Honble ARORA, J. – This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 22.8.95 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and maintained the order Annexure 4 dated 29.3.84 passed by the Additional Collector, Bhilwara. (2). The brief facts of the case leading to the present litigation are that in an open auction held on 17.1.61, a plot of land was sold in favour of the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 269/-. The Patta of this plot of land was granted in favour of the appellant-petitioner on 12.12.69. A revision under Section 27-A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act was filed by the Deputy District Development Officer, Bhilwara, for cancellation of the sale of the plot of land in favour of the appellant-petitioner as well as for cancellation of the Patta granted in his favour. The revision petition, filed by the Deputy District Development Officer, Bhilwara, was allowed by the Additional Collector, Bhilwara by its order dated 29.3.84 and the sale of the plot of land and the Patta granted in favour of the appellant were cancelled. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Additional Collector, Bhilwara dated 29.3.84 allowing the revision petition, the petitioner-appellant filed a writ petition before this Court and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the findings arrived at by the learned Additional Collector that there were irregularities in the auction proceedings and the compliance of the Rules have not been made, are purely question of facts which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction. (3). It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that while making the sale in favour of the appellant, the Gram Panchayat complied with the provisions of all the relevant rules and after the sale being approved by the Panchayat Samiti, the Patta was granted in favour of the appellant. The auction was held as per the Rules and there is no non-compliance of any of the Rules. It is further contended that the revision petitioner was filed by the Deputy District Development Officer who had no jurisdiction to file the same because rule 266(d) of the Rules authorises the Gram Panchayat to regularise the old possession over its land. The auction was held as per the Rules and there is no non-compliance of any of the Rules. It is further contended that the revision petitioner was filed by the Deputy District Development Officer who had no jurisdiction to file the same because rule 266(d) of the Rules authorises the Gram Panchayat to regularise the old possession over its land. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the land, which was sold in d in favour of the appellant-petitioner, was neither a part of the way nor a stall has been installed on it but after the allotment of the plot of land, a Pacca construction over the land has been made by the appellant-petitioner. (4). We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the case as well as the order passed by the Additional Collector in the revision petition. (5). The Additional Collector has considered in details the facts and circumstances of the case and after due consideration of the procedure and the record of the case held that while granting the Patta in favour of the appellant-petitioner, the compliance of rules 256 to 265 of the Rules has not been made; neither a proper notification inviting objections was issued nor a proper map was prepared; the site was, also, not inspected by the three Panchas as required under rule 258 of the Rules; proper compliance of rule 262 for issuance of the notice for auction atleast for a period of one month, was not complied with and whether the notice has been affixed on the proper place, has not been proved. As there were the non-compliance of the provisions of the rules in the sale of the plot in question, the learned Additional Collector was justified in allowing the revision petition and the revision petitioner was maintainable as no limit for filing the revision petition under Section 27 A is prescribed under the law and the Dy. D.D.O. was competent to file the same. The order was passed by the learned Additional Collector after due consideration of the relevant material on record and we see no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional Collector. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, right in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant on this count. (6). D.D.O. was competent to file the same. The order was passed by the learned Additional Collector after due consideration of the relevant material on record and we see no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional Collector. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, right in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant on this count. (6). The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the old possession can be regularised and, therefore, the sale of the plot made in favour of the appellant-petitioner could not have been cancelled. The matter for consideration before us only is : whether the sale of the plot of the land in favour of the appellant-petitioner was made in accordance with law or not; and we are of the opinion that the sale of the plot of land in favour of the appellant was not in accordance with law and was rightly cancelled by the learned Additional Collector. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge affirming the order passed by the learned Additional Collector does not require any interference. (7). In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this special appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.