N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.
1. It has not been contended before us, nor does it appear to have been contended in the Court below by either of the defendants, that the orders passed and the action taken by the Collector in consequence of those orders in 1865 were illegal. One of the rules then in force and having the force of law under Act XI of 1852 provided that, in case of the discharge of a shet-sanadi without fault, but because his service was no longer required, his shet-sanadi land should be allowed to remain in his possession, subject to the survey assessment, and that no further demand could be made. And this is substantially what the Collector did in respect of the land in dispute on the death of Bashya in 1865. The shet-sanadi service required of Bashya's branch of the family was dispensed with upon the ground that there was no necessity for it; full survey assessment was imposed upon the land; and Bashya's heir was allowed to remain in possession, subject to the survey assessment. After that, no further demand could be made from the person let into possession on that condition. Both the order passed and the action taken under the rule had in law the effect of converting the land from a shet-sanadi watan into a ryotwari holding and investing the holder of the land with the rights of an ordinary occupant, entitled to it so long as he paid the survey assessment.
2. But it is urged for the appellant, who was the second defendant in the Court below, that in 1865 the Collector also entered the land in the appellant's name in the revenue records as a shet-sanadi holding and that he also ordered a portion of the amount of the assessment payable by Bashya's heir to be paid to the appellant for his services as a shet-sanadi. The appellant's pleader has not been able to show why the land was entered in his client's name in the revenue records as a shet-sanadi watan, contrary to the implication of the rule just mentioned. The action taken under that rule conferred a certain right upon Bashya's heir; and the mere entry could not affect that right or preserve that as a watan which, in virtue of the action of the authorities under or on the analogy of the rule, had ceased to partake of that character. The land was not made over to the appellant; nor were its profits as such charged with the remuneration for his services as a shet-sanadi. He had held the office of shet-sanadi independently of this land in Bashya's life-time; and on the latter's death all that was done was that his remuneration for that service was increased and the enhanced amount was made payable, not from the land in dispute, but out of the assessment payable to Government by its occupant. That was an arrangement between the appellant and Government, which could not prejudice the rights of Bashya's heir in the absence of any law affecting that right.
3. The proceedings adopted by the Collector in 1883 and in 1905, on which the appellant relies in support of his case, were on the supposition that what was done in 1865 on Bashya's death had the effect of continuing the land in dispute as one reserved for shet-sanadi service, That was not its effect, and the proceedings in question were, in our opinion, ultra vires of the Collector.
4. This is the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge in his lucid judgment, and we entirely agree with him.
5. His decree under appeal must be confirmed with costs.