JUDGMENT Bomford J.M. 1. There are two points for decision in this case (I) was the Respondent a landowner when the Encumbered Estates Act came into force. (2) Whether the Board can cancel the order of the Collector forwarding the application of the Respondent to the Special Judge. 3. As to the first point it is admitted that the Respondent only acquired a small property on the 3rd July, 1936, in which he got mutation on the 8th August, 1936, twenty days before he filed his application under the Act. 4. The second point I have discussed with my learned colleague, who has recorded the result of our discussion in the orders passed by him in appeal No. 16 of 1935, 36, from the Agra district, Ganeshi Lal v. Radhey Lal 1937 AWR 267 decided on the 4th December 1936, and appeal No. 1 of 1936-37 from the Bareilly district, Muhammad Idris Khan v. Seth Ram Narain 1937 AWR 268 decided on the 6th January, 1936, and have nothing to add to what has been said by the Senior Member in these cases. I hold in accordance with the views expressed by Mr. Drald Brockman in the case Bidhi Chand v. Karori Mal 1936 AWR 826 that the Respondent's application should not have been sent to the Special Judge and the appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Assistant Collector with powers of a Collector dated the 31st August, 1936, is cancelled. Appellants will get their costs and Rs 20 pleader's fee in this Court. The Collector will send a copy of this order to the Special Judge. 5. Darling S.M.-[December 17, 1936). I entirely agree.