(1.) IN this case the revisional order of the Commissioner, Raipur Division, setting aside the sale of Khasra No. 85/7 (0.04 acre) in village Fafadih, tahsil and district Raipur has been challenged by the auction -purchaser (applicant) on a number of grounds. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, restricted his arguments to the following grounds only.
(2.) BEFORE I deal with the grounds mentioned above the facts of the case may briefly be mentioned. The plot in question which was originally held by one Smt. Indira Prabha and passed on to one Jiwaram by a registered sale -deed dated 22 -7 -50. Jiwaram re -sold the land by registered deed to one Popatlal, the predecessor -in -title of the present non -applicants on 18 -4 -50 for a sum of Rs. 2,000. These changes were not mutated in revenue papers. The land revenue fell in arrears from 1951 -52 onwards. Proceedings were started against Smt. Indira Prabha for the recovery of arrears by a sale of the aforesaid plot. The sale was knocked down in favour of the applicant on 12 -7 -56 and confirmed by the Sub -Divisional -Officer on 16 -7 -56. The sale proceedings were held invalid by the learned Commissioner for the following reasons:
(3.) IN regard to the second ground, which relates to the powers of the Commissioner under section 46, Madhya Pradesh Code, it may be pointed out that the powers available to him under section 46 of the Code are very wide and he has committed no illegality in interfering with the orders of the Sub -Divisional Officer, which was the real and effective order pertaining to the disposal of the plot in dispute. Section 46 ibid does not limit the revisional powers of the Commissioner to an order passed by the Collector as contended by the learned counsel. In law, he can interfere in revision against any order passed by any revenue officer subordinate to him. The Sub -Divisional Officer being one such revenue officer there was no contravention of the provisions of section 46 ibid.