Sirkar revenue will not be misappropriated as is now done, and the honest ryots will not have to undergo any trouble whatever.
Page 216, Asst. Village Munsif of Kodur (Nellore)
The A.G. of the 14th July, observes that the assistant village munsif, Pemmareddi Pichchireddi was dismissed by the Deputy Collector for acting illegally and for doing things just as he liked. On appeal to the Collector he was reinstated. Asking whether the levying of penalties for failing to do kudimaramat work was to be according to law or according to one's pleasure and stating that Section 6 of Act 1 of 1858 empowers that such fines should be collected as if they were arrears of land revenue, i.e., making a demand first and then attaching property in default of payment, the paper questions if the said Pichchireddi or the other village officers had acted accordingly, and whether they had received or not from Mr. Dampuri Narasayya's servants one rupee and eight annas by coercion and whether they had collected or not similar fines from others also, and whether they had sent the moneys so collected to the treasury. It concludes with the question whether it is desirable to restore a man to his post on appeal when he has thus acted, and requests His Excellency the Governor to decide the matter according to law”.
Page 217, July 21st 1900, Tenancy Bill
A.G. 21st July, writes: — "what has become the fate of the Tenancy Bill, how many days shall the ryots be molested at the hands of the proprietors? Has not the Madras Government any mercy?"
Page 211, Authentication of Vakalatnamas
A correspondent to the A.G. of the 21st July, writes that as the High Court rules require the parties signing vakalatnamas to do so before a judicial officer, they (the vakalatnamas) are generally taken to the village munsifs who authenticate them in the absence of the parties for a small bribe of As.2. Some of the village munsifs are making an actual living by means of such bribes. They in fact wait in the verandah of the District Munsif's Court to obtain the same. They do not seem to realize that such authentication of vakalatnamas in the absence of the parties is a "big forgery". It is of course difficult to prove it as such. Neither the parties that signed the vakalatnamas nor the witnesses, neither the gumastas of