JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order passed by the Collector, Rayagada in O.S.A.T.I.P. Review Case No.165/99 as appearing at Annexure-3 to this petition. It is alleged that in spite of satisfaction of the conditions under the Regulation-3 (iii) of the amended Regulation-II, 1956, the reviewing authority illegally initiated a suo-motu proceeding and in a mechanical approach decided the matter against the petitioner. 2. Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand, submitted that there has been due application of mind by the revisional authority and the revisional authority after taking all aspects into consideration has passed the order restoring the land in favour of the tribe person. It is also contended that for the reasons assigned therein, there is no scope for interfering in the impugned order. 3. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the proceeding was initiated in exercise of power under the Regulation-(3-a) (i) of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (by scheduled tribes) Amendment Regulation, 1956 and considering the rival contention therein, the revisional Court following a letter of instruction entered into examination of the matter involving a sell of property from a Scheduled Tribe to a non-Scheduled Tribe taking into consideration four points indicated at page 12 of the impugned order and taking into consideration the materials available on record. In entering into the area of examination, the reviewing authority on the premises of some discrepancies indicated at page 14 of the brief, reviewed the transaction between the parties and directed for restoration of the matter. Going through the area of examination adopted by the reviewing authority as well as through the findings on the irregularities and having seen the application for permission at the instance of the Scheduled Tribe involving O.S.A.T.I.P. Case No.153/95 as well as the permission order involving the same, this Court finds while seeking permission for sell of the land to a private opposite party, the Scheduled Tribe person had not only a clear indication of the reasons for sell but had also a categoric statement that after sell of the disputed land the tribe would still have Ac.11.50 cents of land with him. An enquiry was conducted looking to the request of the petitioner at appropriate level. An enquiry was conducted looking to the request of the petitioner at appropriate level. The enquiry also revealed the genuineness of the requirement for sell and observed that there is compliance of provisions contained in Regulation 3 of the Regulation-II, 1956. Further, the value prevailing the area has also been taken into consideration after examination of the particular aspects at the relevant point of time. The R.I. also recommended for grant of permission. Basing on the R.I’s report, permission was granted and the sale was effected entering into registered deed. This Court finds, the sell is based on the permission granted by the competent authority taking into consideration all the required aspect. This Court nowhere finds any observation as to violation of the provision contained in Regulation 3(iii) of Regulation-II of 1956 and in absence of which, interference in such transactions is improper. Further, this Court finds, the private opposite party still remained with Ac.11.50 cents of land after the sell was effected in the year 1995, which is clearly in terms of the statutory requirement. The observation of the Revenue Authority remains contrary to the provision contained in Regulation-II, 1956 and therefore, the impugned order remains unsustainable. Thus, while allowing this writ petition, this Court sets aside the impugned order so far it relates to O.S.A.T.I.P. Review Case No.165/99. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own cost.