JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Trust has preferred this writ petition being aggrieved of the order dated 19.12.2003 passed in Review Application No. 58/2003 whereby the learned Collector, Sirohi has rejected the review application as incompetent; and has maintained the order dated 4.2.2003 passed in Panchayat Revision No. 61/2002. 2. Briefly put, the facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in this writ petition are that the respondent No. 4 Vijay Raj submitted an application to the Gram Panchayat, Janapur, Tehsil Pindwara on 3.1.1998 for issuance of a patta under Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 for his residential house admeasuring 1125 sq. ft. and issuance of such a patta was approved by the order dated 26.6.1998. However, the petitioner, a Public Trust registered under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, raised objections against issuance of patta particularly on the ground that the land in dispute belongs to the petitioner and being used since long as 'Upasara' of Jain Sadhus and that the erstwhile Ruler of Sirohi had issued a patta bearing No. 25 dated 6.12.1933 in favour of 'Panch Mahajan'. According to the petitioner, pursuant to its objections, the respondent No. 3 Panchayat rescinded the order for issuance of patta in favour of the respondent No. 4 on the ground that the patta could not be issued in relation to a land for which a patta had already been issued in favour of some other persons. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 4 filed a revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act' hereinafter) bearing No. 61/2002 before the respondent No. 2, the Collector, Sirohi, without impleading the petitioner Pedhi as a party to the proceedings. The Panchayat of course filed a reply to the revision petition pointing out that the grant of patta to the revisionist had been declined on the objections of the petitioner. However, the revision petition was allowed by the learned Collector on 4.2.2003 (Annex. 4) and the Panchayat was directed to issue fresh patta in favour of the respondent No. 4 within one month. 3. It has been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner came to know about the order dated 4.2.2003 (Annex. However, the revision petition was allowed by the learned Collector on 4.2.2003 (Annex. 4) and the Panchayat was directed to issue fresh patta in favour of the respondent No. 4 within one month. 3. It has been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner came to know about the order dated 4.2.2003 (Annex. 4) on 11.3.2003; and after obtaining a copy thereof and taking legal advice, the petitioner filed a review application under Section 97(3) of the Act before the Collector, Sirohi for review of the order dated 4.2.2003, inter alia, on the ground that the land in dispute was used as a Rest House of Jain Sadhus and thereafter it was given on rent to one Prakash Kumar and after his death, his father Chhaganlal handed over the property to the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 had filed a suit bearing No. 17/1997 for eviction against Chhaganlal and Prakash Kumar in which the petitioner was impleaded as party respondent on its application and the revision petition submitted before the High Court was also dismissed on 16.9.2003 as not maintainable. It has also been averred in the writ petition that the respondent No. 4 had filed a civil suit bearing No. 58/2003 against the petitioner Pedhi for perpetual injunction, declaration and compensation in connection with the same property on 6.8.2003. 4. A reply to the review application was submitted by the respondent No. 4 (Annex. 8) raising preliminary objections, inter alia, regarding locus standi of the petitioner Pedhi to maintain the review application and the Collector, Sirohi by his impugned order dated 19.12.2003 (Annex. 10) rejected the review application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the revision petition and, therefore, has no locus standi to maintain the review application. Hence, the petitioner has submitted this writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the orders Annex. 4 and Annex. 10 passed by the learned Collector, Sirohi. 5. In response to the show cause notice issued in this writ petition, the contesting respondent No. 4 has submitted a reply raising objections that the petition involves disputed questions of fact; that the petition under Article 226 is not competent as the order passed by the Collector could only be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; and that the petitioner has concealed various facts. However, the averment regarding submission of objections by the petitioner before the Panchayat against issuance of patta for the land in question has not been disputed, although it has been contended that the objections were incorrect. It has also been contended in the reply that the phrase 'Panch Mahajan' in the patta dated 6.12.1933 is meant for the family of respondent No. 4. The orders dated 4.2.2003 and 19.12.2003 have been defended being just and in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner has taken averments in the writ petition that representations were filed before the Sarpanch and the Collector and to such averments, objections have been raised by the respondent No. 4 about genuineness of the representations referred by the petitioner; and the petitioner has submitted a rejoinder refuting the allegations of respondent No. 4. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, and the order which is proposed to be passed in this writ petition, such disputes of facts attempted to be raised by the parties are not being gone into. 7. The fundamental question in this writ petition is about the correctness of the order dated 19.12.2003 passed by the Collector, Sirohi in review application No. 58/2003 whereby the learned Collector has rejected the review application only on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the revision petition and, therefore, its review application was not competent. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record with reference to the law applicable to the case, this Court is clearly of opinion that the impugned order dated 19.12.2003 cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 8. The submission made on behalf of the contesting respondent and the premise on which the learned Collector has proceeded to reject the review application are fundamentally incorrect. The learned Collector has proceeded with reference to a decision of this Court in Magaram v. The Board of Revenue, 1997 DNJ (Raj.) 661 for the proposition that the petitioner who was not a party to the revision petition could not maintain the review application. Such an approach of the learned Collector discloses an error apparent on the face of record. 9. The parameters of such jurisdiction like revision and review are required to be understood with reference to the scheme of the particular provision conferring such jurisdiction. Such an approach of the learned Collector discloses an error apparent on the face of record. 9. The parameters of such jurisdiction like revision and review are required to be understood with reference to the scheme of the particular provision conferring such jurisdiction. The decision in Magaram's case (supra) was rendered in relation to the power of review as provided under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 reads as under: "229. Power of review by Board and other revenue courts.- Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) (1) the Board of its own motion or on the application of a party to a suit or proceeding, may review and may rescind, alter or confirm any decree or order made by itself or by any of its members; and (2) every revenue court, other than the Board, shall be competent to review any decree, order or judgment passed by such court." 10. The question posed before this Court was about competence of review application filed by the petitioners having the status only of a third party in relation to the ceiling proceedings concerning the land of one Amba Dan as the petitioners were claiming themselves to be the transferees from another person Chandi Dan. Such transferees were held to be having no right over and above the option exercised by the assessee to the ceiling proceedings. After holding that such persons have no locus standi to challenge the option exercised by Amba Dan and further that they were not entitled for any notice in respect of such proceedings, this Court observed that they had no right to file a review petition either; -and the Board of Revenue was not in error in dismissing the review petition on the ground of locus standi of the petitioners. In that context, it was also observed that under Section 229 of the Act, review could be made either by the Board of its own motion, or on an application of a party to the suit or proceedings. This Court held that provisions contained in Section 229 of the Act have excluded third party from availing the remedy of review which could either be made by the Board of Revenue suo motu or it could be exercised by any of the parties to a suit or proceedings. This Court held that provisions contained in Section 229 of the Act have excluded third party from availing the remedy of review which could either be made by the Board of Revenue suo motu or it could be exercised by any of the parties to a suit or proceedings. This Court held, "Obviously the provisions contained in Section 229 of the Tenancy Act have excluded third party from availing the remedy of review. Under Section 229 only two authorities can avail the remedy of review. The Board of Revenue can suo motu exercise the power of review or it can be exercised by any of the parties to a suit or proceedings. Obviously the petitioners, being a third party, had no right to file the review petition." 11. The decision aforesaid in Magaram has no application whatsoever to the present case wherein the learned Collector as a delegate of the State Government was concerned with the provisions of Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which read as under: "Section 97. Power of revision and review by Government.-(1) The State Government may, either of its own motion or on an application from any person interested, call for and examine the record of a Panchayati Raj Institution or of a Standing Committee or Sub-Committee thereof in respect of any proceedings to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein or as to the regularity of such proceedings and, if in any case, it appears to the State Government that any such decision or order be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass order accordingly: Provided that the State Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless such party has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. (2) The State Government may stay the execution of any such decision or order prejudicial to any party, pending the exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) in respect thereof. (3) The State Government may, of its own motion or on an application received from any person interested, at any time, within ninety days of the passing of an order under sub-section (1), review any such order if it was passed by it under any mistake, whether of fact or of law or in ignorance of any material fact. (3) The State Government may, of its own motion or on an application received from any person interested, at any time, within ninety days of the passing of an order under sub-section (1), review any such order if it was passed by it under any mistake, whether of fact or of law or in ignorance of any material fact. The provisions contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) and in section (2) shall apply to a proceeding under this sub-section." (emphasis supplied) 12. The learned Collector has proceeded obviously with fundamental errors about the scope of jurisdiction. Firstly, as required by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 97 when it was apparent before the Collector that the order granting patta to the respondent No. 4 was rescinded on the objections of the petitioner, who claimed to be having a grant already made of the land in question to it, then before passing any contrary order, the petitioner ought to have been heard. Obviously, the order passed on the revision petition on 4.2.2003 (Annex. 4) is directly against the interest of the petitioner and this much has been observed that the objections were made by the petitioner after expiry of the period of notice and that the order passed by the Panchayat on such objection was not proper. Such an order prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner could not have been passed without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Secondly, the learned Collector, in a wholly slipshod manner, has rejected the review application by the impugned order dated 19.12.2003 (Annex. 10) only on the consideration that the petitioner was not a party to the revision petition. The learned Collector has again not looked into the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 97 of the Act which provide for maintainability of a review application from any person interested". Reference to the decision in Magaram's case (supra) dealing with a different provision, having different scope, is entirely misplaced. The impugned order dated 19.12.2003 (Annex. 10), therefore, cannot be approved and deserves to be set aside. 13. Reference to the decision in Magaram's case (supra) dealing with a different provision, having different scope, is entirely misplaced. The impugned order dated 19.12.2003 (Annex. 10), therefore, cannot be approved and deserves to be set aside. 13. Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is clearly of opinion that the review application was not only maintainable before the learned Collector but the same ought to have been granted and the revision petition ought to have been considered on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ordinarily, this Court would have set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2003 (Annex. 10) and remitted the matter for consideration of the review application afresh, however, in view of the undenied and undeniable facts available on record, it is apparent that the petitioner's claim of having pre-existing title to the land in dispute was upheld by the Panchayat and in the revision petition submitted against such order of the Panchayat, the learned Collector has observed, in the absence of the petitioner, that its objections were not tenable and the order passed by the Panchayat on the objections of the petitioner have been set aside. In view of the subject matter of the revision petition, the petitioner was directly a necessary party; and no order prejudicial to the petitioner could have been passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as required by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 97. 14. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is of opinion that remitting only the review application for consideration afresh would be an empty formality inasmuch as the revision petition No. 61/2002 itself is required to be heard on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, both the impugned orders dated 19.12.2003 (Annex. 10) and 4.2.2003 (Annex. 4) passed by the Collector, Sirohi deserve to be set aside and the revision petition No. 61/2002 deserves to be restored to its number for decision afresh in accordance with law. 15. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned orders dated 19.12.2003 (Annex. 10) and 4.2.2003 (Annex. 10) and 4.2.2003 (Annex. 4) passed by the Collector, Sirohi deserve to be set aside and the revision petition No. 61/2002 deserves to be restored to its number for decision afresh in accordance with law. 15. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned orders dated 19.12.2003 (Annex. 10) and 4.2.2003 (Annex. 4) are quashed and set aside; Review Application No. 58/2003 stands allowed and Panchayat Revision Petition No. 61/2002 stands restored to its number before the Collector, Sirohi who shall proceed with the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The parties shall appear before the Collector, Sirohi on 22.2.2006. There shall be no order as to costs of this writ petition. However, it is made clear that nothing stated herein shall be construed as any comment on the merits of the case.Writ petition allowed to above extent. *******