The following
District Committees have been meetings are held at the order to acceleration
the disposal of business. Their
meetings are held at the district headquarters under the Chairmanship of the
Deputy Commissioner: -
1.
District Relief Fund
Committee
2.
House Allotment
Committee
3.
District Allotment
Committee for the allotment of inferior evacuee lands purchased by the
Government.
4.
Rehabilitation of
Goldsmith Committees
5.
District Ad hoc committee
for the Welfare Schemes
6.
District Agricultural
Production Committee
7.
Committee regarding
Criminal Administration
8.
District Crime
Administration Committee
9.
District Vigilance
Committee
10.
Flood Protection
Committee
11.
Civil Supplies
Co-ordination Committee
12.
Ad hoc Committee of Political suffers
13.
Flood Relief Committee
14.
Border Areas Advisory
Committee
(f) Other State and Central Government
Officers
The following
State and Central Government Officers are functioning in the district: -
State Government Officers: -
1.
District and Sessions
Judge, Gurdaspur
2.
Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gurdaspur
3.
Superintendent of
Police, Gurdaspur
4.
Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Headquarters, Gurdaspur
5.
Civil Surgeons,
Gurdaspur
6.
District Medical
Officer of Health, Gurdaspur
7.
Sub-Divisional Officer
(Civil), Gurdaspur
8.
Tahsildars, Gurdaspur
9.
District Development
and Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur
10.
District Education
Officer, Gurdaspur
11.
District Employment
Officer, Gurdaspur
12.
District Food and
Supplies Controller, Gurdaspur
13.
District Poultry
Development Officer, Gurdaspur
14.
District Public
Relation Officer, Gurdaspur
15.
District Relief and Rehabilitation Officer,
Gurdaspur
16.
District relief and
Resettlement Officer, Gurdaspur
17.
District Transport
Officer, Gurdaspur
18.
District Statistical
Officer, Gurdaspur
19.
District Treasury
Officer, Gurdaspur
20.
District Excise and
Taxation Officer, Gurdaspur
21.
District Language
Officer, Gurdaspur
22.
District Welfare
Officer, Gurdaspur
23.
District Animal
Husbandry Officer, Gurdaspur
24.
District Fisheries
Officers, Gurdaspur
25.
District Attorney,
Gurdaspur
26.
District Sports
Officer, Gurdaspur
27.
District Defence
Officer, Gurdaspur
28.
Chief Agriculture
officer, Gurdaspur
29.
District Soil
Conversion Officer, Gurdaspur
30.
Assistant Agriculture
Engineer (Implements), Gurdaspur
31.
Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Gurdaspur
32.
Superintendent,
District Jail, Gurdaspur
33.
Executive Engineer,
P.W.D., Public Health Division, Gurdaspur
34.
Sub-Divisional
Engineer, P.W.D., Public Health, Gurdaspur
35.
Executive Engineer,
Provincial Division, P.W.D., B&R, Gurdaspur
36.
Executive Engineer,
Bridge Project, P.W.D., Gurdaspur
37.
Executive Engineer,
Gurdaspur Division, U.B.D.C., Gurdaspur
38.
Executive Engineer,
Madhopur Division, U.B.D.C, Gurdaspur
39.
Superintending
Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Gurdaspur
40.
Executive Engineer,
Electricity, Gurdaspur
41.
Project Officer,
Marginal Farmers’ and Agricultural Labourers’ Agency/Small Farmers’ Development
agency, Gurdaspur
42.
Block Development and
Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur
43.
Secretary, District Soldier’s Sailor’ and
Airmen’s Board, Gurdaspur
44.
District Family
Planning Officer, Gurdaspur
45.
District Officer,
Removal of Grievance, Gurdaspur
46.
Military Land
Acquisition Officer, Gurdaspur
47.
District Manager,
Civil Supplies Corporation, Gurdaspur
48.
Battalion Commander,
Punjab Homes Guards, Gurdaspur
49.
District Commanding,
Punjab Home Guards, Gurdaspur
50.
Officer Commanding,
N.C.C., Gurdaspur
51.
Warehouse Manager,
State Warehousing Corporation, Gurdaspur
52.
Sub-Divisional Officer
(Civil), Batala
53.
Tahsildars, Batala
54.
Block Development and
Panchayat Officer, Batala
55.
District Industries
Officer, Batala
56.
Labour-cum-Conciliation
Officer, Batala
57.
Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Batala
58.
Executive Engineer,
Construction Division, P.W.D., B &R, Batala
59.
General Manager,
Punjab Roadways, Batala
60.
Sub-Divisional Officer
(Civil), Pathankot
61.
Tahsildar, Pathankot
62.
Deputy Superintendent
of Police, C.I.D., Pathankot
63.
District Employment
Officer, Pathankot
64.
Field Publicity
Officer, Pathankot
65.
Superintending
Engineer, P.W.D., B & R, Pathankot
66.
Executive Engineer,
Central Works Division. P.W.D., B & R, Pathankot
67.
Executive Engineer, Project
Division 9-B, Pathankot
68.
Superintending
Engineer, Hydel U.B.D.C., Construction Circle, Pathankot
69.
Executive Engineer,
Hydel U.B.D.C., Construction Division No. I, Pathankot
70.
Executive Engineer,
Hydel U.B.D.C., Construction Division No. II, Pathankot
71.
Executive Engineer,
Hydel U.B.D.C., Construction Division No. IV, Pathankot
72.
Executive Engineer,
Hydel U.B.D.C., Mechanical Division No. V, Pathankot
73.
Executive Engineer,
Hydel U.B.D.C., Construction Division, Power House No. I, Pathankot
74.
Executive Engineer, Hydel
U.B.D.C., Construction Division, Power House No. 2, Pathankot
75.
Executive Engineer
Engineer, Hydel U.B.D.C., Construction Division, Power House No. 3, Pathankot
76.
Executive Engineer,
Punjab State Electricity Board, Pathankot
77.
Divisional Town
Planner, Pathankot
78.
Chairman, Improvement
Trust, Pathankot
79.
General Manager,
Punjab Roadways, Pathankot
Central Government Officers :
1.
Senior Superintendent,
Central Excise Circle, Gurdaspur
2.
Superintendent Post
Offices, Gurdaspur Division, Gurdaspur
3.
Income Tax Officer, Gurdaspur
4.
District Manager, Food
Corporation of India, Gurdaspur
5.
District Savings
Officer, Gurdaspur
6.
Development Officer,
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Gurdaspur
7.
Commandant, 20th
Battalion, Border Security Force, Gurdaspur
8.
Assistant Central Intelligence
Officer (I), Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (Ministry of Home affairs),
Gurdaspur
9.
Assistant Central
Intelligence Officer (II), Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (Ministry of Home
Affairs), Gurdaspur
10.
Assistant Central
Intelligence Officer, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (Ministry of Home
Affairs), Pathankot
11.
Deputy Central
Intelligence Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Pathankot
12.
Income Tax Officer,
Pathankot
13.
Income Tax Officer,
Batala
|
(a) |
|
|
(b) |
|
|
(c) |
|
|
(i) |
|
|
(ii) |
(a) Land Revenue Administration
(i) History of Land Revenue Assessment and
Management
First Regular Settlement, 1852. – The territorial transfers which occurred while the
settlements were actually in progress, have made it difficult to trace the
revenue history of the district. The
summary settlement of the greater part of the area included in the district was
effected by Captain Lake, and the regular settlement was undertaken by R.H.
Davies in the Bari Doab, Temple in the trans-Ravi tract, and barnes in the
portion of the Pathankot Tahsil at first included in Kangra (Himachal
Pradesh). Davies’ printed report of
1854 refers to two different tracts.
Temple and Prinsep wrote no report at all, and this had to be done in
1859 by Cust as Commissioner of Amritsar.
Anotherresult of the territorial transfers was that in the 87 estates
transferred from Kangra, the ghumaon, of 3,674 square yards (3,086.16 sq.
metres) based on 51 ˝ inch (130.81 cms.) kadam was used while
Davies worked with a ghumaon of 4,000 square yards (3,360 sq. metres)
obtained by a 60-inch (154.4 cms.) kadam and Temple used the 66-inch
(167.64 cms.) kadam giving a ghumaon
equal to an acre. The summary
settlement figures, owing to the large number of jagir estates left unassessed,
are not complete, and are not very important as the regular settlements were
made so soon after the annexation of the Punjab by the British in 1849.
Barnes,
as a Kangra, assessed by talyqas and not by assessment circles. Prinsep and Blyth working under the orders
of Temple and Davies, divided up their tracts into regular assessment circles,
the worked very much on the same lines as those on which present assessments
are conducted. The Government share
was, however, taken as 1/4the of the total produce instead of half the
landlord’s share.
Barnes’
assessment covered the Hill and Kandi circles (as these existed in 1914) of the
Pathankot Tahsil, except seven small villages.
He raised the summary settlement revenue by 4 per cent, taking something
off the hill estates and adding something on the Chakki villages. The assessment was sanctioned in 1855 for
term of 30 years from 1850. Elsewhere,
the summary settlement revenue was much reduced. The loss was actually heaviest in the Shakargarh Tahsil
(transferred to Pakistan in 1947) where, thought Temple had cut down the
assessment considerably, it had to be still further reduced owing to widespread
objections raised by the people, and the ultimate result was a decrease of 15
per cent.
In
the Chak Andhar, Temple practically etained the summary settlement jamas,
but his assessment was cut down by 10 per cent again, before being sanctioned
for both tracts in August 1859 for a term of 10 years from kharif 1852.
Davies
reduced very heavily in the rest of the Pathankot Tahsil, but much of this
reduction was due to the levy of a separate rate on land watered from the Hasli
and Bari Doab systems, and to special allowances made for deterioration of some
villages due to the cutting-off of their water-supply by the works necessary
for the latter canal. The gross
reduction in land revenue here amounted to 30 per cent. In the Gurdaspur and Batala tahsils, he also
cut down the demand, and at the suggestion of Raikes, the Commissioner, again
revised his proposals, with the result of a total reduction of 16 per cent in
the former and 14 per cent in the latter.
Something of this, especially in Gurdaspur, must be put down to the
change in the system of levy of canal dues.
This regular settlement was also sanctioned in August 1856 for a term of
10 years from kharif 1852.
The
actual revenue of the district, as assessed at the different regular
settlements, was as follows. The
figures for facility of comparison include the petty mafis, which were
left unassessed in most cases, but have mow been assessed for account purposes
at the village rates :
|
Tahsil |
|
Amount (Rs) |
|
Gurdaspur |
.. |
4,26,780 |
|
Batala |
.. |
4,11,922 |
|
Shakargarh (transferred to Pakistan in 1947) |
.. |
3,28,929 |
|
Pathankot |
.. |
2,44,407 |
|
Total |
.. |
14,12,038 |
Second Regular Settlement, 1865.- In February 1862, the whole district, except the
villages assessed by Barnes was placed under revision of settlement under the
personal supervision of E.A. Prinsep,
Settlement Commissioner, with J.B. Lyall as on Assistant Settlement Officer in
Gurdaspur and Pathankot, and Rai Gopal Das as an Extra Assistant Settlement
Officer in Batala, and Shakargarh (transferred to Pakistan in 1947). After the famine year of 1860, moreover,
R.E. Egerton, as Deputy Commissioner, had already inspected most of the
principal Shakargarh estates and noted up oroposals for revision of
assessment. It is, therefore, a
somewhat curious coincidence that no less than three successive
Lieutenant-Governors of the Punjab, Sir R.H. Davies, Sir R.E. Egerton and Sir
J.B. Lyall, and a Governor of Bombay, Sir R. Temple, were all directly
associated with the settlement of the District1.
1. To
this list was added the name of Sir L.W. Dane who carried out the 1885 to 1891
settlement, and was Lieutenant
Governor of the Punjab from 1908 to 1913.
It
does not appear that there was any special reason for undertaking the revision
of settlement beyond that the period for which the regular settlement was to
run had expired. The alterations in the
boundaries of the Gurdaspur and Batala tahsils, however, which occurred first
at this time were very unfortunate and rendered it impossible too utilize the
assessment returns prepared. Lyall’s inspection
notes in the village note-books were full and complete land, in most cases,
continued to represent accurately, for decades together, the condition of the
estates. In the other tahsils, and
especially in Shakargarh, however, many villages were never apparently fully
inspected, r no notes were written up, whole in Batala and the portion of
Gurdaspur, under Rai Gopal Das, the notes by him and Prinsep were not
satisfactory and were not apparently always based on an intimate acquaintance
with the estate under assessment. No
report was ever submitted on this revision of assessment for reasons contained
in the Proceedings of the Punjab Government for 1872-73-74, quoted in paragraph
2 of letter No. 103 of 26th January, 1885, from Senior Secretary to the
Financial Commissioner, to the Officiating Junior Secretary to Government. An acute controversy raged over the question
whether the settlement should be sanctioned at all or whether it should only
run for a term of 10 years, but eventually on 7th November, 1873, it was
sanctioned for a term of 20 years with effect from kharif 1865. The results of the re-assessment, with the
ultimate loss to Government, are shown below :
|
Tahsil |
|
Amount (Rs) |
|
Gurdaspur |
.. |
3,89,351 or 9 per cent |
|
Batala |
.. |
3,78,641 or 8 per cent |
|
Shakargarh (transferred to Pakistan in
1947) |
.. |
3,13,445 or 5 per cent |
|
Pathankot |
.. |
2,18,360 or 11 per cent |
|
Total : |
.. |
12,99,797 or 8 per cent |
The total revenue proposed
has been given, including progressive assessments which amounted to only Rs
784, Rs 3,519, Rs 786 and 1,422 in the differnet tahsils, respectively, or Rs
6,525 in all, and, for facility of comparison in Pathankot, the 1872 revenues
of the villages not assessed by Prinsep has also been added in. The Government demand was taken as half net
assest which was calculated at one-sixth of the gross produce.
To quote the letter
mentioned earlier from the Officiating Senior Secretary to the Financial Commissioner,
“the conclusion arrived at by the Government of India and by the Punjab
Government was that the assessment as a whole was unduly low, and that in
particular the rates on wells were inadequate in consequence of an
unsatisfactory method of taxation based upon a particular economic
theory”. The main causes apparently
assigned by Prinsep for his reductions in Gurdaspur and Batala were an
over-estimate at the regular settlement of the irrigating capacity of the wells,
coupled with a desire not to tax unduly the capital and industry involved in
the construction of these works. In the
canal villages, some of the decrease was also due to an arrangement whereby he
treated the land in its unirrigated aspect and cut off part of the former land
revenue for transfer to the head of canal revenue. His actual deductions on this account were made in lump sums for
each village as obtained by a varying rate per acre on the irrigated area. These transfers, however, were apparently
never actually made, for, as soon as the settlement was concluded, the
discussion commenced which eventuated in the imposition on the area irrigated
in a given year of a canal water-advantage rate varying in the proportion to
the distance of the tract from the head of the canal and the average rainfall,
being highest at Re 1-4-0 (Re 1.25) per acre in Pathankot and lowest in
Gurdaspur and Batala at Re 1-2-0 (Re 1.12) per acre.
In
Shakargarh, the decrease was partly due to the same causes in the case of wells
and to other local reasons, such as a desire to assess the Bharrari and
frontier villages lightly, and to reduce the assessment on the former jagir
villages of Raja Teja Singh.
In Pathankot, special
reductions were again given for injury caused to the water-supply of some
estates by the Bari Doab Canal Works, and the new canal arrangement proposed
also tended to cut down the former revenue.
Speaking generally, it may be stated that a full and even a high
assessment was put on barani soils and lands irrigated by private
canals, while the well lands were let off very easily.
The revised assessment
worked smoothly and well generally ; only in special cases were suspensions and
remissions necessitated, and resort to coercive processes was rare.
Revision of
Records in Pathankot. – In 1869, in connection
with the measurements and revision of rights in the Kangra District (Himachal
Pradesh), the Pathankot villages, which had been settled by Barnes in what was
styled the Shahpur-Kandi tract with Dalhousie(Himachal Pradesh), were placed
under revision of record. Mackwirth
Young was first appointed to the charge of the settlement, and was succeeded in
October 1870 by Roe who completed the operations by February 1873, and
submitted a final report, which was sanctioned by Government in October
1876. These operations did not extend
to a revision of the saaessment, but included a complete and very accurate
survey.
Revision of
Records. – The 1892 settlement, the
first to cover the district as a whole (as it existed up to the transfer of the
Shakargarh Tahsil to Pakistan on the partition of the country in 1947), began
in 185 under Sir R.M.Dane who owing to ill-health gave way to his brother Sir
L.W.Dane in 1887. The very numerous
assessment circles were then reduced to a less unwieldy number, as shown below:
|
Tahsil |
|
Number of Circles |
|
|
|
Old |
New |
|
|
Gurdaspur |
.. |
20 |
5 |
|
Batala |
.. |
16 |
5 |
|
Shakargarh (transferred to Pakistan in
1947) |
.. |
7 |
4 |
|
Pathankot |
.. |
9 |
6 |
|
Total: |
.. |
52 |
20 |
As explained in
paragraph 11 of the Assessment Report of the Batala Tahsil of 19092,
canal irrigation had been introduced in 73 villages of the Bangar Circle and
these were amalgamated with the small Dhaia Bet Beas Circle, in which 13 of the
21 villages had also received canal irrigation. The new cirlcle thus formed was re-named the “Eastern Nahri”. The
original Nahri Circle in the centre of the tahsil was then distinguished by
title “Western Nahri”. The circles thus
formed in each tahsil were as under :
|
Tahsil Batala |
|
Tahsil Gurdaspur |
Tahsil Shakargarh |
Tahsil Pathankot |
|
Eastern Nahri |
.. |
Dhaia Bet Beas |
Bharrari |
Andhar |
|
Bangar |
.. |
Bangar |
Paintla |
Bet Ravi |
|
Western Nahri |
|
Nahri |
Bet Ravi |
Pathanti |
|
Maira Kiran |
.. |
Maria Kiran |
Darp |
Shah Nahri |
|
Bet Ravi |
.. |
Bet Ravi |
.. |
Kandi |
|
|
|
|
|
Pahari |
_______________________________________________________________
2. H.D. Craik,
Assessment Report of the Batala Thasil of Gurdaspur District, (Lahore, 1909)
The classification of
soils had been effected at the 1891 settlement in accordance with the patwari
rules except that, as the bulk of the land in the district was unirrigated, the
barani class was divided into sub-class to suit the varying conditions
of the tract. With the modifications set out in paragraph 31 of the Gurdaspur
District Settlement Report, 1912,3 which it is unnecessary to
reproduce here, the classification was followed in the 1912 settlement.
The system of survey
and preparation of records adopted at the 1891 and 1912 settlements are
described at length in paragraphs 14-24 of the 1912 Settlement Report. At both settlements, the existing village
maps were, except in a few instances, merely corrected and brought up to date. In riverain villages on the Ravi and Beas a
special form of survey was, with the assistance of the Survey Department,
adopted (paragraph 16 of the 1912 Settlement Report) and the river boundaries
with other districts and then princely States were decided and demarcated.
Different units of
measurements, as shown below, prevailed in different parts of the district.
Except in the Pahari Circle of Pathankot, where most of the maps were on the
scale of 30 or 50 karams to an inch, and this was maintained in the 1912
settlement.:
|
Tract |
|
Length of karams in inches |
Number of kanals in an acre |
|
Tahsils Batala, Gurdaspur and
Pathankot, except Chak Andhar and Pahari |
.. |
60 |
9.68 |
|
Tahsil Shakargarh (now in Pakistan)
and Chak Andhar of Pathankot |
.. |
66 |
8 |
|
Chakk Pahari of Pathankot |
.. |
57.5 |
10.54 |
The
Regular Settlement, 1885-92.- The usual assessment reports were submitted which
contained full details of the revenue rates adopted and the reasons for their
adoption, and the results were summarized in the final report. The chief change of the system introduced
was a return to acreage chahi rates in lieu of Prinsep’s lump abiana
or water-rate on ells, which of course shifted a good deal of the burden from
the barani soils on to the well-lands, as far as the Government
assessment was concerned, through in the bachh the people still showed a
tendency to let the wells off easily and in some cases distributed by the
former abiana system.
_______________________________________________________________
3. F.W. Kennaway, Final Report of the Revision of the
Settlement of the Gurdaspur District, 1912, (Lahore, 1912)
The
Government share of the produce was arithmetically worked out at 2 ˝ percent of
the gross produce, but in the produce estimate, to counteract a possible
over-estimate of the outturn per acre, the fodder crops and the share of the
straw taken by the owners were not included in the calculation of the value of
this share. The following table
summarises the main guides for re-assessment and the revenue rates adopted for
each tahsil: -
|
Tahsil |
|
Half assets produce estimate |
Half cash rent |
Actual incidence of revenue rates adopted |
|||
|
|
Old coinage Rs. A.P |
Decimal coinage Rs. A.P |
Old coinage Rs. A.P |
Decimal coinage Rs. A.P |
Old coinage Rs. A.P |
Decimal coinage Rs. A.P |
|
|
Gurdaspur |
.. |
3-11-0 |
3.69 |
1-15-2 |
1.95 |
1-14-7 |
1.91 |
|
Batala |
.. |
4-6-0 |
4.37 |
2-4-5 |
2.28 |
2-0-7 |
2.04 |
|
Shakargarh (trans-ferred
to Pakistan in 1947) |
.. |
1-13-1 |
2.82 |
2-2-11 |
2.18 |
1-9-9 |
1.61 |
|
Pathankot |
.. |
1-10-7 |
2.66 |
1-3-0 |
2.19 |
1-12-10 |
1.80 |
It will be seen that where the
cash rents were sufficiently numerous to furnish adequate data, as in Batala
and Gurdaspur, the assessment was well within the figure indicated by this
guide, while in all cases it was kept internationally far below the results
obtained from the produce estimates.
This was done in consequence of the special instructions of Government
directing the imposition of a liberally light assessment, and because in a
district like this, where most of the land is held by peasant proprietors and
small holdings are the rule, it is practically impossible to take anything like
a full/half assets share, if any margin of subsistence is to be left to the
people at all.
The
actual results of the re-assessment are shown below, from which it will be seen
that the tendency had been to let off upper portion of the tract easily and
take more from the southern part of the district, which was in the hands of the
better classes of agriculturists and which had made more progress in prosperity
since the development of the tract by well-sinking, canal extension and
construction of roads and railways, and which has not to contend with the same
adverse climatic conditions as the hill and submontane as a whole:
