'Baroda Enquiry Commission Report, 1874' [‎43v] (91/502)

a
improbable he would not have availed himself of any opportunity afforded, but
that as a matter of fact, he was in constant attendance on the Minister, trying to
ffet a hearing, and only appealed to him, (the Kesident), as a last resource; that
the charges of embezzlement, bribery, oppression, and contumacy are irrelevant,
and that the Resident is aware that when this case was first reported, attempts were
made to buy off petitioner. The Resident concludes by observing that his chief
object in bri ng i ng forward this case, is to illustrate and reform the most perni
cious practice of the Minister of a State and the Revenue Officials trading in high
Civil and Judicial appointments of this kind, a practice which, though more or less
always in force, has been carried to excess under the present administration, and
which induces men of deponent's class to run heavily into debt under promises
which are frequently not realised. The bribe is always retained, and the pur
chaser of the appointment often ruined.
II.— Case No. 10,
1. Vasudeo Shivram states that in 1872 he agreed to take the Vahivat of the
Kural Mahal. The revenue was about Rs. 1,06,000 annually. He agreed to
pay the Sarkar Rs. 2,000 more than had previously been realised. He knew
that many ryots held lands unauthorisedly from having bribed the Vahivatdars
not to enter them as holding land, and he intended to recoup this extra sum from
such persons. In addition to the agreement above stated, he promised to pay
the Minister Rs, 2,000 " Sukhdi" for himself as gratification for having given
him the place of Vahivatdar, but it was not until this private payment to the
Minister had been made, that he signed the appointment. Deponent expected
to recoup this sum also from the ryots unauthorisedly cultivating land. He saw
no entry of this payment made in any account book, nor was any receipt given
him. When he went to the Mahal he took with him surveying chains, &c,, and
began to measure the villages. Then the patels of these villages offered to make
up the excess if he would desist. He did so. He did not consider that he was
accepting a bribe from these patels for suspending these survey operations. He
did not realise any thing from his Vahivat that year. He had not been in pos
session more than 10 months when the Sarkar sent a karkun to dispossess him.
He does not know why. This karkun forbad the ryots to pay him anything, and
they obeyed. Consequently deponent got nothing for having stopped the survey
operations. He then came to Baroda, and complained to the Minister, whom he
requested to refund the " Sukhdi," or else to enable him to recover the amount
from the patels. A month before this the Minister had taken in advance from
him, another gratification or " Sukhdi" of Rs. 1,000, and it was only because he
had not paid a further call of Rs. 1,000 that the karkun was sent to relieve him.
Deponent has several times petitioned the Maharaj, but ineffectually.
2. The Durbar A public or private audience held by a high-ranking British colonial representative (e.g. Viceroy, Governor-General, or member of the British royal family). Agent replies that the " Sukhdi," or gratification, was
received into the treasury and not by the Minister; that a karkun was sent to dis
possess deponent in consequence of his embezzling Rs. 16,000 public money. The
levy of further " Sukhdi is denied.
,, I'TJ 16 Resident m his final reply, dated 9th January 1874, remarks, that
the mere statements of the Durbar A public or private audience held by a high-ranking British colonial representative (e.g. Viceroy, Governor-General, or member of the British royal family). are entitled to little or no weight, in f^ce of
Wot ^ P a Smg q + w •? T aS Put t0 tllis witnes8 when under examination
the Commission that if deponent had embezzled Rs. 16,000 of public
money, he might have been convicted and sentenced according to law, but that as
no proceedings whatever were taken against him, the obvioSs inference is that
tbe^r^e^na' bv^bservi 1 ^ 6 ^! ^ f ^ COncludes in ^
tbe preceding, by observing that the present grievance is not brought forward so
Xits te^ - of ^4^ a ^
else ;that the farming system, at all times bad forfh^
especially vicious when the farmers themselves held theif farms on the most pre-

'Baroda Enquiry Commission Report, 1874' [‎43v] (91/502)

Transcription

About this item

Copyright: How to use this content

'Baroda Enquiry Commission Report, 1874' [‎43v] (91/502)

Transcription

About this item

Use and share this item

Copyright: How to use this content