JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. We find no force in this appeal. The appellant is aggrieved of the order passed by learned Single Judge 2.4.2002 in Writ Petition No. 563/2002 by which the writ petition was dismissed as no ground for interference has been made out. 3. The facts giving rise to this present appeal are that appellant-petitioner had applied for regularisation of an old constructed house in his possession for over 30 years with the Gram Panchayat, Chandrai vide Annex. 1 which bears no date. 4. The application was supported by an affidavit that he is in 5 possession of the property in question for last over 30 years; no dispute is pending in respect of the land in question; nor he has purchased this house from anyone; nor it is encumbered or transferred to anyone. Along with such undertakings, he claimed it to be an ancestral house. Ultimately Gram Panchayat, Chandrai issued a Patta in favour of appellant-petitioner by way of sale referring to Rule 147-B of the Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter called as the Rules, 1996). The said patta is Annex. 2 dated 4.10.1999. 5. Against the issuance of Patta one Deva Ram s/o Shri Dhanna Ji filed a revision before the Collector alleging that the property in question of which pattasudh has been issued in favour of appellant-petitioner is a part of pattasudh land which admeasures 4147 Sq. feets and measures 148 and 138 let in length and 28 ft. and 30 ft. in breadth. The patta was issued in favour :Deva Ram on 25.8.1958 as Patta No. 70. The part of the land has been?Id to the appellant-petitioner by Gram Panchayat without considering the pitta issued in favour of Deva Ram and without being a property of Gram inchayat. 6. A notice of this revision was served on the appellant, inter alia, the plea raised by present appellant was that he had purchased the said plot, a part of patta, on 4.10.1999 from one Deva Ram and, therefore, Deva Ram has no right to challenge the grant of patta in his favour. 7. This stand itself was contrary to the statement made in the affidavit the petitioner-appellant filed along with application for regularisation of his constructed house, which was old. 8. 7. This stand itself was contrary to the statement made in the affidavit the petitioner-appellant filed along with application for regularisation of his constructed house, which was old. 8. The Additional Collector, Jalore after conducting an enquiry found as a fact that the land forming the patta issued in favour of appellant-petitioner is a part of existing patta in favour of Deva Ram since 1958 and the alleged document of transfer relied upon by the petitioner-appellant, being unregistered cannot vest any right, title or interest in appellant's favour which Could be recognised for issuing a patta in his favour in respect of land forming part of Deva Ram's Patta. Along with this, it has also been found that the property in question, which is a part of Deva Ram's patta, does not bear any construction over it nor possession of the petitioner-appellant over 30 years is proved in any manner. In view of these findings, the revision of Deva Ram was allowed and the Patta issued in favour of the petitioner-appellant was cancelled. 9. One fact which was also noticed by the Additional Collector was that the Patta was issued when son of petitioner was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. This do reveal an important suspicious circumstance in origin of patta in favour of petitioner-appellant, of a land which was ultimately found to be part of another existing patta of long duration since 1958. 10. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that since the Additional Collector has found as a fact that no constructed he Is stands on the land in question, the very basic foundation in invoking RL, e 157-B of the Rules of 1996 did not exist in the present case, and the before, the order of the Additional Collector does not require any interference in extraordinary jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge has also observed that no material about the old possession has been produced on record by the petitioner before this Court also. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 3.3.2003 has placed on record today a site-inspection report dated 12.3.2003 to be taken as a proof of his 30 years old possession over the land in question and old constructed house being there. 12. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 3.3.2003 has placed on record today a site-inspection report dated 12.3.2003 to be taken as a proof of his 30 years old possession over the land in question and old constructed house being there. 12. With the aforesaid background, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that by perusal of site inspection report about possession, the existence of constructed house thereon since before years is proved, the findings recorded by the Collector are erroneous and the learned Single Judge has erred in not interfering with the order under challenge in the writ petition. 13. We are of the opinion that this contention has no substance. From the narration of facts, it is apparent that the land in question has been found to be part of an existing patta in favour of Deva Ram issued in 1958. It is petitioner-appellant's own case that he has purchased the land from said Deva Ram by unregistered sale deed (Annex. 3 annexed with the writ petition). Annexure is an admission of the fact by the petitioner-appellant that the land in question belonged to Deva Ram and he insisted that he purchased rights over the land in question through that document. If the contention of the petitioner-appellant is to be believed, on the face of this admission it belies the contention of the petitioner-appellant that he was in possession of the land in question over 30 years and his ancestral house stood on the land in question. In fact, the document Annex.3 which is unregistered and undated document conveys that it was a deed of partition. The plea of joint possession and acquiring the property in question by partition was never raised by the appellant and contrary to recital in Annex. it was claimed that the property was in his unauthorised occupation since more than 30 years with the ancestral house constructed thereon which plea according to the appellant's own saying is incorrect. 14. The plea of joint possession and acquiring the property in question by partition was never raised by the appellant and contrary to recital in Annex. it was claimed that the property was in his unauthorised occupation since more than 30 years with the ancestral house constructed thereon which plea according to the appellant's own saying is incorrect. 14. If Annex.3 is to be believed, then the finding of the District Collector becomes unassailable that the property in question is a part of Patta issued in favour of Deva Ram and the petitioner-appellant sought to acquire the land by contending that it was in his unauthorised occupation for over 30 years by concealing the material facts about his acquiring title through Deva Ram by unregistered sale deed. 15. The site inspection report dated 12.3.2003 cannot in any manner be considered as a substantive piece of evidence establishing possession of the petitioner-appellant's over years with the old constructed house there on. It may at best show, if relied on the status as existing on the date of site inspection. Opinion of others included in site inspection amounts to hearsay and is not legally admissible evidence of such facts. 16. In view of the aforesaid, we find no force in this appeal and it stands accordingly dismissed in limine.Appeal Dismissed. *******