JUDGMENT Bomford J.M. 1. This is an appeal u/s 3(4) of the Regulation of Sales Act. The order under appeal is combined with an order u/s 5, and there is no doubt that a separate order should have been recorded, for appeal lies against an order u/s 3(3) of the Act and revision only in the case of orders under other sections. 2. The judgment-debtor admits that there is no truth in the allegations made in the grounds of appeal that he had no notice of the proceedings. He undoubtedly failed to appear and argue his case against the valuation submitted by the Tahsildar, but the Sales Officer had ample meterial before him on which to scrutinize carefully the statement received from the tahsil, as under the rules he was bound to do. 3. In December 1933, the profits of the property were Rs. 63-69 and the valuation Rs. 3,932-2-6, while in February, 1936, the profits were only Rs. 37.11.0 and the valuation only Rs. 2,072.13.0. No explanation has been offered of the drop in the profits, which is to me incomprehensible as I have been given to understand that it is only recently that sir and khud kasht have been valued at statutory instead of occuparcy rates, and statutory rates soil for soil must be higher than occupancy rate. I therefore remand the case to the Assistant Collector for a re-exariination of the valuation statement in the presence of the parties and investigation into the cause of the great decline in profits apart from the decline due to a change in the multiple. The Assistant Collector will report within two months and I will not necessarily hear parties again. As the validity of the order u/s 5 depends on the correction of the valuation the question of the revision of that order will stand over pending any orders on the appeal against the valuation, but in his connection the Assistant Collector in his report will mention whether any application under the Encumbered Estates Act has been accepted by the Collector and if so on what date.