322 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
and explained by Col. W. C. Anderson, Survey and Settlement Commissioner N. D. in his letter to the Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, dated 23rd July 1877 and which is printed as Appendix IV (c) in vol. II of the Bombay Survey Settlement Manual by R. G. Gordon, I.C.S., at pp. 496-505.
It appears that there was some doubt with regard to the principle underlying this Resolution of the Bombay Government No. 6141 of 1st November 1875 in which the position of the Government with regard to the increase in Judi was laid down. Colonel Anderson felt it necessary to explain the same. The Explanation given by him in para 4 of his letter is reproduced below : “4. The principle of the Government Resolution No. 6141of the 1st November 1875 is clear - it was intended to hold the emoluments of the Watan applicable to the last rupee to the remuneration of the Officiator as fixed from time to time, but it was not desired to make money out of the surplus emoluments (of a Watan)………” (Italics mine).
So far as the Survey Settlement Manual goes there has been no subsequent Resolution by Government disputing this interpretation of the Resolution of 1875 as given by Col. Anderson. Nor has there been any Resolution modifying the terms of the Resolution of 1875, that being so the Resolution of 1875 and its interpretation by Col. Anderson stand as the last and final pronouncement by the Government on the question of increase of Judi. I, therfore, submit that I am justified in saying that the present increase in the Judi of the Maharki Watan lands to remunerate other Watandars is a direct violation of the Resolution referred to above.
The Resolution lays down two distinct limitations on the power to increase Judi, namely : (1) that Judi shall not be increased for making i.e., for general finance of the Government and (2) and that Judi will be increased only if it becomes necessary to increase the remuneration of the Officiator. The main question that arises is : - Is increase of Judi on the Maharki Watan for increasing the remuneration of the Mahar Officiators? If it was, I concede that no objection to its increase on Maharki lands could be taken. But it is not. Admittedly the increase of