Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/444

 to be eompstively too heavy". TIM author writes: '" My 60 per cent" as if he thought that that is spIwoximaJm- !y the true average figure; but we think that m h4d personal inquiry in two or three widely seIMtrstod tarts of the country would soon have convinced him that this is m gravely inaccurate statement. He appears simply to have repeated fi pereen. tage which hfis been currently quoted for more thfin *fi generation. Meanwhile rent8 have been  far more rapidly than !and revenue. Professor Sister quotes for Madras m ease in which he found the land venue Be. 5 per sere for !and of which the rent Its. 80 per sere, and only Its. 1-8 per sere and the Punjab canal colonies much of the land, is only another in which the revenue the rent Be. 40 per sere. the !and revenue demand, one-tenth to one-eighth of In for the special permission ment of India, myersgo being about 85 per cent, and the lowest figure in s district at some disto, nee from s railway about 20 per cent, the highest nefirly 50 per cent. The revenue is much less than 90 per esnt of the rent in !finds near growing towns under fin old settlement. In recent settlements in the United Provinces the net assets have been taken st less thfin the actual rentals, find owing to the operation of the Government of India rule limiting the increase of total settlement to for exceptional the settlement 88 per vent, except with reasons from the Oovern- ofiieer could not take as much fie 45 per cent of the net assets, which was the stan- dard adopted in the Government of India Resolution of 1909. The revenue cannot in such eases be more than from 85 to 40 per cent of actual current rentals; find as the settlement is for thirty years find prices fire..rising find likely to continue doing so, it is probable that 5 years hones the revenue will be on the average but 10 per cent of the rfite of rent setus!!y co!leered. The fact is that the rsyst's stfmdsrd of living determines his earnings, find competition leads to so much of the surplus (i.e. etonohmic rent) as is not claimed by Government being paid to somebody as landlord. Thia is to a grefit extent true even in ryo tw&ri tracts. Another misleeAing statement is to be found on page 445 in the rent obtained. In the United Provinces, in some inshums which have come under our own notice, there was consi- derable variation in the rtio of revenue to rent, the