JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. This matter involves challenge to the order passed in exercise of review power under the O.S.A.T.I.P. amended Regulation-II of 1996 as appearing at Annexure-5 to this petition. 2. Challenging the impugned order, taking this Court to the grounds in which the interference is made, Shri Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that firstly there is no substantial ground to interfere in such sale transaction and secondly, for involvement of a permission for sale by the competent authority way back and permission having been granted, the land being sold to the purchaser, the grounds whatever there, cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Lapses if any, shown are the lapses at the administrative side, for which, the petitioner cannot be found to be at fault. 3. Shri A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate in his opposition, taking this Court to the observation and findings of the reviewing authority submitted that for the reasons assigned therein, there appears, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, made a request for not interfering in the impugned order. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the venders of the petitioner was at the minimum possessing 19.3 acres of the land. There is also no dispute that there has been a sale transaction in favour of the petitioner to the extent of 1.00 acre of land out of whole area of Acre 19.3 decimals of land. Therefore, this is not a case that after the sale taken place, the vender of the petitioner did not remain with minimum required land under the amended provision. Further, looking to the other grounds, particularly taking the lapses at the administrative side, this Court observes, for the technical lapses at the administrative side, neither the purchaser nor the vender can be responsible. 5. Under the circumstance and as this Court finds, there is mechanical disposal of the matter by the competent authority initiated under the amended provision of the Regulation- II of 1996 this Court interferes with the impugned order vide Annexure-5 and consequently, sets aside the same. 6. The writ petition succeeds. No cost.