Final report of the revised settlement of the Agror Valley: Hazara district

· 1901 · Public domain (published pre-1930) · archive.org ↗

1( 7 )

2As regards (2), sufficient has been already said to prove bow undulj

3lenient and misleading the prices assumed in 1892 'were, and further evidence oi

4this is given in paragraph 6 of the Report.

5As regards (1), the correctness of the Settlement Officer’s assumption: if

6established by the statistics given in paragraphs 56 to 58 of the 1 Final Report,

7which show that the average cash rents now paid by tenants-at-will on the Khan’s

8estate average lls. 2-2-8 per acre. That these are privileged rents and do not

9represent the full letting value of the land is proved by. the fact that when a

10holding becomes vacant, the rents tendered by the new tenants are,, as. tv rule,

11considerably higher than those fixed in the settlement proceedings* Another

12reason for the low jama finally fixed was that the cultivated area was then taken

13ap 20,192 acres (paragraph 7, Punjab Government Review), whereas the. Final

14Report shows it to be 21,279 acres.

1512 . From the above considerations the Chief Commissioner has come, to

16the conclusion that a fair assessment on revenue lands would have been about

17Rs. 22,000, giving an all-round rate of about Re. 1 per acre of cultivation as

18against 9| annas,, the incidence of the jama actually assessed. He has gone into

19the matter at some length, because he thinks it should be made clear that neither

20the Agror rates nor assessment which he now confirms should be taken as. a

21standard for the rest of the Hazara District which is now under assessment,, and

22also because the leniency of the assessment has an important bearing on the term

23for which it should run.

24From what date it should take effect .—

2513. Under the orders of the Punjab Government, the new assessment

26takes effect on the lands of the Khan (50 per cent, of whole), and of the Khan

27Khel and others who have now received proprietary rights from what was former¬

28ly the Khan's estate (19 per cent, of the whole) with effect from Kharif 1899, when

29it was announced and distributed. This discretion of Government is in no way

30fettered in those cases, as it has full authority under the Regulation to deal with,

31the Khan’s estate.

32As regards the other owners (holding 30 per cent, of the cultivation and

33paying Rs, 2,362, or 18 per cent, of the new demand), who were sub-proprietors

34at last settelment, the Punjab Government has directed that “it will .not coma

35into effect until the new assessment of the Hazara District is imposed, and till

36then they will be subjected to the disabilities and exactions to which they are

37liable at present.”

38The current settlement of Hazara was sanctioned in 1874 for 30 yearsj

39with effect from Kharif 1872 and expired therefore in the present rabi, but the

40correspondence shows that till recently, through some misunderstanding, it was

41assumed that itdoes notexpire till Kharif 1904, and this apparently was one canseof

42delay in starting re-settlement operations. The old settlement in Agror was actuary

43introduced in 1870. In the Agror assessment proceeding of last settlement the

44paragraph 8 of Punjab following entry appears : — “ The said assessment to remain

45Government orders on Mr. in force for the same term as may be fixed for the new asses-

46iteport. gUlimB P ‘ el ' min,iry ment of the rest of Hazara or till re-settlement and to be

47subject to revision thereafter.” This has apparently been

48interpreted to mean that the new assessment of Agror (excepting the Khanla

49estate) cannot be introduced before the new assessment of Hazara, which will not

50come into force till 1905 or 1906, or possibly later. Colonel Deane considers

51that we are justified in accepting the obvious and natural meaning of the' words

52to he that the assessment of Agror should be for 30 years (the term sanctioned

53for Hazara) or till re-settlement. The 30 years term expired for Agror in

54Rabi 1900, the re-settlement operations have been completed, and there seems,

55to be no adequate reason why their introduction over a fraction of the tract should

56any longer be deferred. It is believed that the section of the owners affected.,,

57who have already held for 32 years under the old settlement, will have no objec¬

58tion to this measure, which, though it increases their assessment, will at the same

59time remove various cesses and disabilities. The Chief Commissioner accordingly

60proposes, with the sanction of the Government of India, to introduce the remain¬

61ing portion of the assessment with effect from this kharif.