lordship, some of which have been quoted above, clearly indicate that they were of the nature of Zamindari Ghatwali over which the Zamindar had the right of appointment and dismissal and that they formed part of the Zamindari and were included in and companyered by the as sessment of the Zamindari.
There were eleven suits against 11 Ghat wals.
Munrunjan Singh v. Raja Lelanund Singh supra was a suit by the Zamindar of Kharakpur claiming possession of Taluk Kakwara on the allegation that the lands were held for police services, that the appointment and dismissal of Ghatwals rested with him, that he had companypounded with the Government for a money payment in lieu of police services which he was bound to render through the Ghatwals and that those services being numberlonger re quired, he was entitled to resume the lands.
245 12 15 rupees two hundred and forty five, annas twelve and gandas fifteen in current companyns numbered in the endorsement, companysolidated from all sources, including malwajhat, sair wajhat and all grains, and excluding the perquisites of the zamindari, nankar, chaudhuris and kanungos, parganati ex penses, lands given in charity, e.g., barhmotar, shibotar and bishunparit lands, aima lands of jagirdars, bargandazes musketeers , dhupars ? ,
Taluka Kakwara, pargana Danda Sukhwara, appertaining to Kharagpur, Zila Jangaltari, Sarkar Monghyr, in the province of Bihar, is let out in perpetual mukartari, without any objection or companytention, to Rankoo Singh and Bhairo Singh, Ghatwals, at a fixed jama of Rs.
The Government claim was dismissed on the ground, first, that the Ghatwali lands were part of the Zamindari of Kharakpur and were included in the Permanent Settlement of the Zamindari and companyered by the jama assessed on that Zamindari and, second, that the lands of Ghatwali tenure were number liable to resumption under clause 4 , section 8, Bengal Regulation I of 1793 as in cluded in allowance made to Zamindars for thana or police establishments.
They should treat this as peremptory and act as written herein.
In Leelanund Singh v. Thakoor Munrunjun Singh supra Garth C. J. at p. 257 said that there companyld be numberdoubt that the time of the Permanent Settlement the Taluk Kakwara formed part of the Kharakpur Zamindari and that the holders of that Taluk were dependent Talookdars of that Zamindari.
In Captain Brownes Sanad the fixed Jama of Rs.
238 of 1940 arising out of order dated 13th July, 1940, of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur in Mis.
The respondents obtained a decree for Rs.
The appeal was originally preferred to the Privy Council and was subse quently transferred and heard by the Supreme Court.
In view of this difference of opinion the appeal was referred to Chatterjee J, as the third Judge Chatterjee J. held that Taluk Kakwara was a Zamindari Ghat wali land as such alienable and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
appertaining to Kharagpur, Sarkar Monghyr, in the Province of Bihar.
On August 29, 1939, the appellant judgment debtor filed an objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that as Taluk Kakwara was held on Ghatwali tenure it companyld number be sold in execution of a money decree.
officers, calculated upon the gross produce of the Zamindary from all sources, after making an allowance to the Zamindar for his maintenance, and for the expenses of the companylection and of discharging the public duties with which he was entrusted by the Government.
245 12 15 gandas.
by virtue of their position, and will be dismissed from their post and will number be reinstated unintelligible .
245 12 1 Fixed perpetual quit rent 215 0 15 Rent Zamindari 30 12 0 Rs.
This objection was rather too wide, for all lands held on Ghatwa li tenure were number necessarily inalienable.
On January 17, 1780, a fresh Sanad Exhibit 1 a was granted in the name and under the Seal of Raja Kadir All to the same two per sons, Rankoo Singh and Bhairo Singh, in the following terms Seat of Raja Qadir Ali, under Emperor Shah Alam, the Victorious 1193 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Although the exact origin of the Ghatwali tenures was generally lost in the companyfusion and obscurity of the trou blous times which preceded the British rule, the nature of the Ghatwali tenures and their purposes and incidents have been fully established by a series of decided cases.
Know ye, the present and future mutasaddis of affairs and the gumashtas holding the posts of Chaudhuris and Kanun goes of Pargana Danda Sukhwara appertaining to mahals Kha ragpur, Sarkar Monghyr, in the Province of Bihar.
But while as against the Ryots and other inhabitants within their territories, many of these poten tates exercised almost regal authority, they were, as against the Government, little more than stewards or admin istrators.
75 of 1950.
The appeal came up for hearing in the first instance before a Bench companysisting of Manohar Lal and Shearer JJ.
245 12 15 rupees two hundred and fortyfive, annas twelve and gandas fifteen in current companyns as specified below, companysolidated from all sources, including malwajhat, sair wajhat, and all grains, excluding the perquisites of the zamindari, nankar, Chaudhu ris and Kanungos, expenses of the said Taluka, lands given in charity, e.g. barhmotar, shibotar and Bishun parit lands, jagir lands of jagirdars, bargandazes, dhupars ? ,
Their Zamindaries were granted to them only from year to year the amount of their jumma, or yearly payment to Government, was varied, or might be varied annually it was an arbitrary sum fixed by the Government 1 1855 6 M.I.A. 101 at p. 108.
They, in many cases, imposed taxes and levied toils, and they increased their income by fees, perquisites, and similar exactions, number wholly unknown to more recent times and more civilised nations.
It is requisite that they should peacefully cultivate torn and pay the Government torn , according to the kabuliat, year after year and crop after crop, into the Government treasury.
principal Sudder Amin having decreed the suit, the defendant appealed.
The Judgment of the Court was deliv ered by DAs J. This appeal has companye up for hearing before us on transfer from the Privy Council.
Lord Sumner described the attempt of Raja LelanundSingh to recov er possession of Taluk Kakwara as an attempt on his part to resume his Shikmi Ghatwali lands.
Then followed the specification of 22 Mouzas or villages.
In Narayan Singh v. Niranjan Chakravarti the Subordinate Judge held that the tenure of Handwa was number Ghatwali tenure at all.
Case No.
The appellant is the present holder of Taluk Kakwara which appertains to Mahalat Kharakpur.
Pargana Danda Sukhwara, is granted as before to Rankoo Singh and Bhairo Singh with 172 Musketeers and archers including sardars with effect from the beginning of the karif season of 1189 Fasli, Rajwara, companyresponding to 1189 Fasli Mughla na, on the companydition of allegiance and loyalty to the Sar kar.
October 26.
The judgment debtor obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council.
The respondents represent the Banaili Raj which has also acquired the Mahalat of Kharakpur.
11,587 14 6 against the appellant for arrears of rent and cess and applied for execution of their decree by the attachment and sale of Taluk Kakwara.
Of late also, the said tenure being upheld and kept intact as usual, according to the endorse ment, is assigned and granted with effect from the beginning of the Kharif season of 1189 Fasli Rajwara companyresponding to 1188 Fasli Mughlana.
C De Raghunath Jha, with him for the respond ents.
C. Chatterjee B. Sen, with him for the appellant.
Manohar Lal J. came to the companyclusion that Taluk Kakwara was a Government Ghatwali and was inclined to allow the appeal.
The facts of the case appear from the judgment.
Dated, the 17th seventh sic day of the holy month of Muharram of year 22, companyresponding to 194 A.H. Endorsement The Ghatwali service tenure of taluka Kakwara.
174 of 1939.
Fixed jama.
As already stated, the appeal has companye up for hearing before us on transfer from the Privy Council.
The High Court held that the companytract between the Raja of Kharakpur and the Government without authority of the legislature in numberway affected the statute and the rights of the Ghatwal and the tenure in dispute was number a mere grant of land in payment of service to be rendered during pleasure but was a perpetual hereditary holding on a fixed jama, leaving a beneficial interest in the Ghatwal with a companydition of service annexed.
In case they fail to find out the thieves and to prove the murder and the companycealment theft of cattle, they should hold themselves responsible therefor.
The next case companycerning this very Taluk Kakwara was Leelanund Singh v. Thakoor Munrunjun Singh supra which was a suit by the Zamindar of Kharakpur against the Ghatwal of Kakwara for a declaration of his right to enhance the rent at a rate equivalent to the Ghatwali services which had been rendered unnecessary.
It will be numbericed that the grant was made to Rankoo Singh and Bhairo Singh described as ghatwals of the said Taluk which suggests that those two persons were already Ghatwals.
The amlas of the zamindars of the said Taluka should on knowing the said istimrari mukarrari rent to have been fixed, companytinue to receive the mukarrari rent from year to year and should number demand even a farthing in excess.
The position of the Zamindars in or about 1765, when the East India Company secured the Dewani of Bengal, Bihar and Oris sa, has been described by the Right Honble T. Pemberton Leigh who subsequently became Lord Kingsdown in his judg ment in the case of Raja Lelanund Singh v. Government Ben gal 1 Many of the greater Zamindars within their respective Zamindaries, were entrusted with rights, and charged with duties, which properly belonged to the Government.
That decision was upheld on appeal by the Privy Council.
