Hon'ble LOHRA, J.—Petitioner Vikram Kumar has preferred this writ petition for assailing the impugned order dated 21.09.2012 (Annex.9) passed by the learned District Collector, Pali, whereby revision petition filed by respondents No.2 & 3 under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act 1994 (for short, ‘Act of 1994) was allowed.

2. Facts, apposite for the purpose of this writ petition, are that respondent No.2 Mishri Lal and respondent No.3 Iswar Lal laid a revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 inter-alia stating that the then Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jivand Kallan in order to extend undue benefit to his family members without adhering to the prescribed procedure and even without soliciting applications issued Patta of land on 15.09.1997 in favour of Smt. Radha (mother of petitioner) free of cost. In the revision petition, it was also averred that the land is owned by Rawal Brahmin Samaj but in order to give undue advantage to his family members the then Sarpanch has allotted the land to Smt. Radha. A specific averment was made in the revision petition that one Samrath Singh Rawal lodged a complaint before the Zila Parishad and on enquiry it was revealed that the allotment is under cloud, and requisite proceedings for cancellation of Patta are desirable. The revision-petitioners have also stated that earlier against the impugned allotment revision petition was filed but the lawyer representing their cause has withdrawn the same without concurrence and consent and therefore this fresh revision petition is being filed.

3. The revision petition was contested by the petitioner and a reply was submitted. In the reply, petitioner has denied all the allegations. The petitioner has very specifically pleaded in the return that she is not family member of the then Sarpanch and the Patta has been issued in her name after following the due procedure of law. The maintainability of revision petition was also questioned on the ground that earlier revision petition was dismissed, therefore, this fresh revision petition is not maintainable. It was also stated that she being landless person and belonging to BPL family Patta was issued free of cost. Smt. Radha Devi also pointed towards the definition of “family” in the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) (Special Allotment of Abadi Land to the members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, Landless Persons, Village Artisans, and Small and Marginal Farmers) Rules, 1982 and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

4. The learned District Collector Pali, after hearing the rival parties and going through the record of Gram Panchayat, Jivantkallan found that before issuing the impugned patta neither the applications were invited nor provisions of the Panchayati Raj Rules were followed and the Patta was issued in favour of petitioner free of cost and that too to an incumbent who was relative of the Sarpanch. It is also observed that the Sarpanch Panchayat attended the meeting wherein a decision to issue the impugned patta was taken dehors the provisions of Section 48(4) of the Panchayati Raj Act. Learned District Collector has also observed in the impugned order that no such allotment under Rule 374 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules 1996 is permissible because as per aforesaid provision Rules of 1975 for such allotment has been repealed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is landless person and became member of BPL family therefore Patta was issued without any cost in her favour after following due process as mentioned and prescribed under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, therefore, the learned Collector while passing the impugned order has committed grave and serious error of law and fact which is apparent on the face of record. Learned counsel also submits that as per Rajasthan General Special Allotment Rules, 1982 wherein “family” was defined include husband, wife, parents and children but exclude adult relative in relations with parents and