( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been submitted against the order dated 13. 03. 1995 passed by the Additional Collector, Sirohi in panchayat Revision No. 10/1994 whereby the learned additional Collector has proceeded to accept the revision petition submitted by the Panchayat Extension Officer and set aside the patta granted by Gram Panchayat Sanpur for a piece of land (measuring 7150 sq. ft.) situated at village siyakara.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they were having possession on the disputed piece of land situated in khasra no. 138 in village Siyakara for about 40-50 years; that by an order dated 11. 01. 1983 the land of khasra No. 138 was converted by the Collector, Sirohi for abadi purposes in the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, Sanpur; that the petitioners being in possession of the piece of land, applied for allotment in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (the Rules of 1961 hereinafter); that the Panchayat by its decision dated 10. 08. 1986 sold 7150 sq. ft. land to the petitioners under Rule 266 of the Rules of 1961; and the sale made by the panchayat was registered before the Sub-Registrar. The petitioners have asserted that similar allotments were made of 7150 sq. ft. of land to one Jog Singh Rajput and another 13200 sq. ft. land to Jamat Singh Rajput by the same panchayat in the same land of khasra No. 138. The petitioners have pointed out that though the allotments were made in the year 1986, the respondent No. 2, the Panchayat extension Officer, decided to prefer revision petitions questioning the validity of the order passed by the Panchayat allotting the land to the petitioners and so also the aforesaid two persons. While placing on record copies of such revision petitions, the petitioners have contended that though similar nature allegations were made in the revision petitions, the learned Addl. Collector accepted the revision petitions preferred against the petitioner and Una but the same additional Collector later on rejected the revision petitions in relation to aforesaid two persons Jog Singh and Jamat Singh.

( 3 ) THE petitioners have further submitted that the order dated 13. 03. 1995 passed by the Addl. Collector, Sirohi in accepting the revision petition submitted against them remains illegal for the learned Additional Collector purporting to exercise his revisional powers at quite belated stage; that the revision petition itself was submitted only in the year 1994 i. e. after about 8 years of allotment of the land; that the land has continued in possession of the petitioners for about 40-50 years; that the land was validly allotted to them and the sale deed was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Sirohi.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the Additional Collector has proceeded wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as after the sale deed had been executed and registered, the Collector had no jurisdiction to set aside the sale deed. The order dated 13. 03. 1995 has also been questioned as being discriminatory for the revision petitions against the allotment of Jog Singh and Jamat Singh were dismissed and on the other hand, revision petition against the petitioners was allowed.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners while assailing the order dated 13. 03. 1995 contended that the petitioners have been denied a fair opportunity of hearing by the learned additional Collector and, therefore, they could not place the relevant material before him that the land in question had continued in their possession for a sufficiently long time and was rightly sold to them by the Panchayat after substantial compliance of the requirements of the Rules. Apart from these submissions, learned counsel submitted that one of the reasons which prevailed with the revisional authority to set aside the sale was inadequacy of price; and though the petitioners maintain that the land was sold at a reasonable price but leaving aside their objections, the petitioner were read