VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved with the order dated 14.06.2017 (Annexure-1) passed by the District Collector, Barmer in a revision petition filed on behalf of respondent No.4 under section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act of 1994' hereinafter), whereby the District Collector has rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer for dismissing the revision claiming that the District Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain the said revision.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.4 filed a revision petition under section 97 of the Act of 1994 challenging the validity of joint patta dated 25.11.2015 issued in favour of the petitioners by the Gram Panchayat, Sinali, Panchayat Samiti, Balotra, District Barmer. The petitioners moved an application before the District Collector in the said revision petition while contending that the joint patta issued in their favour by the Gram Panchayat on 25.11.2015 is duly registered under the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 before the Sub-Registrar, Jasol on 19.03.2016 and, therefore, as per the settled position of law, the District Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition seeking cancellation of the patta in question. The District Collector, after hearing counsel for the parties has rejected the said application while relying on a decision of this Court dated 25.11.2016 rendered in Smt. Shanti Devi vs. The State of Rajasthan through District Collector, Barmer & Ors., S.B.Civil Writ No.8148/2012 and 7 other connected writ petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the District Collector has grossly erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners while holding that though the patta has been registered under the Registration Act, yet a revision petition under section 97 of the Act of 1994 is maintainable questioning the patta in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the order dated 28.01.2013 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.1958/2011, Manohar Lal Vs. District Collector, Barmer & Ors. and argued that the Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that a sale-deed executed could have not been set aside by the Collector while exercising revisional powers.

4. It is argued that the District Collector has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a registered document and only the competent civil court can have the sole prerogative to decide it either way.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on decisions of this Court rendered in Municipal Council, Pali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2013 4 WLC(Raj) 551, Anukampa Avas Vikas Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2009 3 RajLW 2295 (Raj.), Ramchandra Vs. The District Collector, Hanumangarh & Ors.,2016 3 RJT 2059. He has also placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2016 10 SCC 767.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. The question arose in this petition is whether validity of a patta, issued by a Gram Panchayat under the provisions of Panchayat Acts of State of Rajasthan or the Rules made thereunder can be questioned by way of revision petition under section 97 of the Act of 1994 even after its registration under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.

7. This Court in Smt. Shanti Devi's case has dealt with the issue and while relying on a decision of this Court rendered in Nagar Mal Vs. Addl. District Collector, Sikar & Ors., 2013 3 RajLW 2753 (Raj.) has held that when a patta is unlawfully issued, then there is no bar in questioning the same under section 97 of the Act of 1994, even though, the same has been registered.

8. In Nagar Mal Vs. Addl. District Collector, Sikar & Ors., a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as