A historian in Kolkata is studying the papers of a Bengal zamindari for the years after 1793, when the Permanent Settlement was introduced. The papers show that the zamindar had agreed to pay revenue to the East India Company. Each season his officer went round the villages to collect what the ryots owed. Yet the dues came in late and short, and the zamindar fell behind in his payments to the Company. Within a few years, parts of his estate had been put up for auction. The historian wants to explain why this happened.
The zamindar wanted to recover the arrears from defaulting ryots through the courts, but this did not help him much. Which of the following explains this?
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 1
The correct answer is Option (1) → Rent suits dragged on and on, as the judicial process was long drawn.
Option (1) Rent suits dragged on and on, as the judicial process was long drawn. — Correct. Zamindars could prosecute, but <strong>the judicial process was long drawn</strong>. In Burdwan alone over 30,000 suits for arrears were pending in 1798.
Option (2) Zamindars needed the Collector's written permission to file each rent suit. — Incorrect. The Collector supervised the zamindars' own cutcheries, but no rule made his permission necessary before a rent suit.
Option (3) Courts fixed the ryots' dues afresh in each suit, often lowering them. — Incorrect. Courts did not reset the ryots' dues. The real trouble was the <strong>delay</strong> in deciding the suits.
Option (4) Rent suits had to be heard in Calcutta, far from the zamindar's villages. — Incorrect. Rent suits were heard in the district itself. The zamindar's problem was the huge number of pending cases.
NCERT (2026-27): “1.3 Why zamindars defaulted on payments … |