2. In Bengal an entirely different system has been introduced. When the English occupied the country they found a superiorclass above the cultivators,the Zemiradars , who collected the rent for the State, retaining a certain proportion. Thesefunctions were transmitted hereditarily. The Zemindars, therefore, resembled the holders of a fief, in the theory of the feudalsystem. They were either tributary raj abs or princes, who had been reduced to the position of subjects, collectors or farmersof the revenue, native chiefs, or adventurers and bandits, who bad grown powerful in a district, for which they paid therevenue demanded. "To our ideas there is a wide gulf between a robber and a landlord, but not so in a native view. It iswonderful how much, in times such as those of the last century, the robber, the rajab, and the Zemindar run into oneanother." (5)
The English considered the Zemindars as proprietors, not from any misunderstanding as to the nature of their rights, as hasoften been asserted, but because they hoped by this means to collect the revenue more regularly, at the same time that theycreated a superior class who might improve the cultivation, and help to enrich the country, as the English aristocracy havedone. They were, however, disappointed in their hopes. The Zemindars are content with taking the revenue, and do nothingfor the advancement of agriculture. But, on the other hand, they do not attempt to wrest from the cultivator the whole rentthat they might obtain. Besides, the ryot has more protection against their demands than the tenant farmer in Europe.
Zemindars can only claim the rent established by the pergunnah or custom. If any dispute arose regarding the customaryrate, "the question was to be determined in the Dewany-Adawlut ( Civil Court ) of the Zillah in which the lands weresituated, aocording to the rates established in the pergunnah for lands of the same description and quality as thoserespecting which the dispute arose ." (6) The Zemindar cannot cancel the pottah (or specification of rent) so long as the rent ispaid. Moreover, the State reserved a right of interference on behalf of the inferior holders. According to the existing law"The Governor-General in Council will, whenever he may deem it proper, enact such regulations as he may think necessaryfor the protection of the dependent taluqdàrs, ryots, and other cultivators of the soil." (7) This is a curious instance of Stateinterference in the relations of proprietor and tenant The Government also granted the Zemindars the property in all the waste lands of their domain, except those situated indistricts not yet populated. The State demand was fixed at ten-eleveuths of the rent received by the Zemindars.
In Bengal proper, the Zemindars have granted "sub-leases in perpetuity, for a consideration." (8) Thus the right of theoccupier is become a sort of sub-ownership, self-existent and capable of assignment, like the Irish tenant-right , thePortuguese aforamento , the Italian livello , or the hereditary lease of Groningen.
The absence of regular titles in public registers or copies from them, and the incessant suits arising from it, are the curse oflanded property in Bengal as in England. New rules have recently been introduced to guarantee the rights of the ryots (Actx. of 1859). If the ryot can prove that his rent. has not been changed for twenty years. it shall be presumed that the land hasbeen held at the same rate from the time of the permanent settlement (which entitles him to hold at the. same rent for ever), unless the Zemindar shews to the contrary . "Tenants having a right of occupancy are liable to enhancement of rent on thefollowing grounds, and on these only:--
"That the land is found by measurement to be in excess of the quantity paid for.
"That the rate of rent is below the prevailing rates paid by the same class of ryots for similar lands in the places adjacent "That the value of the produce, or the productive powers of the land, have been increased otherwise than by the agency or atthe expense of the ryot."
In a famous suit called "The Great Rent Case," on the subject of indigo cultivation, the following principles were applied bythe judges. The cultivator was allowed to sell hisindigo at an advanced rate to the proprietor; while the latter was enabledto raise the rent, which he would not be permitted to do unless the price of the produce paid to the tenant had increased.
This last rule is. remarkable as taking from the proprietors the benefit of any increase in value which is not the result of theirown industry. This will be recognised as the principle which Stuart Mill wanted to apply in England, and which aroused suchviolent opposition. It was not, however, a novelty, as the State and the Judges were applying it in India.
