JUDGMENT Darling S.M. 1. This is an appeal u/s 45 of the Encumbered Estates Act against an order of the Collector of Agra dated the 11th June, 1936, re-affirming a previous order passed on the 11th May, 1936, u/s 6 of the Act. This appeal was originally argued on the 7th November: it was adjourned till the 4th December for the next visit of the Court to Agra so that I might have the advantage of discussing the law with my colleague at Lncknow. The parties present in Court on the 7th November are present to day this order is being dictated 'in their presence. 2. On the 8th May, 1936, the applicants made an application before the, Collector of Agra u/s 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act Copies of the., khewats, on the basis of which the applicants claim to be landlords within the meaning of the Act, were produced of the 9th May. Two day later, on the 11th May, the Collector passed an order u/s odirecting that the application be for warded to, the Special Judge. On the 27th May, certain creditors presented an objection before the Collector to the effect that the applicants are not landlords within the meaning of Clause (g) of Section 2, of the Act: on the 11th June the Collector dismissed the objection and re-affirmed the original order the present appeal is against this latter order of the 11th June. 3. In view of the ruling passed by our predecessors in another Agra case, Seth Bidhi Chand v. L. Karori Mal 1936 A W R 826. on the 7th August, 1936, a copy of which is on the record, the applicants are not landlords within the meaning of Clause (g), and the proviso attached thereto, of Section 2 of the Act the landed property now held by them was acquired after the passing of the Act: mutation was actually obtained on the 9/10th May, 1936, on top of the presentation of the application u/s 4 on the 8th May. The orders passed by the Collector on the nth May and the nth June, roust therefore be cancelled: the applicants not being landlords within the meaning of the Act when the Act was passed are not entitled to the benefits of the Act The Collector will now send a copy of this order to the Special Judge for necessary action. 4. 4. It should be observed that the Collector made no adequate enquiry when he passed his original order on the nth May, as to whether the applicants were landlords within the definition given in Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act. u/s 6 of the Act the Collector should only pass an order when he is satisfied that the application u/s 4 "has been duly made" it is the business of the Collector to satisfy himself accordingly. With this object the Collector should at least send for the patwari for the elucidation of the copies of the khewat filed with the application. These copies of the khewat should not be treated as conclusive proof that the applicants are landlords within the meaning of the Act: they merely constitute a piece of evidence which can be rebutted. As soon as the Collector has satisfied himself that all is in order and that the application "has been duly made", then the Collector should "forthwith pass aft order" u/s 6, which should be promptly forwarded to the Special Judge. 4. In Agra the Collector sends the whole of his record to the Special Judge: this is wrong. All the proceedings up to Section 6 fall within the jurisdiction of the Revenue authorities: the record of those proceedings should always remain in the Collectorate. The only documents to be sent to the Special Judge are (1) the original application, with all documents attached thereto, made u/s 4, and (2) the Collector's order passed u/s 6. These documents will form the basis of the record in the Court of the Special Judge. If this very simple procedure be followed, there can never be any question of the Collector having to recall his record from the Court of the Special Judge. 5. The result is that, the appeal is allowed with costs including Rs. 50 for pleader's fee in this Court. Bomford J.M.-(December 12, 1936). 6. I agree.