HC Deb 23 March 1891 vol 351 cc1649-50

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether he is aware that a Government tenant, Russ Ram by name, farming 17 acres in the Jolesar Tahsil, Etah District, North-West Provinces, whose Kharif and Rabi crops in 1887 were of the value of Rs.321 90, paid as rent Rs.306, being 95 per cent. of the gross produce; (2) whether his attention has been called to the following cases cited in the Report on the economical condition of the Agricultural and Labouring Classes of the North-West Provinces of India (1886): Aba Ram, a cultivator of 21 fields in Nanganm, Payana Chhata, whose gross yield in 1887 was Rs.70 4 0, the sum of Rs.68 15 0 was taken for rent and canal dues, being 99 per cent. of the gross produce; Hira Singh and Bhara Singh (brothers), of Hazara, cultivators of 10 acres, whose gross yield in 1887 was Rs.67, the sum of Rs.40 11 G was taken for rent; and Baksha, cultivator of seven acres in the Jolesar Tahsil, District Etah, the gross produce in 1887 was Rs.85, and the rent taken was Rs.40; (3) whether the above cases may be taken as samples of the manner in which the State, as landlord in the North-West Provinces, treats its tenants; and (4) whether any remission of rent or delay for payment was granted; and, if not, under what circumstances are remissions or delays granted?


In reply to questions No. 1 and No. 2 I have to say that it is a mistake to speak of these ryots as Government tenants. They are tenants of private landlords. Other- wise, the facts are correctly reproduced from the Return presented to Parliament on the 21st of June, 1889. The Return being very bulky has never yet been printed. The reply to the third question is, No. The ryots whose names are given were tenants, not of the State but of private landlords. In the two districts concerned—Etah and Muttra—the State Land Revenue falls on the cultivated area at the rate of 1½ rupees per acre in Etah and 2⅓ rupees per acre in Muttra. The answer to the fourth question is that the Secretary of State cannot say whether the landlords in these cases granted remissions of rent; but the Reports contained in the Parliamentary Return show that these ryots, with the exception of Aba Ram, were not in arrears with their rent and were not seriously involved in debt.