JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was allotted a small portion of land measuring 46 square yards in village-Mandawar, Tehsil-Mahuwa, District Sawai Madhopur by Gram Panchayat Mandawar vide order dated 25.9.1981. The respondent No. 5 filed an appeal against the above allotment order dated 25.9.1981 before the Panchayat Samiti Mahuwa under rule 270 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Naya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1961) since the allotment was made without complying with the provisions of the Rules of 1961. The appeal filed by the respondent No. 5 was allowed by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 29.11.1992 thus cancelling the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner. It was further directed that the land in dispute be handed over to the trust in accordance with law. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Panchayat Samiti respondent No. 3, the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Collector, Karauli respondent No. 2. The said revision also came to be dismissed by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 21.5.1984. Further revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota against the order of the Addl. Collector, Karauli, however, the revision was dismissed by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 3.5.1985 on the ground that second revision before the Revenue Appellate Authority was not maintainable. The order dated 29,11.1982 passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Mahuwa, order dated 21.5.1984 passed by the Addl. Collector, Karauli and the order dated 3.5.1985. passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota are under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 29.10.1985 and an interim order was also passed on the same date directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the disputed land and status quo was to be maintained. The stay order was confirmed on 25.8.1986. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land for last 32 years and was using the same continuously without any interruption. He has further submitted that before issuing the patta proper proclamation was issued by the Gram Panchayat for transferring the land In favour of the petitioner, however, the Panchayat Samiti and the Additional Collector have decided the matter without giving any reasons for cancelling the patta issued in favour of the petitioner. He has further submitted that before issuing the patta proper proclamation was issued by the Gram Panchayat for transferring the land In favour of the petitioner, however, the Panchayat Samiti and the Additional Collector have decided the matter without giving any reasons for cancelling the patta issued in favour of the petitioner. He has further submitted that a wrong presumption has been drawn by the lower authorities in regard to possession of the land treating the land in dispute to be a 'bagichi' of the temple. He has further submitted that respondent No. 1 could not have dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground of non-maintainability of the same because the Addl. Collector had passed the impugned order as an appellate court. 5. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, on the other hand, has submitted that the disputed land was only a 'bagichi' of the temple and the petitioner was only authorised to perform 'seva-puja' as is evident from the documents annexed with the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. Since it was property of the trust, the same could not have been allotted to the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat. Since compliance of the rules was not made before allotting the land to the petitioner, the Panchayat Samiti was justified in cancelling the land allotted to the petitioner. 6. Mr, Goyal has further submitted that the Addl. Collector passed the order dated 21.5.1984 under its revisional jurisdiction as provided under rule 272 of the Rules 1961. Since the revisional powers had already been exercised by the Collector as a State functionary, no further revision or appeal could have been filed by the petitioner under rule 272 of the Rules of 1961 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, as such, the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority was also legal. 7. Mr. Goyal has also submitted that even if allotment had been made under rule 266 of the Rules of 1961, the same had to be confirmed under rule 265, whereas, no confirmation was made by the Panchayat Samiti nor even it was sent for by the Gram Panchayat to the Panchayat Samiti under rule 265. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of "State of Orissa and others v. Commissioner of Land-Records & Settlement, Cuttack and others" reported in (1998) 7 SCC 162 . 8. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of "State of Orissa and others v. Commissioner of Land-Records & Settlement, Cuttack and others" reported in (1998) 7 SCC 162 . 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record, relevant provisions of the Rules and the judgment cited at the Bar. 9. As has come on record, in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner was only a 'pujari' of. the temple of Shri Gopalji. The land in dispute was only a 'bagichi' of the temple. Earlier also, the land was sought to be allotted to some other person by the Gram Panchayat in the year 1974, but on objection been raised, the Gram Panchayat itself held that the disputed land belong to the temple. It has also come on record that the petitioner himself while attending the meeting of the trust, had admitted that he had no right or title over property of the trust, in which the petitioner was living. It was the property of the idol of Shri' Gopalji. The petitioner also admitted that he had only a right to reside therein and was receiving a sum of Rs. 322/- per month in lieu of the performance of 'seva-puja'. There is no rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner to the facts stated by the respondent No. 5 in the reply and the documents annexed thereto. As such, since the petitioner has not been able to prove his title or possession over the land, in my opinion, no interference is called for by this court in the present writ petition, moreso, when the impugned orders passed by the concerning authorities were strictly in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******