Honble BALIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2). The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Additional Collector, Bhilwara dated 17.12.1991, which was passed on a revision filed by respondent Shankar Lal way back in 1978. (3). The disputed land is measuring about 95.5 square feet, which was allotted to the petitioner by Gram Panchayat, Rayla in 1978 vide order dated 7.6.1978/15.9.1978. The petitioner was already in possession of the said land since before 1968. This was sold for a sum of Rs. 600/-. The price was fixed by negotiations. After more than 15 years of the allotment, the respondent Shankar Lal filed a complaint that the land allotted to the petitioner was forming a part of public way and thus, it could not have ed. On this basic premise, certain procedural defects were also impugned order. The Additional Collector, Bhilwara found that the land in question forms part of the public way and thus, it could not have been allotted without following the required procedure for allotment of any part of the public way. (4). This conclusion in our opinion suffers from an error apparent from the face of record. Neither inspection report nor the order dated 7.6.1978, which have been placed on record as Annex. 4 & 5 respectively supports this premise of holding this land in question to be a part of the public way. Exhibit 5 which is the order passed by Panchayat only records that the public way situated near the land in question is wider .than it is at another place. It also records that the land in question is in Abadi and is in long possession of the petitioner. The land which is stated to be near the widest point of the public way cannot be considered to be part of the public way on the basis of the order passed by the Gram Panchayat on 7.6.1978, which was made subject matter of revision by Shanker Lal. Secondly Annex. 4 also nowhere states that the plot is question is a part of the public way. On the contrary inspection report dated 15.5.1978 describes two plots of the land in question and not as any part of the public way. Secondly Annex. 4 also nowhere states that the plot is question is a part of the public way. On the contrary inspection report dated 15.5.1978 describes two plots of the land in question and not as any part of the public way. It only narrates that north eastern of such plot is surrounded from both the sides on the NorthEast corner by road, which will justify that at the corner, the width of plot be reduced by half a feet so that a blind turn does not come at the meeting point of the road of the corners. The statement that at the side of the North-East corner there is existing road on both sides, cannot by any stretch of imagination be read as that the plots them selves are public road. (5). Apparently the complainant has also shown no existing cause, which could justify entertaining his complaint after 15 years of the allotment on mere technical grounds. If the basic ground is of the plot being a part of public way cannot be sustained. There was no justification for cancelling the allotment in question at the behest of respondent Shankar Lal who has shown no other injury to himself. (6). In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order suffers from errors apparent from the face of record and no substantial failure of justice was shown to exist for invoking the power of revision after such a long time at the behest of the petitioner, who has not shown any injury much substantial injury caused to him. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed and petition is allowed. No order as to costs.