Hon'ble DR. KOTHARI, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by Ramchandra S/o Sh. Gulabchand Nai, in this Court on 11.12.2004 praying, inter-alia, for quashing of impugned orders dated 23.06.2004 (Annex.15) and 03.12.2004 (Annex.16) passed by learned District Collector, Hanumangarh in revisional jurisdiction powers under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1959') in Case No.8/2004- Manish Sharma & Ors. vs. Ramchandra & Ors., by which the learned District Collector, Hanumangarh, cancelled the registered lease-deed (Annex.12) executed in favour of petitioner in respect to plot of land, measuring 160' x 85' = 13600 square feet, situated in Ward No.4, Municipal Board, Bhadra, District: Hanumangarh.

2. The petitioner claimed long possession over the said plot of land since the year 1950 and in the year 1957 when he was sought to be evicted from the said land, he filed a civil suit against his threatened dispossession against the Mandi Vikas Samiti, Colonization Department. The petitioner in the meanwhile tried for regularization of his possession over the said plot of land in question and ultimately, withdrew that suit from the competent court, since the local Settlement Committee, constituted under the third respondent Municipal Board, Bhandra, considered his case for regularization in its meeting held on 20.05.2002 and decided to recommend the regularization and allot the said plot of land in his favour of 85' x 160' size if he gave up the possession of a larger portion of 85' x 220' in his possession since long. In pursuance of such decision, the petitioner not only paid a sum of Rs.2,09,667/- on 20.01.2003 vide Receipt (Annex.11) to the Municipal Board, Bhadra for the plot of 85 x 160 Ft. but also a registered lease-deed was executed by the Municipal Board, Bhadra in his favour on 01.07.2003 (Annex.12).

3. The private respondents No.4 to 9, Manish Sharma and others, however, filed a revision petition before the learned District Collector, Hanumangarh, vide Annex.13, which came to be allowed by the learned District Collector, Hanumangarh, on 03.12.2004 (Annex.16).

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this writ petition before this Court.

5. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned District Collector had no jurisdiction to cancel and quash the registered lease-deed dated 01.02.2003 at the instance of private complainants in the Revision Petition No.8/2004, as the State Government had clearly held that the District Collector had no jurisdiction to hear any appeal against such decision of the Settlement Committee and only the State Government or the State Level Committee could do so. He also submitted that the learned District Collector not only by a separate order (Annex.15) dated 23.06.2004 decided the question of his own jurisdiction against the petitioner but later on also cancelled the registered lease-deed by allowing revision petition filed by the private respondents illegally by the impugned order dated 03.12.2004. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Roop Chand vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1963 SC 1503 and judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Municipal Board, Nokha vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2593/1991, decided on 01.11.1993) and judgment of this Court in the case of Municipal Council, Pali vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2013) 4 RLW 3341 (Raj.).

6. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, therefore, contended that the long possession of the petitioner regularized by issuance of registered lease-deed/Patta in pursuance of the decision of the Settlement Committee constituted by the State, which was referred and approved by the State Government, could not have been cancelled by the learned District Collector exe