JUDGMENT : D. Pathak, C.J. - This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 1-2-82 (Annexure-4) passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj in O.L.R. Revision No. 25 of 1980 by which the appellate order dated 2-11-79 (Annexure 3) in O.L.R. Appeal No. 258 of 1978 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, opposite party No. 3, confirming the order of the Subdivisional Officer, Kaptipada, in O.L.R. Case No. 659 of 1976 has been upheld. 2. A brief narration of the facts leading to the present application is that opposite party No. 1 Udayanath Tegaita sold a piece of land to one Duryodhan Satrusila in the year 1973 by a registered sale deed on receipt of consideration of Rs. 1000/-. In 1977, Duryodhan sold the said land to the sons of the present Petitioner by a registered sale deed executed on 23-12-77 after obtaining necessary permission for the aforesaid transfer, the vendor being a scheduled caste person and the vendee a non-scheduled caste person. In 1976, on the written allegation of opposite party No. 1, Udayanath Tagaita, that the transaction of sale to Duryodhan was benami, the Subdivisional Officer, Kaptipada, opposite party No. 2, initiated O.L.R. Case No. 659 of 1976 against the present Petitioner Shyamsundar Khuntia and after taking evidence and hearing both parties came to the conclusion that the permission obtained from the Subdivisional Officer in a proceeding under Regulation 2 of 1956 was not valid permission for transfer of land belonging to a scheduled caste person to a non-scheduled caste person. It was further held that the transaction was benami. 3. The Petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, opposite party No. 3, and the appellate authority without going through the merit of the case, as we have thoroughly perused the judgment passed by him, affirmed the decision of the Subdivisional Officer, opposite party No. 2. 4. Thereupon, the Petitioner took up the matter before the revisional authority, opposite party No. 4, and the revisional authority also found that the permission obtained by Duryodhan was not in accordance with law. But so far as the question of benami transaction is concerned, the revisional authority found that there was no evidence to indicate that the transaction of sale by opposite party No. 1 to Duryodhan was benami in nature. 5. But so far as the question of benami transaction is concerned, the revisional authority found that there was no evidence to indicate that the transaction of sale by opposite party No. 1 to Duryodhan was benami in nature. 5. The short question for consideration is whether at the first place the transaction of transfer of the land by opposite party No. 1 in favour of Duryodhan was valid or not. We have already indicated that the revisional authority has come to a clear finding that there was no material to hold that the transaction between opposite party No. 1 and Duryodhan was benami in nature. Having come to that conclusion, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority should have stopped short, because if the transaction between opposite party No. 1 and Duryodhan is held to be valid, there is no question of any further enquiry to be made. The question that was raised by opposite party No. 1 before the Subdivisional Officer, opposite party No. 2, was that the transfer he made in favour of Duryodhan was benami in nature and on that allegation alone, the learned Subdivisional Officer initiated the O.L.R. proceeding which was decided against the Petitioner, the present opposite party No. 1. 6. Now let us go through the broad spectrum of the facts giving rise to the present petition. The transaction between opposite party No. 1 and Duryodhan was by a registered sale deed in respect of the same land in 1973. From the evidence that transpired during the course of the proceeding, it was found that Duryodhan was in cultivating possession of the said land four about four years till it was transferred by him by a registered sale deed on 23-12-77 to the sons of the present Petitioner. This by itself shows that there is no material indicative of any benami transaction having been made between opposite party No. 1 and Duryodhan. If the transaction between them was held to be valid, then the subsequent transaction made by Duryodhan in favour of the sons of the present Petitioner does not arise for consideration at all. Even then, we may broadly indicate that Duryodhan applied to the Subdivisional Officer for necessary permission for transfer of the land in question to a non-scheduled caste person. Even then, we may broadly indicate that Duryodhan applied to the Subdivisional Officer for necessary permission for transfer of the land in question to a non-scheduled caste person. The learned Subdivisional Officer took that application to be one under Regulation 2 of 1956 where permission for transfer of land by a person of scheduled caste to a non-scheduled caste person is necessary and unless such permission is granted, there is an embargo for transferring the land belonging to a scheduled caste person to a non-scheduled caste person. Be that as it may, the learned Subdivisional Officer after going through all the materials gave permission for transfer of the land. It is submitted at the Bar on behalf of opposite party No. 1 that Regulation 2 of 1956 is not applicable to such a case. We find and it has been distinctly averred in the writ petition that the application for transfer made by duryodhan was not under any particular Section. He simply sought for transfer of land to a non-scheduled caste person. He did not indicate in the application any particular provision of law under which such permission was sought. Though the learned Subdivisional Officer took it to be an application under Regulation 2 of 1956, that by itself would not vitiate the order granting permission to Duryodhan for transfer of the land. In fact the enquiry should have been made u/s 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the 'Act') which reads: 22(1). Any transfer of a holding or part thereof by a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Tribe shall he void except where it is in favour of (a) a person belonging to It Scheduled Tribe, or (b) a person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe when such transfer is made with the previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer: Provided that in case of a transfer by sale, the Revenue Officer shall not grant such permission unless he is satisfied that a purchaser belonging to a Scheduled Tribe willing to pay the market price for the land is not available, and in case of a gift unless he is satisfied about the bona fides thereof. xx xx xx xx The enquiry that has to be made by the Revenue Officer as indicated in this Section of the Act. xx xx xx xx The enquiry that has to be made by the Revenue Officer as indicated in this Section of the Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 22 provides that the provisions contained in Sub-sections (1) to (4) of the Section shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the transfer of a holding or part, thereof of a raiyat belonging to the scheduled caste. In this case, the application for permission was made by a person belonging to the scheduled caste. Therefore, the learned Revenue Officer should have proceeded u/s 22 of the Act. However, there is no difference between the enquiry envisaged u/s 22 of the Act and that contemplated under Regulation 2 of 1956 because under both the provisions of law, the same type of enquiry is necessary for according permission for transfer of land by a scheduled caste person or a scheduled tribe person. 7. We have already adverted that the contention that the transaction was It benami one having failed, there is no question of any further enquiry to be made with regard to the transfer made by Duryodhan to the sons of the present Petitioner. 8. Mr. Das, the learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1 is not in a position to show any material to indicate that the transaction between his client and Duryodhan was benami in nature. 9. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, the learned Additional Standing Counsel, submits that the learned Subdivisional Officer should not have proceeded under Regulation 2 of 1956 and that he could only go into the matter u/s 22 of the Act. Interview of our earlier discussion regarding the position of law, we do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned Additional Standing Counsel. 10. For the reasons stated above, we allow the writ application and quash the orders in Annexures 2, 3 and 4 passed respectively by the Sub-divisional Officer, the appellate authority and the revisional authority. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not make any order for costs. S.C. Mohapatra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed