JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition involves a challenge to the impugned order dated 13.9.2005 involving Regulation-II proceeding initiated under the provision of Section 3(B)(1) of the Amended Regulation, 2000. 2. There is allegation involving a S.T. person that the conditions attached seeking permission for sale of land by the Tribe person have not been complied with after the sale of the disputed property. 3. Sri G.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that permission was applied admittedly by the private opposite party, the Tribe person for sale of the disputed land in favour of the present petitioner. It is alleged that conditions, if any, attached in shape of undertaking by the private opposite party while applying for permission was a personal matter involving the private opposite party and for noncompliance of such conditions, no responsibility can be attached against the petitioner. It is further alleged that the competent authority taking up the Regulation-II proceeding failed in appreciating the above aspect of the matter and as such arrived at the wrong and erroneous impugned order, which needs to be interfered with and set aside. 4. Sri K.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the O.P., defending the order submitted that since the permission order had an attachment of specific condition that the Tribe person on sale of the particular land will purchase certain extent of paddy land by utilizing the sale price, duty casted on the present petitioner to see that upon entering into the sale transaction involving the disputed property, the vendor, i.e., the Tribe person should have purchased the extent of land undertaken in the application for permission and for having not done so, the transaction becomes void and as such, there is no infirmity in the impugned order leaving any scope for this Court in interfering with the impugned order. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the petitioner has purchased the disputed land from a S.T. person on the basis of valid permission being obtained from the competent authority under Regulation-II of 1956. The conditions attached in the application seeking permission is an undertaking by the S.T. person having no condition for ensuring the purchase of particular extent of paddy land utilizing the sale price attached to the vendee, the present petitioner. The conditions attached in the application seeking permission is an undertaking by the S.T. person having no condition for ensuring the purchase of particular extent of paddy land utilizing the sale price attached to the vendee, the present petitioner. Once the permission for sale is granted on attachment of such conditions, it becomes the responsibility of the Public Officer to remain vigilant to see that the sale price is utilised by the Tribe person appropriately looking the attachment of condition while seeking permission. It was also the responsibility of the public officer at the time of registering the sale deed to see that the money so received has been invested properly following the conditions attached to the application seeking permission and such authority could have even objected to the registration. The registration having been undertaken, this Court observes, the vendee’s duty was limited to the extent of making over the payment during the sale transaction is made involving the disputed property. 6. Under the circumstance, this Court observes, the vendee, i.e, the petitioner has not committed any breach. Accordingly, this Court finds, the observation of the competent authority in the impugned order shifting the responsibility to the petitioner is unsustainable and thus while setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-5, this Court allows the writ petition but however there is no order as to cost.