MADANLAL Vs. MUNNILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THE petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 26 -06 -2007 (Annexure P -1) passed by Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in Revision Case No.254/2004 -05.

(3.) IN my opinion, the authority has committed an error of law in remanding the matter back again. It is an admitted fact that Arjan was Sahariya by caste belonging to member of Scheduled Tribe. Hence, in accordance with the provisions of Section 165(6) of the Code, the land could not be purchased by respondent no.1 without sanction from the Collector. Apart from this, the land was purchased in a consideration of Rs. 400/ -. Hence, the Sub -Divisional Officer has rightly set aside the transaction and ordered that the land be returned back to applicant Arjan or his legal representatives.The Additional Commissioner vide impugned order remanded the matter back. The revision was filed by respondent no.1 Munnilal who was purchaser of the land. In my opinion, respondent no.1 Munnilal has no authority to file a revision challenging the status of legal representatives. Once it is held that he had no right to purchase the land; transaction was void, then he had no right to question the status of legal representatives of Arjan. Hence, the order is against the law.