JUDGMENT Bomford, J.M. 1. (July 23, 1937).--I deal in this appeal with two orders passed on two applications made by Mst. Batulan. The first was made on 29th October, 1936, and the second on 21st April, 1937, after an order on review-had been passed on the application of her creditors, cancelling an order passed u/s 6 on the first application. The second application was simply an application that she should be given the benefit of Section 4(4) of the Act which was rejected. The objection on which the order of review appealed against was passed was taken on the ground that the requisite khewats had not been filed with the application. The dates are as follows:-On 27th October, 1936, Mst. Batulan applied for mutation in respect of the equity of redemption of some 31/2 bighas of land which had been gifted to her by an oral gift by her mukhtar, on 25th March, 1935. On 29th October, she filed her application u/s 4. On 3rd December, the application for mutation being undisputed orders in her favour were passed. On 5th Dacember, she filed a copy of the khewat to be attached to her application u/s 4. As usual this copy was subjected to the most perfunctory examination. It appeared to be a khewat and the application was reported to be in order and orders were passed that it should now be forwarded to the Special Judge. But the copy of the khewat filed did not contain the name of Mst. Batulan even yet and on 23rd December, she applied to the Judge saying that a wrong copy had beed filed and asking for sanction to file the correct copy. The Judge acquiesced. 2. Her creditors, however, applied to the Collector to cancel the order u/s 6 on the grounds that the woman was not a landlord within the meaning of the Act and that the application had not been duly made as the necessary khewats had not been filed. 3. The Assistant Collector granted the application and cancelled his order forwarding the application on the ground that the applicant Mst. Batulan was not recorded in the khewat either when the application WAS filed or when it was forwarded to the Special Judge. He based his decision on the ruling reported in 1937 R.D. 103. 1937 AWR 268 [Mohd. 3. The Assistant Collector granted the application and cancelled his order forwarding the application on the ground that the applicant Mst. Batulan was not recorded in the khewat either when the application WAS filed or when it was forwarded to the Special Judge. He based his decision on the ruling reported in 1937 R.D. 103. 1937 AWR 268 [Mohd. Idris Khan v. Rant Narain.] As he has not taken the trouble to quote the names of the parties in this case it is impossible for the Board to trace this ruling but there seems little doubt that it is based on the ruling reported in Brij Raj Singh v. The Official Receiver, Aligarh, 1936 AWR 925 in which it was held that the landlord under the Act must be the landlord recorded in the papers. That was a case in which a son applied under the Act because the father could not apply being an insolvent. It is useless to apply a ruling without considering the circumstances in which it was given and this ruling has I think been interpreted not merely by the S.D.O. in this case but by others to mean a good deal more than it does mean. It is to be borne in mind that the khewats are only to be filed with the application in order to serve as evidence that the landlord making the application is a landlord. It is argued on behalf of the Appellant in this case that she was a landlord from the date of the oral deed of gift in March, 1935, and the mere fact that she did not get mutation till 3rd December, 1936, does not prevent her being a landlord as was recognized when the order of mutation was passed. 4. I am prepared to concede that there may well be cases in which the khewats might be brought into conformity with the facts after the expiry of the Act without thereby invalidating a claim to have a right to apply under the Act, and I would add that the S.D.O. was wrong in basing his order on the fact that the copy filed on 5th December, 1936, was a wrong copy or at least did not represent the orders passed on 3rd December. 5. 5. But I am not prepared to hold on the merits that the applicant and Appellant before me was a landlord before the Act came into force on 30th April, 1935, and I am further not prepared to admit that she was a landlord before 3rd December, 1936, on which date the order of mutation was passed after the expiry of the Act. We have only to consider the facts (i) an oral gift (ii) made by her mukhtar (Hi) a week before the date on which the Act came into force (iv) in respect of which an application for mutation was made a week before the Act expired. The whole story reeks of collusion and what has been described to me as traffic in the Act. I have no hesitation in finding that Mst. Batulan was not a landlord when the Act came into force and hence the application was not duly made. 6. That disposes of the first appeal. My findings thereon naturally dispose of the second appeal also. If she was not qualified to apply at all it is obvious that she could not be given the benefit of Clause (4) of Section 4 and that appeal is dismissed. 7. At the same time I must point out to the Assistant Collector that he has no right to cancel his order u/s 6. His duty was to report to the Board to take action in revision. I take action accordingly u/s 46 of the Act and cancel the order of the Section D.O. forwarding the application of Mst. Batulan to the Special Judge. I would add a hope that the S.D.O. will take more pains in future in supervising the work of his office. His own carelessness has been responsible for this appeal and the waste of the time of the Board. 8. The Respondents are entitled to their costs in both appeals and I assess pleaders' fee at Rs. 10 in each case. A copy of this order will be sent to the Special Judge for his information. Darling S.M. (August 2, 1937). I agree.