Norman Macleod, C.J.
1. The plaintiff filed this suit to obtain possession of certain Deshpande vatan land. The last male-holder was one Narayan Dattatraya, who died leaving a widow Yamunabai, who alienated the vatan land by executing certain miras patras (permanent leases) to defendants Nos. 1 to 4. Defendant No, 5 has bought some of the alienated land from the other defendants. Plaintiff himself attested the miras patras. Yamunabai died in 1908 and then the plaintiff made an application to the Collector under Section 11 of the Vatan Act.
2. The Collector passed an order which is Exhibit 57. He found that the miras patras were alienations under Section 5 of the Vatan Act without sanction of Government and declared them null and void under the powers given him by Section 11 of the Vatan Act. Section 11 A, which lays down the powers of the Collector after he has held that the alienations are null and void, says:
The Collector shall either summarily resume possession of all property to which an order of a Court passed on receipt of his certificate under Section 10, or his own declaration under Section 11 relates, or assess it at the rate prescribed in Clause 2 of Section 9, as he may think fit and the said property shall thenceforward revert to the vatan.
3. Section 9 deals with the alienation of vatan property before the Act same into force. Clause 2 says:
If such part of a vatan be land it shall he lawful for the Collector, instead of transferring the possession of the land, to demand and recover the full rent ordinarily paid by tenants of land of similar description in the same locality, and the amount so recovered shall be considered as the profits. The decision of the Collector as to what is the full rent shall be final.
4. The Collector in this case considered whether he should resume possession or assess the rent that was to be paid. Considering that the respondent had been in possession for seventeen years, he directed a levy of the full rent to the extent of 2 1/2 times of the assessment. The learned Appellate Judge remarked that under the terms of Section 11A the land in suit would thenceforward revert to the vatan. But it could not be that the property should revert to the vatan in the sense that the vatandar was entitled to get possession. Other wise those words would be in conflict with the powers of the Collector who assessed the land at the full rent. I think these words must mean that after the lands have been assessed at the full rent, that rent must be paid by the person in possession, if eviction is not ordered, and that the rent, which should be considered as the profits of the land, will go to the vatandar. The order of the Collector in clearly an order within Section 4 (a), third paragraph of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, and, therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court to consider whether that order should stand or should be set aside has been ousted. The decision of the lower Appellate Court is correct and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
5. I agree.