JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to have purchased some land belonging to respondent No. 1 for consideration of Rs. 4,500/- vide an agreement to sell. The transaction was, however, challenged by respondent No. 1 by filing an application under section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke KamjorVargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadpane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam, 1976) before the SDO who after issuance of notice and on an enquiry concluded that the transaction fell within the prohibited zone under the Adhiniyam and ordered to set aside the transaction. Petitioner took an appeal before Collector raising pleas of limitation and questioning the status of respondent No. 1 as belonging to weaker section. His appeal, however, failed. He has now filed this petition to assail the orders of SDO and Collector on the ground that impugned orders were passed in disregard of the requirement of section 5 of Adhiniyam which contemplated a preliminary enquiry to be made by the SDO before issuing notice. He has also raised a factual dispute that petitioner could not be said to be belonging to weaker section as he was earning Rs. 10,000/- or more p.a. Petitioner's counsel Shri A.S. Garg laid great stress on provisions of section 5 to urge that conduct of a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether the transaction of loan was falling within the prohibited zone was a condition precedent and its non-fulfillment vitiated the enquiry and the consequential order passed. He, however, admitted that petitioner was heard before the impugned orders were passed after requisite enquiry. Respondent No. 1 has resisted this petition on the ground that petitioner had not raised any such objection either before SDO or Collector and, therefore, he could not be allowed to do so now. It is also asserted by him that he belonged to the weaker section and squarely fell within the parameters of the relevant provisions of Adhiniyam. It is also pointed out by him that he had taken over possession of the disputed land on 12.1.1986 regarding which a punchnama was drawn on the same day. It is true that section 6 contemplates a preliminary enquiry by the SDO to ascertain whether the transaction of land was a prohibited transaction and that he was required to record his satisfaction that section 4 of the Adhiniyam applied to such transaction. It is true that section 6 contemplates a preliminary enquiry by the SDO to ascertain whether the transaction of land was a prohibited transaction and that he was required to record his satisfaction that section 4 of the Adhiniyam applied to such transaction. It also goes without saying that he could proceed with the enquiry in the matter after arriving at such satisfaction. But the ground reality in the present case had undergone a sea change in the course of time. Therefore, even if the contention of the petitioner was upheld, it would be difficult to overturn the apple-cart at this stage when respondent land owner had resumed the land and had retained its possession for so long. But at the same time it cannot be over-looked that respondent No. 1 had received Rs. 4,500/- way back in 1976 and had retained it ever since and utilised the money, therefore, weighing the scales evenly, this petition can be appropriately disposed off by the following order : "Orders passed by the SDO and Collector restoring the land to respondent No. 1 are affirmed. But this respondent shall return principal amount of Rs. 4,500/- with 12% interest from the date of receipt to the date of payment within six months from today to petitioner failing which petitioner shall be entitled to take steps to recover possession of disputed land."