AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The question is whether the kurnam in a permanently settled Zamindari is a village servant employed in revenue duties within the meaning of
Section 52 of Act II of 1864, It has been held by the District Judge that the section does not apply to such kurnams but only to kurnams in
unsettled Districts. It is clear that, independently of Regulation XXIX of 1802, the kurnam was, as he is now admittedly every where except in
lands settled under Regulation XXV of 1802, a revenue servant. By the preamble of Regulation XXIX of 1802, passed after the passing of
Regulation XXV it is declared that the office of kurnam is still of great importance and that it is expedient to provide for the continuance of it, and
the Regulation goes on to [750] indicate the duties which are to be performed by the Kurnam. Some of those duties or duties which may aptly be
called revenue duties. The Regulation VI of 1831 further tends to show that these kurnams were regarded as revenue servants, for the Regulation
relates to hereditary village and other offices in the revenue and police departments, and by the last section it is expressly provided that the
Regulation shall not apply to kurnams holding office under Regulation XXIX of 1802. We cannot agree with the District Judge in the view he has
taken of the question, and must reverse the decree and remand the appeal to be dealt with according to law. Costs are to be provided for in the
revised decree.