Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed by the petitioner against the order dated 6th of August, 1992 of the Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur, in Revision Petition No. 224/1990. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a piece of land adjacent to the house of the petitioner was allotted to him in exercise of the powers purporting to be under Rule 266 of the Rajasthan, Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (for short, the Rules, 1961) by the Gram Panchayat Shesha, District Sawai Madhopur. The allotment was made taking it to be a case of a long possession of the petitioner on the land in dispute. The Additional Collector under the impugned order set aside the order of the Gram Panchayat granting the patta of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner, thus this writ petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the exercise of the revisional powers by the Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur assuming suo motu powers thereof is wholly illegal. It is next contended that against the order of the Gram Panchayat the appeal is maintainable, thus power of revision was not available to the Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur. 4. Lastly it is contended that the Additional Collector has set aside the order of the Gram Panchayat on non-est facts. In his submission the petitioner was in possession on the land in dispute for last more than 40 years. 5. It has given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire record of the writ petition. 6. Application submitted by the petitioner for allotment of the land in dispute by private negotiation to the Gram Panchayat is on record as Annexure-1, in this application the petitioner nowhere stated that the land in dispute is in his possession for last more than 40 years. The subject of the application reads as under, " Hamari kabja suda aabadi bhoomi mein pukhta makaan banaakar murgi paalan ke liye ijaajat dene baabat." 7. The petitioner prayed for grant of patta of the land in dispute by private negotiation to raise pucca construction thereon for poultry farm. Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 reads as under, "266. Transfer of abadi land by private negotiation. The petitioner prayed for grant of patta of the land in dispute by private negotiation to raise pucca construction thereon for poultry farm. Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 reads as under, "266. Transfer of abadi land by private negotiation. (1) The Panchayat may transfer any abadi land by way of sale by private negotiation in the following cases:- (a) Where any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and an auction may not fetch reasonable price; .(b) Where for reasons to be recorded in writing the Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be a convenient mode of disposal of the land; .(c) Where such course is regarded by the Panchayat necessary for the advancement of Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes or other backward classes; .(d) Wherethe person are in possession of the abadi land for 20 year or more but less than 42 years, one-third of the prevailing market price and in case of possession of over 40 years, on sixth of the prevailing market price shall be charged. .(2) ThePanchayat may,by resolution, transfer by way of sale without charging any price, therefore, any abadi land of which the probable value does not exceed Rs. 200/-in favour of any institution for a public purpose." 8. It is not in dispute that the Gram Panchayat has granted the patta of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner by private negotiation in exercise of the powers purporting to be under Clause (d) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961. The sine qua non for exercise of the powers under Clause (d) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 by the Panchayat to transfer its abadi land by private negotiation to a person who is in possession of the land for 20 years or more but less than 42 years, the price thereof is to be charged 1/3rd of the prevailing market price. In case of the possession on the land, of over 40 years, the price to be charged is at the rate of 1/6th of the prevailing market price. 9. Anneuxre-3 is the inspection report of the Panchas, of the land in dispute, this land in dispute is near to the abadi and adjacent to the khatedari land. Towards the sought and east of this land in dispute there is a khatedari land of Gaffur Hazi. 9. Anneuxre-3 is the inspection report of the Panchas, of the land in dispute, this land in dispute is near to the abadi and adjacent to the khatedari land. Towards the sought and east of this land in dispute there is a khatedari land of Gaffur Hazi. Shri Gaffur Hazi is the grantfather of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner has his own house in the village. Not only this adjacent to this very land a khatedari land of petitioners grandfather is there. 10. From the document Annexure 3 it does not spell out that the inspection committee was satisfied that the petitioner is in the long possession over the land in dispute. There is no whisper of his long possession on the land. The Panchas reported that on the land 15-20 trolley stones are lying and around it a kachcha wall is there. From these two facts recorded in the site inspection report, no inference follows that the petitioner was in long possession of the land. It is a big piece of the land. That apart, he is not praying for grant of patta of the land by private negotiation for construction of his residential house. It is prayed for construction poultry farm. 11. The Scheme of the Rules, 1961 pertaining to sale of land by private negotiation, is for the benefit of the persons who are landless having no other land for construction of the residential house and grant of patta thereof is prayed for on the ground that they are in long possession thereon. It is not the case of the petitioner. 12. The oral evidence produced by the petitioner is hardly of any substance and material in such matters. Only on the basis of the oral evidence and more-so when the Committee of Panchas has not recorded any finding of the long possession of the petitioner on the land in dispute, the same is of little help to the petitioner. Not only the Committee of Panchas has recorded any finding on the point of long possession of the petitioner on the land but also the Panchas under the resolution in which this land has been given to the petitioner by private negotiation has not made any whisper that he is in long possession thereof . Not only the Committee of Panchas has recorded any finding on the point of long possession of the petitioner on the land but also the Panchas under the resolution in which this land has been given to the petitioner by private negotiation has not made any whisper that he is in long possession thereof . In the facts of this case, the learned Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur has not committed any illegality to hold that grant of patta of the land in dispute to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 under Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 is illegal. 13. The other contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the revision petition, it is suffice to say that the order was undisputedly appealable. But setting aside the impugned order on the ground of non-maintainability of the revision petition before the Additional Collector sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court, will result in restoration of wholly illegal order of the Gram Panchayat, that is not permissible. 14. As a result of the aforesaid discussion this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed.