Patkar, J - (1.)In this ease a decree was obtained on December 15, 1917, for Rs. 11,626-7-7 to be paid by instalments of Rs. 800 each. In July 1927, a darkhast was given to recover the 7 and the 8 instalments, amounting to Rs. 1,600 as principal and Rs. 173 as interest. The Subordinate Judge sent the decree to the Collector for execution. In May 1928 the Collector ordered the land to be leased to Melappa Andaneppa for twelve years on a yearly rent of Rs. 500 and the rent-note was passed in the following year. In the lower Court an application was made to set aside the lease. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the action of the Collector was intra vires.
(2.)It appears to us that under Schedule III, paragraph 1, Clause (b), the Collector should have raised the amount of the decree by letting in perpetuity, or for a term, on payment of a premium, and also under paragraph 7, Clause (b) (i), by letting in perpetuity, or for a term, on payment of a premium, the whole or any part of the said property. The Collector, therefore, ought to have let the land on a premium to raise the amount of the decree.
(3.)It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Collector by fixing the amount of rent at Rs. 500 and ordering the rent to be paid to the decree-holder has varied the original decree which had made the amount payable by instalments of Rs. 800. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Collector in execution of the decree under Schedule III. The contention is supported by the decision in Krishna Das V/s. Ram Gopal Singh (1928) I.L.R. 50 All. 827, where it was held that when a decree has been transferred to a Collector for execution under the provisions of Section 68 of the Civil P. C., it is not competent to the High Court to interfere with the orders passed by him even though they may be obviously not warranted by the provisions of Schedule III, paragraph 1, of the Code. It is no doubt true that there is a rule made by the Allahabad High Court which clearly provides that a civil Court has no power to interfere with the procedure of a Collector in the execution of a decree which has been transferred to him under Section 68. There is no corresponding rule framed by this Court to that effect, still the question remains whether a civil Court has power to interfere with the order of the Collector, who, according to Section 71, is deemed to be acting judicially.