History of Orissa from the Earliest Times to the British Period v2.c41.330

Language: English

v2.c41.330.1

The Collector of Medinipur wrote to Nānā Rāo, the Faujdār of Balasore, stating the intention of the Company to chastise Rājah Dāmodar Bhañja. A letter was received from the latter on the 14th August by the Collector of Medinipur stating that Maratha troops were stationed in the forts of Amardah and Khānpur, that he has sent his Wakil, Saiyad 'Abdul 'Ali and begging the Collector to remove Captain Fenwick from Beloorichor. The Collector sent a reply on the 15th requesting the Rāja to withdraw his army from Coontau to Hariharpur and to send a Wakil. Evidently Saiyad 'Abdul 'Ali had not yet arrived. On the 31st September, 1781, Peiarce reports that the Wakil who came from Dāmodar Bhañja was not invested with proper authority. A petition was addressed to the Governor-General by Nānā Rāo Mukund, younger brother of Rājārām Mukund Pandit and Rājā Dāmodar Bhañja of Mayurbhañja in which it is stated that Nānā Rāo was proceeding to Calcutta, but on the way he had to return to Medinipur an account of a disorder in his feet. His Wakil has already gone to Calcutta regarding the delivery of eighty-one villages pertaining to the Qila' of Mayurbhañja. It is requested that the claim may be settled by Messrs. Croftes and Charters. There is considerable truth in the petition of Dāmodar Bhañja in which it is stated that he sent papers authenticated by the signature of Ṣadar Qānungoe Jay Nārāyaṇ Rāy but they were rejected by one Chandra Śekhar Ghosh. Peiarce was distinctly averse to him.

v2.c41.330.2

He sent his Wakil to Calcutta to lay his complaints before the Council but nobody paid any attention to them. It is not known how much gold "Nabob" Peiarce assimilated from the zamindars of Beloorichor to hand over these eighty-one villages to wrongful possessers from the rightful owners. We must remember that in the eighteenth century British justice in India was tempered to suit the needs of Bengali vermin of the type of Gangāgovind Singh, Nabakrishna De and Krishna Kānta Nandy, who clung to the eighteenth century "Nabobs" of the type of Clive, Vansittart, Verelst and Hastings as parasites. Had Dāmodar Bhañja belonged even to the end of the nineteenth century some justice might have been done to him. The Council resolved to direct the Qānungoe of Jalesvar to come to Calcutta with the papers regarding the claim to these eighty-one villages by the Marathas and Rājā Dāmodar Bhañja. The *Wakil* of Dāmodar Bhañja submitted a representation to the Governor regarding the fort of Amardah and the eighty-one villages appertaining to it. From this we learn that the Rājā withheld payment of the revenue of fifty-two of these amounting to Rs. 1036. Security was demanded from him but he failed to give that too. The Collector of Medinipur entered into an agreement with the *Mālguzārs* for the direct payment of the revenue to the Collector to liquidate the Rājā's debt and thus became *Ijārādārs*.

v2.c41.330.3

The next year the Collector seized these eighty-one villages and annexed them to the district of Medinipur. A *Wakil* was sent to the Governor and the latter wrote to the Collector of Medinipur, but the Collector paid no heed to it. It appears that on the arrival of Chimnājī Bāpu complaints were sent to him and Rājārām Mukund Pandit, who came to Calcutta. Rājārām Pandit promised to write to his *Wakil* about it. John Shore, as Acting President of the Council, decided that it was difficult to determine clearly upon the rights of the two parties but "the proof rather preponderates in favour of the Mohrbunge Rājā." Further on, he states the "If the matter of the right between the zamindar of Beloorichor and the Rājā of Mayurbhanja is uncertain, it is equally difficult to determine to whom the revenues belong, to the Company or to the Marathas. The *Wakil* of the Mayurbhañja Rājā affirms he pays and has ever paid them at Balasore to the Marathas together with the rent of Remuna.”¹ On this report the application of Dāmodar Bhañja was sent to the Board of Revenue. The Governor-General in Council decided on the 26th April, 1782, to prosecute the inquiry further. Finally the claim of the Mayurbhañja Rājā was rejected by Warren Hastings, but we do not know which “Nobkisen” or “Gungagovind” prompted the order (13th July, 1782).