The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review under Article 227 and the conditions for exercising revisional powers under the Act, 1994.

1. - The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.99 (Annx. 1), by which the Additional District Collector, Barmer has accepted the revision filed by respondent No. 5 under the provisions of Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act, 1994').

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Gram Panchayat, Mokalsar had issued a Patta in favour of the petitioner on 4.6.88 in pursuance of the Resolution dated 15.1.86. The said allotment was challenged by the respondent No. 5 by filing the revision No. 1/97 before the respondent No. 2 under Section 97 of the Act, 1994. After hearing the parties, the said revision has been accepted vide impugned order dated 30.11.99 to (Annx. 1). Hence this petition.

3. The facts involved herein depict that the land in dispute, at one time, was in the physical possession of the respondent No. 5 and a Patta had been issued in favour of one Pokar Mal in 1980. The said allotment was challenged in the revision, which was allowed by the Additional District Collector vide order dated 6.2.89 (Annx. R/1) by an ex-parte order as no notice had been served upon said Pokar Mal and he had also made a will in favour of respondent No. 5 on 3.9.85. Pokar Mal died on 17.10.92 and when the said respondent No. 5 applied for permission for construction on the said plot on 16 6.97, at that time he came to know that the allotment in favour of Pokar Mal had already been quashed. He also came to know that the allotment had been made in favour of the present petitioner. Respondent No. 5 filed the revision before the respondent No. 2 under Section 97 of the Act, 1994 on various grounds including that Patta had been issued in violation of rules 265 of 278 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (for short, `the Rules, 1961'). The respondent No. 2 decided the said petition recording the following findings of facts :

"(1) The land had already been allotted to one Pokar Mal in 1980 and revision petition against that allotment was pending before the Revisional Authority. The same was decided, ex parte against Pokar Mal, on 6.2.89;

(2) As the matter was sub judice, the land in dispute was not available for allotment prior to the date of cancellation of allotment in favour of Pokar Mal;

(3) The question of passing the resolution for allotment in favour of the present petitioner on 15.1.86 and the sale deed in pursuance thereof dated 4.6.88. are inconsequential;

(4) While making the allotment in favour of the present petitioner, rules 255-278 of Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 had not been followed;

(5) While making the allotment in favour of the present petitioner, he had been shown having possession over the land in dispute for a long time, which was not factually correct;

(6) Even there had been manipulations while making the allotment and depositing the amount for the said allotment; and

(7) The proceedings had been completed in a hurried manner without observing the Rules.
In view of the aforesaid findings of facts, the allotment in favour of the petitioner was contrary to the Rules and without jurisdiction for the reason that the land was not available for allotment. In such a case, Writ Court does not require to interfere even if there is some illegality or technical breach of so law or Rules.

4. This Court has very limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution as per the law laid down in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 38 , wherein it has been held that, even the errors of law cannot be corrected that even the errors of law cannot be corrected in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution and the power can be used sparingly when it comes to the conclusion that the Authority/Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction. The High Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hard