The tendency for increased litigation was visible after the introduction of the land settlement system of Lord Cornwallis in 1793. The reason for this is normally traced to which of the following provisions ?

Correct Option

The increased litigation observed after the introduction of Lord Cornwallis's land settlement system in 1793 is primarily attributed to the concurrent judicial reforms, rather than the provisions mentioned in options (1), (2), or (3).

The key reforms that facilitated and encouraged a rise in lawsuits included:

• Abolition of court fees, which made legal recourse affordable and accessible to a broader segment of the population.
• Extension of the right to appeal, allowing more cases to proceed through various levels of the judicial system.
• Provision for ordinary citizens to sue government servants (Indians) for misconduct, opening a new avenue for legal action.
• Abolition of severe corporal punishments, which made the judicial process less intimidating and more approachable for common people.

These specific changes in the judicial framework directly contributed to the surge in litigation.

Incorrect Options

Option (1) Making Zamindar's position stronger Vis-Vis the Ryot: While the Permanent Settlement of 1793 did strengthen the Zamindars' proprietary rights and position relative to the ryots, this structural change, though a source of potential disputes, was not the primary or direct cause for the overall increase in the tendency for litigation across the judicial system. The surge was driven more by the accessibility of the courts.

Option (2) Making East India Company an overlord of Zamindars: The East India Company was already the paramount administrative and revenue authority. Its position as an 'overlord' of Zamindars was an established reality and did not, by itself, directly lead to the significant increase in the volume of litigation after 1793.

Option (3) Making judicial system more efficient: This statement is inaccurate. While Cornwallis's reforms aimed at systematizing and formalizing the judicial process, they primarily made it more accessible rather than inherently 'more efficient' in terms of swift case resolution. The abolition of court fees and extension of appeal rights, while promoting access to justice, paradoxically led to a flood of cases, potentially reducing efficiency in terms of speed of disposal.