ORDER Bhave, J. The Petitioners are husband and wife. They have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders of the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, and the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner No. 1 held 21.00 acres of land in village Gorakhpur, District Mandla, while his wife (Petitioner No. 2) held 7.50 acres of land in the same village. The Petitioners had taken taccavi loan of Rs. 250 and Rs. 200 respectively. On the default committed by them, their holdings were put to auction by the Naib-Tahsildar, Dindori. The auction was held between 22-4-1963 to 4-5-1963 when the highest bid of the Respondent No. 7 for both the holdings was accepted by the Naib-Tahsildar and the sale was knocked down in his favour. The price offered for 21-00 acres of land of the Petitioner No. 1 was Rs. 650 while that for the land of the Petitioner No. 2 was Rs. 700. On 14-5-1963 the Petitioners deposited the entire dues but failed to deposit the costs of the auction and five per cent of the bid amount payable to the auction-purchaser. Under the circumstances, the Naib-Tahsildar made a report to the Sub-Divisional Officer recommending the confirmation of the sales of the two holdings. The Sub-Divisional Officer directed the confirmation of the sale so far as the land of the Petitioner No. 2 was concerned; but be came to the conclusion that the price fetched for the land of the Petitioner No. 1 was too low and directed its resale by his order dated 26-6-1963. The Naib-Tabsildar, however, submitted the case of the Petitioner No. 1 for reconsideration with a representation that the price fetched was adequate and that the sale be confirmed. The fresh representation was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Officer and he directed the confirmation of the sale by his order dated 3-7-1963. The Petitioners thereupon preferred appeals before the Collector, Mandla, who, by his order dated 4-12-1963 (Annexure M) set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer confirming the sales of the lands of both the Petitioners on the ground that the Petitioners had already paid the entire amount before the confirmation of the sales and that the Sub-Divisional Officer had failed to give them opportunity of being heard. On appeal by the Respondent No. 7, the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, by his orders dated 13-12-1964 and 12-12-1964 (Annexure O) set aside the order of the Collector on the ground that the Collector had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the Petitioners had failed to deposit the costs of the auction sale as well as the five per cent of the bid amount within the prescribed period and that they had failed to file any objection within thirty days. It was further held that the Collector could exercise his overriding powers under Rule 44, Schedule I of the M.P. Land Revenue Code only before the sale was confirmed and not after that event. The revisions preferred by the Petitioners before the Board of Revenue were rejected by the Board by its order dated 16-12-1965. The Petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition seeking the relief, already indicated. The first ground urged by Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, is that at least in the case of the Petitioner No. 1 the bid was not accepted by the Sub-Divisional Officer and he had specifically directed resale of the property. The subsequent action of the Sub-Divisional Officer in accepting the representation of the Naib-Tahsildar and in ordering the con-fimation of the sale amounted to review of his order dated 26-6-1963. He urged that the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer was not only mala fide but was also illegal. Under Section 51 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, a revenue officer subordinate in rank to that of a Collector or a Settlement Officer is entitled to review his own order suo motu or on the application of any party subject to the condition that he should first obtain the sanction in writing of the authority to whom he is immediately subordinate. Similarly, the order cannot be varied or reversed in review unless notice of the same has been given to the party affected by the variation of the order. In the case of the Petitioner No. 1, no such step was taken and the order dated 26-6-1963 was varied by the Sub-Divisional Officer. This review of the original order was, on the face of it, illegal. In the case of the Petitioner No. 1, no such step was taken and the order dated 26-6-1963 was varied by the Sub-Divisional Officer. This review of the original order was, on the face of it, illegal. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Collector had jurisdiction to set aside the order of confirmation passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 3-7-1963 in exercise of powers under Rule 44 of the First Schedule. In any case, this Court would be justified in quashing the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the orders of the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue upholding the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The second ground urged by Shri Dharmadhikari was that the confirmation of the sales in both the cases was not by the proper authority and hence in law there was no confirmation of the sales. When the matter came before the Collector by way of appeal, he could, therefore, exercise his overriding powers under Rule 44 of the First Schedule of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and that the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were in error in holding that the Collector acted without jurisdiction. Under Section 147 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, a Tahsildar is authorised to issue any one or more of the processes prescribed under that section for the recovery of arrear of land revenue. One such process is: attachment and sale of immovable property belonging to the defaulter. Section 155 of the Code provides that all moneys falling due to the Ssate Government under any contract, which provides that they shall be recoverable in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue, can be recovered as if they were land revenue. The taccavi loan was of that character and hence a process u/s 147 could be issued by the Tahsildar. In this case we find that the Tahsildar had not issued the process, but it was issued by the Naib-Tahsildar. In Rule 8 framed u/s 258, clause xxxiv, it is provided that after the sale of the immovable property a sale certificate shall be issued in Form F. The form prescribes that it should be signed by the Tahsildar. From this rule again it is clear that it is the Tahsildar who has not only to issue the process but he has the authority to confirm the sale as well. From this rule again it is clear that it is the Tahsildar who has not only to issue the process but he has the authority to confirm the sale as well. There is no provision either u/s 147 or under the rules framed thereunder by which the sanction of the Sub-Divisional Officer for confirmation of the sale can be obtained. It is thus clear that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to confirm the sale; nor had the Naib Tahsildar such a jurisdiction. The rules framed under Schedule I provide for the general procedure to be followed by Revenue Officers and Revenue Court. Rule 25 provides that every sale shall be conducted by an officer or other person appointed by a general or special order in this behalf and shall be made by public auction. Shri Dharmadhikari contended that the Naib-Tahsildar was not authorised to conduct the sale. In exercise of powers under Rule 26 the processes issued by him were, therefore, illegal and the sale could not be confirmed. The Government advocate was not able to bring to our notice any notification issued by the State Government authorising the Naib-Tahsildar to hold a sale. Section 19 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code provides that the State Government may appoint in each tahsil a Tahsildar and one or more Naib-Tahsildars who shall exercise therein the powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed on them by or under the Code or under any other enactment for the time being in force. The provisions, referred to above, do not confer any such right on the Naib-Tahsildar of issuing process or holding the sale. The Naib-Tahsildar, therefore, had no authority to exercise the powers of the Tahsildar. The provisions, referred to above, do not confer any such right on the Naib-Tahsildar of issuing process or holding the sale. The Naib-Tahsildar, therefore, had no authority to exercise the powers of the Tahsildar. Now, Rule 44 of Schedule I of the M. P. Land Revenue Code reads as under: On the expiry of thirty days from the date of sale, if no application has been made under rules 40, 41 or 42 or if such application has been made and rejected, the Revenue Officer shall pass an order confirming the sale: Provided that, if the Collector has reasons to think that the sale ought to be set aside- (i) notwithstanding that no such application has been made; or (ii) on grounds other than those alleged in any application which has been made and rejected; or (iii) notwithstanding that a period of thirty days from the date of sale has expired; be may, after recording his reasons in writing, set aside the sale at any time before making an order confirming the sale. This rule is inartistically worded If the Tahsildar has been conferred with the powers of holding the sale, deciding the objections and confirming the sale, we do not see at what stage an application can be made to the Collector for exercising his overriding powers under the Proviso. If the applicant comes before the Collector within the time prescribed for filing objections or for depositing the necessary amount, he would be directed to approach the Tahsildar for the necessary relief. If he comes after the period of limitation is over, his application would be infructuous because by that time as provided by first part of Rule 44 the sale would have been confirmed. Whatever may be the position, so far as this case is concerned we are satisfied that the sale was not confirmed as required by law, as neither the Naib-Tahsildar nor the Sub-Divisional Officer had any authority to hold the sale or order its confirmation. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were in error in holding that the Collector acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the sale. As we are allowing the petition on the abovesaid ground, we have refrained from recording our findings on other grounds urged on behalf of the Petitioners. As we are allowing the petition on the abovesaid ground, we have refrained from recording our findings on other grounds urged on behalf of the Petitioners. The petition is, therefore, allowed, the order of the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, and the Board of Revenue are quashed and the order of the Collector directing the setting aside of the sale in respect of the land of both the Petitioners is restored. The Respondent No. 7 shall pay the costs of this petition to the Petitioners. Hearing fee Rs. 100. The security amount shall be refunded to the Petitioners. Final Result : Allowed