ORDER 1. The petition is directed against the order dated 30.11.1988 passed by the Sub-Divisional-Officer, Niwas (Annexure-D) and the order dated 12.7.89 passed by the Collector Mandla (Annexure-F). 2. Bhaddelal moved an applciation under the provisions of M.P. Gramin Rin Vimukti Adhiniyam, 1982 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioner that he mortgaged certain items as mentioned in the order, for a sum of Rs. 445/- which articles are not returned by the non-applicant Bhairon Prasad (present petitioner). The matter proceeded ex-parte as against the non-applicant. 3. In the order dated 30.11.89 (Annexure-D) the following findings have been recorded by the Sub-Divisional-Officer, Niwas in regard to the occupation of the applicant Bhaddelal :- ^^vkosnd dFku esa cryk;k gS fd og peZdkj dk /ka/kk djrk gSa** This indicates that the applicant, before the Sub- Divisional-Officer, was carrying on the occupation of leather work. This order was passed in favour of the applicant Bhaddelal by the Sub-Divisional-Officer for return of the items. This order was challenged in revision-petition before the Collector, Mandla and before the revisional authority, the question raised was that the Sub-Divisional Officer has no authority in the matter. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authority of the Sub-Divisional-Officer was not competent u/s. 6 of the Act. 5. There is no material on the record as to whether under the provisions of section 6 of the Act, the Collector has specified an officer or officers subordinate to him, who shall exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the duties so conferred or imposed and determine the local limits within which such powers or duties shall be carried out by the officer or officers so specified. There is no finding regarding the fact that the Collector has specified any officer or not and in the absence of such material, such a question cannot be considered. 7. There is no finding regarding the fact that the Collector has specified any officer or not and in the absence of such material, such a question cannot be considered. 7. The next submission advaiked by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the applicant Bhaddelal was doing the occupation of leather-work and as such, the Act is not applicable in view of the provisions of section 3 which applies to only four categories of persons, i.e. (1) a marginal farmer; (ii) a landless agricultural labourer; (iii) a rural artisan; and (iv) a small farmer; and since the applicant himself has not described himself to be belonging to any of these four categories but has described himself as doing the occupation of the leather-work; he is not covered by section 3 of the Act; in the absence of any finding founded on material that the petitioner was a rural artisan, which is defined in the Act. 8. In view of this, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Sub-Divisional-Officer dated 30.11.88 (Annexure-D) and the order of the Collector dated 12.7.89 (Annexure-F) are hereby quashed. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. The security amount, if any deposited, may be refunded.