JUDGMENT Bomford J.M. 1. This is an appeal u/s 4 [Section 3 (4)?] of the Regulation of Sales Act. 2. The judgment-debtor pointed out when the valuation was received from the Tahsil that in 1935 his property had been valued at Rs. 62,217, while in 1936 it had dropped to Rs. 30,732.3.5. The decree-holder's property in another viahal of the same village had been valued at Rs. 98,392 in 1935, which had dropped to Rs. 86,490.6.8 in 1936. In the latter case the profits had fallen from Rs. 1,366.9.0 to Rs. 1,325.1.0, while in the case before me the profits fell from Rs 864.2.0 to Rs. 471.14.1, so the vast difference in the figures could not be explained merely by the difference in the multiple employed. 3. There was much material here for the serious consideration of the Assistant Collector who was however content to record in his order that the figures came apparently from the village papers and he therefore assumed that they were correct. He had a further opportunity for considering the figures when the Board called for a report on the grounds of appeal but again he fell back on vague generalities suggesting that a difference in the rules governing the calculations would explain the discrepancies. I have made a further enquiry from the Collector and now learn that in 1935 sir and khudkasht were valued at occupancy rates, while in 1936 under Para. 462 Land Revenue anual they were calculated at statutory rates. It does not seem to have truck anybody that it is remarkable that in applying statutory rates the value of the sir and khudkasht has decreased Generally soil for soil statutory rates are at least 20 per cent, higher than occupancy rates, though it is possible that the statutory rental incidence may be lower than the occupancy incidence. But the rates must be calculated not on the average acreage incidence but on soil rates. It is noticeable that in the other viahal there has not been the same drop in the valuation of sir and khudkasht. 4. The case must by remanded so that the Assistant Collector can apply his mind to the question of valuation and he can take the opportunity of ascertaining why the rental area has also dropped by some to acres. 5. The Assistant Collector will re-examine the figures and report again within two months. 4. The case must by remanded so that the Assistant Collector can apply his mind to the question of valuation and he can take the opportunity of ascertaining why the rental area has also dropped by some to acres. 5. The Assistant Collector will re-examine the figures and report again within two months. I will not necessarily hear parties again. Costs will abide the result.