Divatia, J.These are all companion appeals in which there is one common question of law. That question is whether the sanad, exhibit 24, amounted to an agreement between the Government and the occupants and as such was not capable of being cancelled by the Government, before the expiry of the period of fifty years specified in the sanad. The lower appellate Court has held, differing from the trial Court, that it is an agreement which is not capable of being cancelled before the expiry of the term, and I agree with that conclusion. Whether the sanad be taken to have been given u/s 65 or u/s 67 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the point would be the same.

2. It is contended on behalf of the Government that u/s 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code it would be competent to the Government to modify the terms of the sanad at any time. That argument is urged on the basis that the sanad is tantamount to a decision of a revenue officer. But it has been recently held by our High Court in The Government of the Province of Bombay v. Hormusji Mmekji (1940) Letters Patent Appeal No. 40 of 1938, Decided by N.J. Wadia and Sen, JJ., on August 8 1940 (Unrep.) that Section 211 does not apply to such documents embodying terms and conditions agreed to between the Government and the occupants. It is not therefore competent to the Government to modify the terms of a sanad if it embodies certain terms and conditions which are agreed to between the Government and the occupant. In that case the agreement was u/s 67. In the present case the sanad is issued u/s 65, but that would not make any difference as the principle is the same. I, therefore, agree with the lower appellate Court in holding that the claim of the Government to enhance the non-agricultural assessment beyond what is fixed in the sanad is not tenable. In view of this decision it is not necessary to dwell upon the other points raised in appeal.

3. The decrees of the lower appellate Court are, therefore, confirmed and the appeals are dismissed with costs.