JUDGMENT Darling S.M. 1. On the 2nd January, 1936, Lajja Ram presented an application u/s 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act in the Court of the Collector of Meerut. To this application there is attached an extract from the khewat of village Khurrampur in pargana Jalalabad, in which his name does not figure: yet on the very same day the Deputy Collector, empowered to act as a Collector, Babu Jamuna Sarup by name passed an order u/s 6 directing that the application be forwarded to the Special Judge. In failing to notice that the applicant's name is not to be found in the extract from the khewat attached to his application the Deputy Collector has signally failed in his most ordinary duty. It is inconceivable how the Deputy Collector could certify the applicant to be a landlord within the mealing of the definition in Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act when there was nothing to show that he is a landlord of any kind. It is true that in his brief order of 16 words the Deputy Collector has not specifically certified the applicant to be a landlord within the meaning of the Act, but seeing that no order can be passed u/s 6 except in favour of a landlord as defined in Section 2, the Deputy Collector had no business to pass this order without satisfying himself on this point: a most cursory examination of the extract from the khewat attached to the application would have shown to the Deputy Collector that the applicant is not a landlord so far as this khewat is concerned. Certain creditors now come to the Board in appeal u/s 45 of the Encumbered Estates Act against this order passed u/s 6. 2. The Respondent-applicant, though personally served with the notice for to-day's hearing, is absent. There is no evidence on the record to show that he holds zamindari property elsewhere than in this particular village. Under Rule I of the rules framed by the Local Government a landlord applying u/s 4 shall attach to his application a certified extract from the most recent khewat of all the mahals in which his landed property lies. Apparently the applicant has lost his property in the particular khewat from which this extract is taken: any way his name no longer appears therein. Apparently the applicant has lost his property in the particular khewat from which this extract is taken: any way his name no longer appears therein. If he owns property elsewhere, then he has only himself to blame for failing to comply with the provisions of Rule I, and for not furnishing extract from the khewats in which that other property may lie. On the evidence available on the record the applicant is not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Encumbered Estates Act; I would therefore allow this appeal and would cancel the order passed u/s 6. A copy of this order should be sent by the Collector of Meerut to the Special Judge for information and necessary action. As the applicant-Respondent has not actually appeared in Court no costs are awarded. 3. Bomford J.M.-(February 20, 1937.) -I agree.