CO882-(4-5) — Page 244

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TLC.O. 882

5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH~NOT TO

SIB,

(No. 1686.)

90

Enclosure 2 in No. 12.

Kandy Kachcheri, November 28, 1882.

I HAVE the honour to forward copy of a letter, No. 47, of 7th instant, from my assistant at N'Eliya, and correspondence thereon, on the subject of the petition forwarded to me with your letter, No. 1131, of 14th ultimo.

2. My assistant sets out seven statements in this petition, all of which are false or misleading.

3. A copy of my letter, No. 711, to which my assistant refers, is attached, and his report, No. 40, was forwarded to you with mine, No. 19,701, of 18th September last.

4. The replies to the question put in the three paragraphs of your letter, No. 1131, are as follows:-

(1.) There was no crop on the field at the time of sale, and though, the land was put up in small lots, beginning with 2 lahas, no bid was obtained until the whole 3 pelas were put up.

(2.) The field is 3 pelas in extent, and worth, at present prices, about Rs. 30. It was purchased by the Ratemalatmeya for Rs. 12. The value set on the field by the petitioner, viz., Rs. 500, is several times in excess of the highest rate at which padi land can now be sold in Elbaturata.

(3.) The sale of this field took place about 4 p.m., as far as can be ascertained. It

was the first sale of the day.

If the petitioner had padi to sell to pay the tax he had ample notice of the sale if he had had any desire to pay the tax. Seeing that the field sold was one of four belonging to him, it is possible, indeed, it is probable, that he had the means of paying if he had been willing to pay his dues, but no padi could be found, and he gave no such assurance at the time as warranted a stoppage of the sale.

5. I am of opinion that the petition is false and misleading, and that the petitioner has no just cause of complaint.

The Hon, the Colonial Secretary,

SIR,

(No. 47.)

I am, &c. (Signed)

JOHN F. DICKSON,

Government Agent.

Enclosure 3 in No. 12.

Nuwara Eliya Kachcheri, November 7, 1882.

WITH reference to your letter, No. 806, of the 31st ultimo, I have the honour to return herewith the petition of Mccambegedara Dingirala, dated 10th October, and addressed to his Excellency the Governor and Executive Council, complaining of the sale of his field for default of payment of paddy commutation tax.

The following statements are made in the petition:-

(1.) That the field in question, Tharabedda Aswedduma, of three pelas, is worth

Rs. 500.

(2.) That it was sold late in the evening by lamplight.

(3.) That the petitioner asked for four days' time to pay the tax.

(4.) That he had paddy which he would have sold to raise money.

(5.) That the field was his only one.

(6.) That the present was the only occasion on which the petitioner was in

default.

(7.) That no one ventured to bid against the Ratemahatmeya.

All these statements are false or misleading.

The sale was held by me, and though it was necessary to continue it till candlelight, the field of the petitioner was the first that was sold, and this was about 4 p.m., as far as I remember.

Though three pelas had been seized, I put up at first one-twelfth of that extent, viz., 2 lahas, but as no bid was made I had gradually to increase the extent put up until, no bid being received for any less extent, the whole three pelas was put up and sold.

The Ratemahatmeya was the first bidder, and there were two other bidders before the Ratemahatmeya became the highest for Rs. 12.

91

The Ratemahatmeya states that the field is worth about Rs. 30. The value set on the field by the petitioner is several times in excess of the highest rate at which paddy land can now be sold in the Maturatta.

The petitioner asked for two weeks time to pay the tax, but as he did not state what means he had of raising the money I refused his request, though I allowed time in other cases, where the applicants showed reasonable grounds for it, or where any responsible person satisfied me that payment would be made if time were granted.

The petitioner had no paddy or other movable property at his house, or it would have been seized by the Korale, nor was there any crop on the field at the time.

The petitioner owns four other fields besides the one that was sold, viz., Nos. 1,132, 1,133, 683, and 1,576, one amumam and two pelas in extent.

The petitioner has been habitually in default in former years, and has not paid till his property has been seized. In 1879 the crop of the very field now in question was sold for default of payment of tax.

I have now answered the several questions put in by the Honourable the Colonial Secretary's letter, and I beg now to make a few remarks which seem to be necessary.

I am aware of the general objection to the headmen becoming purchasers at these sales, but in many cases the sales would have been altogether futile if they had not been allowed to bid.

This question has already been considered in connexion with a previous petition addressed to yourself regarding the sale which is the subject of the present report. I beg to refer to your letter, No. 711, of the 5th ultimo, in which you state circumstances in which headmen may be allowed to bid. I think that in a case such as the present, when there has been a deliberate attempt to evade payment of the tax to the last, and no one at the sale offers any bid, it is necessary to allow the headmen to bid.

I look upon the statement of petitioner to the effect that he wanted four days to sell his paddy as untrue. Ample notice was given of the sale, and he could easily have sold his paddy before the date fixed if he had any and really wished to raise money by sale

of it.

I have, however, found that the people readily promise payment within a week if only the sale may be stayed, and that, having gained that object, they think no more of the matter. At one sale, held on 17th September, I allowed a week's time to pay, but only half of those to whom the indulgence was granted had paid even after the lapse of month.

There is no doubt poverty among the people, but there was also a belief that the Government did not intend to press for punctual payment of this tax, but would continue the system of setting aside the commutation agreements and taking a share of the crop instead (see my Report No. 40 of 11th September last, on petition No. 2,135 to His Excellency the Governor).

It was necessary to take prompt and stringent steps for the recovery of arrears, if it was intended to get these accounts into proper order, and this is a side of the question which is apt to be lost sight of when a taxpayer's grievance such as the present

consideration.

The taxes cannot be recovered without hardship.

Even at the present date the arrears are considerable; they are:-

Kotmalio Uda Hewahete Walapane

-

under

1878 and 1879.

1880.

1881.

Total.

One Year's Tax.

21

67

327

415

7,620

1,040

2,107

862

4,099

12,690

1,199

1,580

2,466

6,246

10,840

2,260

3,844

8,655

9,759

31,050

The Uda Hewahete total includes Rs. 2,300 recovered but not paid in by the late Maturatţa Korala on account of the years 1878 to 1880.

The prompt recovery of these taxes depends, in a great measure, on the certainty of the enforcement of payment by sale of the defaulter's property, and anything done that may lead the people to believe that the sales may be set aside will have a very bad effect: In the present case, however, the Ratemahatmeya having been the purchaser, it will no doubt be possible to cancel the sale without inconvenient result, and this is an advantage

M 2

92

of a headman being the purchaser. Where independent persons are purchasers it is impossible to interfere with sales.