DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68026#0082
Mr.'R. It.
Carlyle.
a. __J_
4 Apr., 1908,
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE :
private person, inclusive of a village headman or
watchman, make a gift to that person or to his
heir of a value not exceeding Rs. 500, or may
grant him, or his heir, or widow, an assignment of
land revenue not exceeding Rs. 15 a year for one
life, or for a term of 25 years, whichever period
may be the longer. The grant may be made
partly in the form of a gift of land and partly
in the form of an assignment either of the land
revenue of that land or of other land ; but the
total estimated value of the grant should not
exceed Rs. 500.”
The Punjab Government has also been author-
ized to sanction, subject to confirmation by the
Government of India, the grant at settlement of
fresh muafis or revenue-free holdings, not exceed-
ing in each case Rs. 100 per annum in value, for
life or for the term of settlement. The Chief
Commissioner of the North-West Frontier Pro-
vince enjoys similar powers.
Grants of land on favourable terms are usually
made to individuals under the rules regarding the
disposal of waste lands. Such lands are usually
exempted from assessment for a term of years
while they are being reclaimed or while they are
being planted up with special products, such as
tea and coffee, which do not yield an immediate
return to the planter. Such grants require the
sanction of the Government of India only if it is
the practice of the province concerned to submit
its waste lands rules for the approval of the
Government of India.
Alienations of land revenue are reported in an
annual return to the Government of India.
44046*. To whom are these restrictions due?—
The genesis of the existing restrictions on the
alienation of land by Provincial Governments was
a letter from the Secretary of State, dated the
9th July, 1862, in which he gave orders that “ there
should be no relinquishment of any portion of the
Government revenue without previous communica-
tion with the Home Government, nor should grants
(of land) which involve any loss of revenue,
whether for a limited term or in perpetuity, be
made, except with the consent of the Secretary
of State in 'Council, to whose control the expendi-
ture of the revenues of India both in India and
elsewhere, has expressly been subject by enact-
ments of the Imperial Legislature.” These orders
were communicated to the Governments of Madras,
Bombay, Bengal and the North-Western Provinces
for information and guidance, but no further
action was taken till, in 1870, it came to the notice
of the Government of India that a building site
of high value (Rs. 1,30,000) had been granted by
one of the Local Governments for an educational
institution without any reference to themselves.
Orders were accordingly issued impressing upon
Local Governments and Administrations that the
sanction of the Government of India should be
obtained to the alienation of all Government land,
whether actually paying revenue or not, except in
the case of grants of waste land under approved
rules.
Several Local Governments and Administrations
having represented the inconveniences arising from
a strict adherence to these orders, they were modi-
fied in 1872, and the rules cited above were
prescribed.
The history of the restrictions on the aliena-
tion of land revenue in the form of grants of
land, revenue free or on favourable terms, is
more complicated. The letter of the Secretary
of State for India referred to above applied to
alienations of revenue as well as to the aliena-
tion of land, but the question was obscured by the
discussion that was going on at this time in regard
to the policy of allowing the land revenue demand
to be redeemed in perpetuity by the payment of
a lump sum, and the rules for the disposal of
waste lands which were passed about this time
provided for their acquisition, revenue free in
perpetuity, on very easy terms. There was, how-
ever, gradually a change of policy, and in 1873
general instructions were issued that “ no rules
involving the permanent alienation of Government
revenue or the grant of waste land free from pay-
ment of Government revenue for a longer period
than 20 years may in future be made or promul-
gated without the previous sanction of the Govern-
ment of India.” These orders have since been
modified in the manner explained above.
The answer, therefore, is that the restrictions
have been imposed by the Government of India.
44047*. Could these restrictions be relaxed?—
I think the limits of value imposed by the Reso-
lution of 1872 might be enhanced. The Govern-
ment of India have for some time past had this
matter under consideration, but its decision has
been delayed owing to the necessity of examining
various matters of principle in connection with
the transfer of lands from the Imperial to Local
Governments, and vice versa. Though the matter
is not yet finally settled, it is probable that the
limits up to which Local Governments may transfer
State lands without reference to the Government
of India will be raised as follows : —
A Local Government may sell or otherwise dis-
pose of lands or sanction their sale or disposal in
the following cases : —
By sale for full value : —
If the market value of the land does not
exceed Rs. 25,000.
By sale on favourable terms, not being for less
than half the market value: —
If the market value of the land does not
exceed Rs. 5,000.
By gift or grant: —■
(1) when given as a site for the construc-
tion of schools, hospitals, dispensaries or
other public works, at the cost of recognised
local funds: —
If the market value of the land does not
exceed Rs. 5,000.
(2) when given for any other public pur-
pose or to a private individual for services
to be performed to the State : —
If the market value of the land does not
exceed Rs. 1,000.
(3) when given for services to be performed
to the community : —
If the market value of the land does not
exceed Rs. 500.
In all other cases the sanction of the Government
of India will be required.
These limits or any others that may finally
be decided on will presumably be substituted
for the existing limits specified above, up to
which Local Governments may at present alienate
without reference to the Government of India,
the revenue on lands held for public purposes
and yielding no return to private individuals
or local bodies. But I am not in favour of relaxing
the restrictions on revenue-free grants to private
persons for their personal benefit. Grants of this
kind are undoubtedly popular, and they may be
justified occasionally on grounds of political ex-
pediency. But they are opposed to a policy which
has been deliberately adopted for obvious reasons,
■and special cases in which a departure from that
policy may be advisable should continue, I think,
to be reported for the orders of the Government of
India, otherwise, as Mr. Craddock, Chief Com-
missioner of the Central Provinces, points out,
the ‘ special ’ cases will tend to multiply and to
become the rule rather than the exception.
44048*. In particular, is it desirable to give local
authorities in Burma larger powers in regard to
the grant of land for religious purposes and to
remove such restrictions as now exist in respect
to the grant of land to non-Burmans in Upper
Burma?—I see no objection to the proposal of the
Lieutenant-Governor of Burma that the Local
Government should have power to grant lands for
religious purposes up to a limit of value of
Rs. 500, instead of Rs. 200 as at present.
The restrictions on the grant of land to non-
Burmans in Upper Burma are contained in
Rule 56a of the Upper Burma Land Revenue
Manual which runs as follows:—“Leases of State
Carlyle.
a. __J_
4 Apr., 1908,
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE :
private person, inclusive of a village headman or
watchman, make a gift to that person or to his
heir of a value not exceeding Rs. 500, or may
grant him, or his heir, or widow, an assignment of
land revenue not exceeding Rs. 15 a year for one
life, or for a term of 25 years, whichever period
may be the longer. The grant may be made
partly in the form of a gift of land and partly
in the form of an assignment either of the land
revenue of that land or of other land ; but the
total estimated value of the grant should not
exceed Rs. 500.”
The Punjab Government has also been author-
ized to sanction, subject to confirmation by the
Government of India, the grant at settlement of
fresh muafis or revenue-free holdings, not exceed-
ing in each case Rs. 100 per annum in value, for
life or for the term of settlement. The Chief
Commissioner of the North-West Frontier Pro-
vince enjoys similar powers.
Grants of land on favourable terms are usually
made to individuals under the rules regarding the
disposal of waste lands. Such lands are usually
exempted from assessment for a term of years
while they are being reclaimed or while they are
being planted up with special products, such as
tea and coffee, which do not yield an immediate
return to the planter. Such grants require the
sanction of the Government of India only if it is
the practice of the province concerned to submit
its waste lands rules for the approval of the
Government of India.
Alienations of land revenue are reported in an
annual return to the Government of India.
44046*. To whom are these restrictions due?—
The genesis of the existing restrictions on the
alienation of land by Provincial Governments was
a letter from the Secretary of State, dated the
9th July, 1862, in which he gave orders that “ there
should be no relinquishment of any portion of the
Government revenue without previous communica-
tion with the Home Government, nor should grants
(of land) which involve any loss of revenue,
whether for a limited term or in perpetuity, be
made, except with the consent of the Secretary
of State in 'Council, to whose control the expendi-
ture of the revenues of India both in India and
elsewhere, has expressly been subject by enact-
ments of the Imperial Legislature.” These orders
were communicated to the Governments of Madras,
Bombay, Bengal and the North-Western Provinces
for information and guidance, but no further
action was taken till, in 1870, it came to the notice
of the Government of India that a building site
of high value (Rs. 1,30,000) had been granted by
one of the Local Governments for an educational
institution without any reference to themselves.
Orders were accordingly issued impressing upon
Local Governments and Administrations that the
sanction of the Government of India should be
obtained to the alienation of all Government land,
whether actually paying revenue or not, except in
the case of grants of waste land under approved
rules.
Several Local Governments and Administrations
having represented the inconveniences arising from
a strict adherence to these orders, they were modi-
fied in 1872, and the rules cited above were
prescribed.
The history of the restrictions on the aliena-
tion of land revenue in the form of grants of
land, revenue free or on favourable terms, is
more complicated. The letter of the Secretary
of State for India referred to above applied to
alienations of revenue as well as to the aliena-
tion of land, but the question was obscured by the
discussion that was going on at this time in regard
to the policy of allowing the land revenue demand
to be redeemed in perpetuity by the payment of
a lump sum, and the rules for the disposal of
waste lands which were passed about this time
provided for their acquisition, revenue free in
perpetuity, on very easy terms. There was, how-
ever, gradually a change of policy, and in 1873
general instructions were issued that “ no rules
involving the permanent alienation of Government
revenue or the grant of waste land free from pay-
ment of Government revenue for a longer period
than 20 years may in future be made or promul-
gated without the previous sanction of the Govern-
ment of India.” These orders have since been
modified in the manner explained above.
The answer, therefore, is that the restrictions
have been imposed by the Government of India.
44047*. Could these restrictions be relaxed?—
I think the limits of value imposed by the Reso-
lution of 1872 might be enhanced. The Govern-
ment of India have for some time past had this
matter under consideration, but its decision has
been delayed owing to the necessity of examining
various matters of principle in connection with
the transfer of lands from the Imperial to Local
Governments, and vice versa. Though the matter
is not yet finally settled, it is probable that the
limits up to which Local Governments may transfer
State lands without reference to the Government
of India will be raised as follows : —
A Local Government may sell or otherwise dis-
pose of lands or sanction their sale or disposal in
the following cases : —
By sale for full value : —
If the market value of the land does not
exceed Rs. 25,000.
By sale on favourable terms, not being for less
than half the market value: —
If the market value of the land does not
exceed Rs. 5,000.
By gift or grant: —■
(1) when given as a site for the construc-
tion of schools, hospitals, dispensaries or
other public works, at the cost of recognised
local funds: —
If the market value of the land does not
exceed Rs. 5,000.
(2) when given for any other public pur-
pose or to a private individual for services
to be performed to the State : —
If the market value of the land does not
exceed Rs. 1,000.
(3) when given for services to be performed
to the community : —
If the market value of the land does not
exceed Rs. 500.
In all other cases the sanction of the Government
of India will be required.
These limits or any others that may finally
be decided on will presumably be substituted
for the existing limits specified above, up to
which Local Governments may at present alienate
without reference to the Government of India,
the revenue on lands held for public purposes
and yielding no return to private individuals
or local bodies. But I am not in favour of relaxing
the restrictions on revenue-free grants to private
persons for their personal benefit. Grants of this
kind are undoubtedly popular, and they may be
justified occasionally on grounds of political ex-
pediency. But they are opposed to a policy which
has been deliberately adopted for obvious reasons,
■and special cases in which a departure from that
policy may be advisable should continue, I think,
to be reported for the orders of the Government of
India, otherwise, as Mr. Craddock, Chief Com-
missioner of the Central Provinces, points out,
the ‘ special ’ cases will tend to multiply and to
become the rule rather than the exception.
44048*. In particular, is it desirable to give local
authorities in Burma larger powers in regard to
the grant of land for religious purposes and to
remove such restrictions as now exist in respect
to the grant of land to non-Burmans in Upper
Burma?—I see no objection to the proposal of the
Lieutenant-Governor of Burma that the Local
Government should have power to grant lands for
religious purposes up to a limit of value of
Rs. 500, instead of Rs. 200 as at present.
The restrictions on the grant of land to non-
Burmans in Upper Burma are contained in
Rule 56a of the Upper Burma Land Revenue
Manual which runs as follows:—“Leases of State