Charles Fawcett, Kt., A.C.J.
1. [His Lordship after dealing with a point not material to the report continued :] The second point in this case is whether the order is ultra vires because it revises what was settled in 1887 as to the amount of rent payable under Section 9(2) of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act. That was a point that was raised by the plaintiff's before the Collector, as is shown by Exhibit 55. He gave reasons for the view that, although Section 9(2) of Bom. Act III of 1874 says that the Collector's order as to what is the full rent shall be final, that does not mean that the Collector cannot subsequently alter the amount of rent, if circumstances of the kind mentioned in this section, such as a rise or fall in the comparative rents paid by tenants of land of similar description in the same locality, should justify this being done. This point has been considered by the District Judge and he has agreed with the Collector. I also take the same view. I think what is meant is that any decision of the Collector as to the amount of rent leviable is final in the sense that it cannot be questioned either by any appellate or revisional authority under the Act, or by any suit in a civil Court, but that this does not preclude the Collector from altering the rent previously fixed, should circumstances justify that course. As the Government Pleader has pointed out, the land might cease to be cultivable; and the contrary construction would lead to absurdity and injustice. I do not think that the Legislature intended to give any further finality to the Collector's order than I have indicated. Therefore on the second point also the appeal, in my opinion, fails. I would, therefore, dismiss it with costs, Separate sets of costs are allowed.
2. I agree.