ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner by the instant petition is challenging the order dated 18.1.2024 whereby the Commissioner has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and set aside the order of Collector. 2. By order dated 10.4.2023, the Collector set aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer and remitted the matter to the said authority for deciding it afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The Commissioner has taken note of the provision of section 49 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'Code, 1959') and set aside the order of Collector only on the ground that the remand is prohibited under the said provision. Although learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no complete prohibition from remand. The proviso appended to the said provision although provides that ordinarily it should not be remanded. Counsel submits that the order of Commissioner is illegal for the reason that the remand was made by the Collector only on the ground that the petitioner being a necessary party had to be heard by the SDO before allowing the application of section 115 of the Code, 1959. 3. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand supports the order of Commissioner and submits that when there is an embargo provided not to remand the case, the appellate authority was free to record the evidence or to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and could decide the matter afresh. Nothing wrong has been committed by the Commissioner and therefore he submits that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record especially the provision of section 49 of the Code, 1959. Section 49 of the Code, 1959 provides as under: 49. Power of appellate authority .— (1) The appellate authority may either admit the appeal or, after calling for the record and giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard, may summarily reject it Provided that the appellate authority shall not be bound to call for the record where the appeal is timebarred or does not lie. (2) If the appeal is admitted date shall be fixed for hearing and notice shall be served on the respondent. (2) If the appeal is admitted date shall be fixed for hearing and notice shall be served on the respondent. (3) After hearing the parties, the appellate authority may confirm, vary or reverse the order appealed against, or may take such additional evidence as it may consider necessary for passing its order Provided that the appellate authority shall not ordinarily remand the case for disposal to any Revenue Officer subordinate to it : Provided further that all such cases which have been remanded to the Subordinate Revenue Officers by the Appellate or Revisional Authorities before the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2011 shall be heard and decided by such Revenue Officer." 5. Considering the aforesaid provision, I am also of the opinion that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the Collector remanded the matter only on the ground that the principle of natural justice was not followed and the application got decided without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who is otherwise a necessary party. In this view of the matter, the order of Commissioner is not sustainable. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order dated 18.1.2024 passed by the Commissioner is set aside and consequently the order of Collector is restored. Parties are directed to appear before the SDO and that authority will decide the matter afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.