1. The petitioner is the ijardar and mortgagee in possession of the estate of Bhankoda situated in Viramgam taluka and which is a Talukdari Estate. In march 1950 the State of Bombay assumed the management of this estate under Section 44, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Respondent 3 was appointed the manager of the estate under Section 45, and under Section 49 the manager published a notice in the Official Gazette calling upon all persons having claims against the estate under management to notify the same in writing to him as manager within two months from the date of the publication of the notice. Pursuant to this, claimants against the estate presented their claims with the necessary particulars, and among them was also the petitioner.

Under Section 52 the manager held an inquiry in respect of the merits of every claim received by him and he prepared a schedule as required by Section 54 also a scheme of liquidation as required by that section, and submitted the schedule and the scheme to the Collector.

The Collector did not sanction the scheme under Section 5G, but after consulting the Government referred the matter back to respondent 4, who had in the meanwhile been appointed manager, for rein-vestigation of the claims submitted to the manar-ger against the estate including the claim of the petitioner, and the petitioner has now come before us contending that once his claim had been determined by respondent 3 it was not competent to the Government or the Collector to refer the matter back to the manager for reinvestigation. In-other words, the petitioners contention is that the determination of his claim by respondent 3 was final, that it was binding upon the Collector, and neither the Collector nor the Government had any power under the Bombay Tenancy and Argicultural Lands Act to direct the newly appointed manager to reinvestigate the petitioners claim.

2. In order to test the validity of the petitioners contention, one must look at the scheme of the Act. The power to assume management of a landholders estate is conferred upon Government under Section 44 of the Act, and Section 45 provides that when a notification is issued under Section 44 the estate shall vest in the State Government and the management of the estate shall commence from the date on which the notification is published and the State Government shall appoint a manager to be in charge of such estate. Section 46 provides for the effect of declaration of management. Section 47 defines the powers of the manager. Section 48 is not necessary to consider in the present context, and Section 49 as already mentioned makes it obligatory upon the manager to publish a notice in the Official Gazette calling for claims against the estate.

Section 50 provides for the particulars that have got to be specified in the claim made against the estate, and Section 51 penalizes any person who does not make the claim within the time specified in the notice by making the claim barred. Then we come to Section 52 and that gives the power to the manager, after inquiring into the history and merits of every claim, to determine the amount of the debts and liabilities justly due to the several claimants, and it is under this section that respondent 3 has determined the amount of the debt due by the estate to the petitioner. Section 53 confers upon the manager the power to fix the priority in which debts and liabilities are to be discharged In case all the debts and liabilities cannot be paid at once.

Then Section 54 provides for the scheme of liquidation and the duties cast upon the manager to prepare a schedule of debts and liabilities which he has finally to determine, and a scheme which is called the liquidation scheme showing the mode in which it is proposed to pay and discharge these debts and liabilities. The duty cast upon the manager to prepare a schedule and a scheme only arises after the debts and liabilities are finally determined. Therefore, Sec