#THE OUDH SUB-SETTLEMENT ACT, 1866

____________

##ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

____________

##SECTIONS.

1. Rules as to sub-settlements contained in the Schedule to have the force of law. 
2. Repeal of inconsistent rules.  
3. Short title. 

SCHEDULE. 
 
 

#THE OUDH SUB-SETTLEMENT ACT, 1866 

#ACT NO. XXVI OF 1866. 
___________ 
##PASSED BY THE GOVERNOR - GENERAL OF INDIA IN COUNCIL. 

(Received the assent of the Governor General on the 12th October 1866.) 

___________
*An  Act  to  legalize  the  rules  made  by  Chief  Commissioner  of  Oudh  for  the  better  determination of certain claims of subordinate proprietors in that provinces.*

**Preamble.** - WHEREAS rules have been made by the Chief Commissioner of Oudh for the better 
determination  of  certain  claims  by  persons  possessed  of  subordinate  rights  of  property  in  the 
territories subject to his administration ; and whereas it is expedient that such rules should have the 
force of law ; It is hereby enacted as follows :- 

1. **Rules as to Sub-settlements contained in the Schedule to have the force of law.**– The rules 
for  determining  the  conditions  under  which  persons  possessed  of  subordinate  rights  of  property  in 
taluqas  in  the  territories  subject  to  the  administration  of  the  Chief  Commissioner  of  Oudh  shall  be 
entitled to obtain a sub-settlement of lands, villages or sub-divisions thereof, which they held under 
Taluqdars on or before the thirteenth day of February 1856, and for determining the amounts payable 
to  the  Taluqdar  by  such  subordinate  proprietors,  which  rules  were  made  by  the  said  Chief 
Commissioner, sanctioned by the Governor General of India in Council, and published in the Gazette 
of India for September 1st, 1866, and which are re-published in the Schedule to this Act, are hereby 
declared to have the force of law.

2. **Repeal  of  inconsistent  rules.** – So  much of any  Act, Regulation or Rule having the force of 
law, which is in operation in the said territories as may be inconsistent with or repugnant to the rules 
hereby legalized, shall cease to have effect in such territories.

3. **Short title.** – This Act may be called “The Oudh Sub-Settlement Act, 1866.”

 

##ACT NO. XXVI OF 1866.
###SCHEDULE 

*Rules regarding sub-settlements and other subordinate rights of property in Oudh.*

1. The  extension  of  the  term  of  limitation  for  the  hearing  of  claims  to  under-proprietary 
rights  in  land,  makes  of  itself  no  alteration  in  the  principles  hitherto  observed  in  the 
recognition of a right to sub-settlement. 

2.  When  no  rights  are  proved  to  have  been  exercised  or  enjoyed  by  an  under-proprietor 
during  the  period  of  limitation,  beyond  the  possession  of  certain  lands  as  seer  or  nankar,                   
no sub-settlement can be made ; but the claimant will be entitled, in accordance with the rules 
contained in the circular orders which have hitherto been in force in Oudh upon this subject, 
to  the  recognition  of  a  proprietary  right  in  such  lands.  To  entitle  a  claimant  to  obtain  a                      
sub-settlement,  he  must  show  that  he  possesses  an  under-proprietary  right  in  the  lands  of 
which the sub-settlement is claim, and that such right has been kept alive, over the whole area 
claim,  with  in  the  period  of  limitation.  He  must  also  show  that  he,  either  by  himself  or  by 
some  other  person  or  persons  form  whom  he  has  inherited,  has,  by  virtue  of  his  under-
proprietary  right,  and  not  merely  through  privilege  granted  on  account  of  service,  or  by 
favour  of  the  Talookdar,  held  such  land  under  contract  (Pucka),  with  some  degree  of 
continuousness, since the village came into the talooka. 

3. The words “some degree of continuousness” will be interpreted as follows :-  
 If the  village was included  in the talooka before the 13th February 1836, the  lease  must 
have  been  held  for  not  less  than  twelve  years  between  that  date  and  the  annexation  of  the 
province. If the village was included in the talooka after the 13th February 1836, but before 
13th February 1844, the lease must have been held for not less than one year more than half 
the period between the time in which the village was so included and the annexation of the 
province. Further, the lease must, in  all cases,  have  been  held  for  not less  than  seven  years 
during the term of limitation, unless the village was included for the first time in the talooka 
after the 13th February 1844, in which case the lease must have been  held for  not less than 
one year more than half of the period between the time in which the village was so included 
and the annexation of the province. Provided that, if, for any reason, the Talookdar was, for 
any period, dispossessed of the village, and the  under-proprietor was dispossessed form the 
lease during the same period, the term of such dispossession shall not be reckoned against the 
under-proprietor. Provided also, that nothing in this rule will apply to any village which was 
included  for  the  first  time  in  the  talooka  after  the  13th February  1844,  and  in  which  the 
under-proprietor has held no lease for any period under the Talookdar. 

4.  If an under-proprietor. Who is entitled  to a sub-settlement,  can show  by  documentary 
evidence  that  he  had  entered  into  an  agreement  with  the  Talookdar  that  he  should  hold,  in 
perpetuity, the lease  of the  lands to the sub-settlement of which he is  entitled, at a uniform 
(istimraree) rate of payment, and that such agreement has been acted on within the period of 
limitation,. He will not  be liable to payment at  an increased rate during the currency  of the 
present  or  revised  settlement.  If,  in  consequence  of  any  future  re-adjustment  of  the 
Government  demand,  the  former  proportion  between  the  respective  shares  of  the  profits 
derived  from  the  land  by  the  under-proprietor  and  the  Talookdar  should  be  altered,  the 
amount payable by the under-proprietor to the Talookdar will be liable to re-adjustment, so 
that the proportion between their respective shares of the profits may remain unaltered.  

5.  If  an  under-proprietor,  entitled  to  sub-settlement,  can  show  by  documentary  evidence 
that he had entered into an agreement with the Talookdar that he should hold the lease of the 
lands to the sub-settlement of which he is entitled, on payment  of the Government demand 
imposed  before  the  annexation  of  the  province  on  such  lands,  with  the  addition  only  of 
certain  dues  to  the  Talookdar,  or  other  charges,  and  such  agreement  has  been  acted  upon 
within  the  period  of  limitation,  such  under-proprietor  will  in  future  be  liable  only  for  the 
payment to the Talookdar of the Government demand for the time being, with the addition of 
ten percent, in lien of Talookdaree dues and other charges.  

6. If an under-proprietor, entitled to sub-settlement, has held the lease of the lands to the 
sub-settlement of which he entitled, under an agreement that he shall pay to the Talookdar a 
certain share  or proportion  of the  profits or  produce  of  such lands, and  such agreement has 
been acted upon within the term of limitation, the under-proprietor will in future continue to 
be liable for the payment to the Talookdar of such share or proportion.  

7. In all cases in which an under-proprietor is entitled to a sub-settlement other than those 
described in Rules 4 to 6, the amount payable by the under-proprietor to the Talookdar will 
be determined according to the following principles :- 

1st.—The payments made by the under-proprietor to the Talookdar before annexation, will 
from the standard by which the present payments are to be regulated. 

2nd. – In no case can the amount payable by the under-proprietor to the Talookdar, during 
the currency of settlement, exceed the gross rental of the village, less ten percent, in seer or 
nankar land. 

3rd. In no case can the amount payable during the currency of the settlement by the under-
proprietor to the Talookdar, be less than the amount of the revised Government demand, with 
the addition of ten per cent.  

4th.  –  If  the  gross  rental  of  the  village  before  annexation  and  at  the  present  time  be 
approximately  the  same,  the  under-proprietor  will  pay  to  the  Talookdar  the  same  amount 
which he paid before annexation. 

5th.  –  If  the  present  gross  rental  of  the  village  exceed  or  fall  short  of  the  former  gross 
rental, the payment of the under-proprietor to the Talookdar will be adjusted according to the 
following  rule,  viz,  as  the  former  gross  rental  is  to  the  former  payment  of  the  under-
proprietor, so is the present gross rental to the present payment of the under-proprietor.  

6th. – In determining the amount payable by the under-proprietor to the Talookdar under 
the  two  last  preceding  rules,  the  former  gross  rental  and  the  former  payment  of  the  under-
proprietor will be held to be the average amount of the gross rental, and the average amount 
of the former payments of the under-proprietor for the twelve years preceding annexation, or 
for  such  portion  of  that  time  as  the  under-proprietor  held  a  lease  of  the  village  from  the 
Talookdar or for such portion of that time as the necessary information may be obtained. 

8. In any case in which the clear share of the profit to which the  under-proprietor  is 
entitled  under  the  rules  contained  in  the  last  preceding  paragraph  does  not  exceed  twelve                 
per cent of the gross rental, no sub-settlement shall be made. In this case, the under-proprietor 
will  retain  all  seer  and  nankar  land  to  which  his  right  is  established.  If  the  profits  derived 
form such land be less than one-tenth of the whole rental of the land to the sub-settlement of 
which the right was established, the Talookdar shall increase the amount of such land so that 
the total profit to the under-proprietor will possess, in the whole such land, a transferable and 
heritable right of property.

9.  In  any  case  in  which  an  under-proprietor  is  entitled  to  a  sub-settlement  under  the 
preceding  rule,  and  in  which  the  share  of  the  gross  rental  which  such  under-proprietor  is 
entitled to receive exceeds twelve per cent, but falls short of twenty-five per cent., such share 
will be increased so that it shall not be loss than twenty-five per cent. of the gross rental. The 
cost of such increase will be borne half by the Government and half by the Talookdar. In this 
case, the cesses on account of roads, schools, &c., amounting to two and a half per cent. on 
the  Gov-allowances  to  the  Putwaree  and  Chowkeedar,  will  be  payable  by  the  under-
proprietor.  

10. When a former proprietor, who is not entitled to a sub-settlement, has retained with in 
the  period  of  limitation,  either  by  himself  or  by  some  other  person  from  whom  he  has 
inherited,  possession  of  land  which  by  virtue  of  his  proprietary  right  he  held  as  seer  or 
nankar when he was in proprietary possession, he will be deemed in respect of such land to 
be an under-proprietor, and will possess a heritable and transferable right of property therein, 
subject to the payment of such amount as may be due by him to the superior proprietor. 

11. If, in any case, the founder of a poorwa or hamlet, who is unable to establish a right to 
sub-settlement, can show that, in consideration of having sounded such poorwa or hamlet he 
has held therein, within the period of limitation, possession of seer or nankar land, he will be 
recognized as an under-proprietor in such land, subject to the payment of such amount as may 
be due by him to the Talookdar. The amount of such payment will be determined according 
to  the  rules  for  determining  the  amount  of  the  payments  due  by  other  under-proprietors  on 
their seer or nankar lands. 

12.  Claims  to  proprietary  and  under-proprietary  rights  in  jagheers  will  be  treated 
according to the same rules which are applicable to similar claims in talookas. 

13.  Cases  in  which  claims  to  under-proprietary  rights  have  been  disposed  of  otherwise 
than in  accordance with  rules  will be  open  to revision, but this rule  will not apply  to  cases 
disposed of by arbitration or by agreement of the parties.