JUDGMENT : 1. This petition challenges the order dated 28.02.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, cancelling the sale deed dated 15.07.2003 said to have been executed by the respondent No. 9 in favour of the petitioners. It is cancelled on the ground that it is in respect of dry crop land and the standard area for fragment prescribed is of 2 acres of land. Since the sale deed is in respect of 1 acre of land, it is held to be hit by the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. 2. The petition also challenges the order dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. 3. From the orders impugned, it seems that the petitioner had not filed any written statement or reply. The contention in the petition is that the perusal of the sale deed shows that adjacent dry crop land to which standard area of 2 acres is applicable and according to the petitioner, it is a paddy land for which the standard area of 1 acres is applicable and therefore, the authorities have committed an error in setting aside the sale deed. 4. None appears for the parties except the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer shows that the sale deed dated 15.07.2003 in respect of sale of 0.40 HR of land out of Survey No. 174/1 is cancelled. The contents of the petition do not refer to any such sale deed. The sale deeds placed on record do not indicate the date of 15.07.2003. There is no adjudication as to whether the land in question is a dry crop land or an irrigated land, upon which the determination of the applicability of the standard area is to be made. The order passed by the appellate authority is cryptic. It does not deal with all the aspects of the matter. Even the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer do not refer to the sale deeds which are placed on record. In view of this, both the orders impugned cannot be sustained. The same will have to be set aside with an order of remand. 5. It does not deal with all the aspects of the matter. Even the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer do not refer to the sale deeds which are placed on record. In view of this, both the orders impugned cannot be sustained. The same will have to be set aside with an order of remand. 5. In the result, the order dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, along with the order dated 28.02.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the question afresh after hearing all the parties concerned. The order should specifically refer to the sale deed and determine the nature and character of the land with the standard area determined for the said purpose. 6. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No orders as to costs.