Sangeet Lodha, J.

1. These writ petitions are directed against separate orders dated 21.1.16 passed by the Additional Collector (Second), Jodhpur in revision petition no.4/15, 6/15 & 7/15, whereby while allowing the revision petitions preferred by the fourth respondent - Smt. Anand Kanwar, the pattas of abadi land issued in favour of the petitioners by Gram Panchayat,Bavdi, stand cancelled.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioners herein Jabbar Singh, Madan Kanwar and Fateh Kanwar, were issued pattas of the residential plots ad measuring 492.22, 455.61 & 452.33 sq. yards respectively, pursuant to the resolution adopted by Gram Panchayat, Bavdi in its meeting held on 20.3.14. The legality of the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners was questioned by the fourth respondent by way of separate revision petitions before the Additional Collector (Second), Jodhpur, under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act'). The case as set out by the fourth respondent was that the land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas was in occupation of one Shri Doongar Singh, her father in law. Shri Doongar Singh had three sons, namely, Mohan Singh, Gaje Singh and Bhagwan Singh. The fourth respondent, the widow of Shri Bhagwan Singh, claiming ?rd share in the said land, questioned the legality of pattas issued in favour of the petitioners herein, stating that the petitioners were not in possession of the land in question, however, they purchased the said land from two sons of Doongar Singh, namely, Mohan Singh and Gaje Singh by way of agreement to sell and got the patta issued in their favour. The fourth respondent claimed that the pattas have been issued in favour of the petitioners herein without following the procedure laid down. The fourth respondent contended that she had raised objection against issuance of pattas before the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bavdi, but to no avail.

3. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the revisional authority arrived at the finding that the plots in question were open plots and no construction was existing thereon and therefore, the pattas could not have been issued in favour of the petitioners under Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('the Rules'). The revisional authority found that before issuing of the pattas of the plot measuring more than 300 sq.yd. the sanction was not obtained from the competent authority. The revisional authority found that the land was earlier in the name of somebody else yet the pattas were issued in favour of the petitioners without scrutiny of documents relating to sale and without obtaining the report from Patwari Halka. The revisional authority observed that had the plots sold by way of auction,it would have augmented the income of Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, while setting aside the pattas, the matter has been remanded to Gram Panchayat for taking the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Hence, these petitions.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the fourth respondent had not challenged the legality of the resolution adopted by the Gram Panchayat and therefore, the revision petition was not maintainable. Learned counsel submitted that fourth respondent did not question the legality of the patta on account of procedure laid down being not followed rather she claimed ?rd share in the land in question covered by the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners and thus, the revisional authority has seriously erred in setting aside the pattas on the ground of alleged violation of the provisions of the Rules. Learned counsel submitted that before issuing the pattas the Gram Panchayat was not required to obtain the sanction from any authority. Learned counsel urged that there is no requirement of report being obtained from Patwari either. Learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on record suggesting that no constructed houses were existing on the plots in question and thus, the revisional