JUDGMENT :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. Instant inter court DB Appeal arises out of the final order and judgment dated 07.03.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in Mahipal vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. C.W.P. No. 2460/2023 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the District Collector, Pali, cancelling a lease deed issued earlier in favour of the appellant.

2. The appellant claiming to be in possession of an abadi plot, got a residential patta came issued in his favour by the Gram Panchayat on 20.04.2018. The appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 54,556/- towards the cost of the patta in accordance with the applicable DLC rates vide receipt dated 20.01.2018. It is further asserted that subsequent to the issuance of the patta, the appellant raised construction over the said plot and also obtained an electricity connection at the premises.

2.1 Thereafter, private respondents No.4 and 5 preferred a revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act before the learned Collector, Pali, seeking cancellation of the patta issued in favour of the appellant. Upon being served with notice, the appellant submitted his reply contesting the revision. However, after considering the matter, the learned Collector, Pali, vide order dated 29.11.2022, allowed the revision petition and cancelled the patta granted in favour of the appellant.

2.2 Aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the learned Collector, the appellant approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2460/2023. The said writ petition, however, came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.03.2026, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that learned Single Judge and so also revisional authority ignored reports submitted by the Gram Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat Daylana Kallan dated 25.05.2020, and by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Desuri dated 21.07.2020, which were placed on record. The said reports indicate that the land in question formed part of the abadi area and that the appellant’s family was stated to be in possession of the land since ancestral times. The reports also mentioned that pattas had been issued in accordance with the applicable rules and that several other residents of the locality had similarly been granted pattas by the Gram Panchayat. Hence the appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing the impugned orders.

4. In the aforesaid background, we have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have carefully perused the material available on record.

5. At the outset, reference may first be had to the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the learned revisional authority. The inspection report of the Development Officer reveals that lease deeds had been issued in favour of the Sarpanch’s close relatives, i.e., his brothers, nephews, wife and mother, that too, without following the prescribed legal procedure, indicating an attempt to extend undue benefit to family members.

5.1. Three major irregularities were noted:

a) Firstly, the lease deed was issued under Rule 157(1) meant for regularization of old houses, whereas the land in question was in fact a vacant plot;

b) Secondly, the then Sarpanch violated Rule 47 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act by participating in a decision in which he had a direct personal interest, as the allotment was made to his relative;

c) Thirdly, several serious procedural lapses were found, including an undated application under Rule 157(1), contradictory office notes containing multiple dates, incomplete and pre-typed miscellaneous orders, undated inspection forms, and non-compliance with Rules 145 to 155 governing allotment. The objection notice period was reduced to 7 days instead of the mandatory 30 days, and although the lease amount exceeded Rs. 50,000, appro