JUDGMENT

Rekha Borana, J. - The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.01.2020 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant challenging the order dated 20.09.2007 quashing his patta had been dismissed.

2. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in terms of Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act of 1994"), Collector was the only authority authorized to exercise the power of revision in terms of notification dated 13.12.2001 issued by the State Government. In the present matter the revisional order under challenge has been passed by the Additional Collector which, in terms of Section 97 of the Act of 1994, is beyond his jurisdiction.

3. Section 2 (vi) of the Act of 1994 reads as under:

""Collector" means Collector of a District and includes Additional Collector."

4. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that in terms of law, an Additional Collector can exercise the same rights as exercised by a Collector and vide notification dated 13.12.2004 the said power has been delegated by the State Government. As held by the learned Single Judge, the power of revisional jurisdiction exercised by the Additional Collector was therefore, perfectly valid.

5. The second ground raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the grant of patta was perfectly in terms of Rule 157 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996").

6. So far as the ground of issuance of patta being in conformation to Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 is concerned, the same has been dealt in detail by the learned Single Judge and a specific finding has been recorded to the effect that:

Firstly, the patta pertains to land ad measuring 537.41 sq. yards whereas Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 specifies for limit of 300 sq. yards by the Gram Panchayat on the fixed rates. In cases where the area exceeds 300 sq. yards, it has to be on the rates recommended by District Level Committee, which has admittedly not been done in the present matter.

Secondly, there was no residential house constructed on the allotted land which was sine qua non for the implementation of Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996.

Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 reads as under:

"(1) Where the persons are in possession of the old houses on Abadi land and desire to get a patta issued, patta may be issued by the Panchayat in Form XXIII-A after depositing the charges as under:-

(i) For area upto 300 sq. yards or constructed area including 25 percent of constructed are subject to maximum area 300 sq. yards:

(ii) For area, exceeding the area specified in clause (i) above, on such excess area 25 percent of the market rates recommended by the District Level Committee constituted under clause (b) of rule 58 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 2004:

Provided that no fees shall be charged under sub-clause (a) and only 10 percent fees shall be charged under sub-clause (b) of clause (I) above from the families included in the list of below poverty line."

Thirdly, the complete area of 537.41 sq. yards has been allotted only for an amount of Rs. 200 which also is clearly in contravention to the conditions as specified in Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996.

7. The third ground raised by counsel for the appellant is that the registered sale cannot be cancelled by revisional authority. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment reported as 2015(2) RRT 967 (Manohar Lal v. District Collector, Barmer & Ors.).

8. So far as the judgment passed in Manohar Lal (supra) on which counsel for the appellant has relied upon is concerned, as observed by the learned Single Judge, the same had specifically been considered by the Division Bench in the cases of Jhumar Ram v. Addl. District Collector (Second), Jodhpur (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 656/2017) and Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 136/2017) and it has been held that the patta issued by Gram Panchayat in con