Prakash Tatia, J.— Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant/defendant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree dt. 01.03.2005 by which the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff/respondent and held that the appellant has no right to evict the respondent. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the land in question is a small piece of land measuring 15 X 15 feet. For this according to the plaintiff, the Gram Panchayat, Sanwar issued patta on 28.11.1971 in favour of the plaintiff after taking cost of the land. The appellant Municipal Board, Fatehnagar issued a public notice for sale of several plots including plot in dispute in the year 1986 upon which, the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction claiming that he is owner of the plot, therefore, the appellant cannot auction the plot. 4. In the trial Court, the appellant/defendant submitted that the area falling in the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Sanwar was transferred to defendant Municipal Board, Fatehnagar by Government order dt. 26.11.1971 whereas, according to the plaintiff himself, the patta was issued n favour of the plaintiff on 28.11.1971-2 days after the area transferred to the Municipal Board, Fatehnagar, therefore, the patta is wholly without jurisdiction. Not only this, but the learned Collector cancelled the said patta by order dt. 27.01.1977 and this fact has been admitted by the plaintiff, therefore also the plaintiff was not the owner of the property. However, the trial Court dismissed the suit but directed the Municipal Board to evict the plaintiff only in accordance with law meaning thereby, by following process of law. 5. The plaintiff preferred appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 01.12.1997 which was allowed by the First Appellate Court holding that the plaintiff is owner of the plot in dispute. The finding has been recorded by the First Appellate Court because of the reason that the relevant notification of transferring the land from village Sanwar to Municipal Board has not been placed on record by the appellant/defendant. 6. The appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of First Appellate Court, has preferred this second appeal. 7. In this appeal, the appellant has placed on record the gazette notification dt. 26.11.1971 by which the land falling in the territorial jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Sanwar was transferred to Municipal Board, Fatehnagar and the order of learned Collector dt. 6. The appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of First Appellate Court, has preferred this second appeal. 7. In this appeal, the appellant has placed on record the gazette notification dt. 26.11.1971 by which the land falling in the territorial jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Sanwar was transferred to Municipal Board, Fatehnagar and the order of learned Collector dt. 27.01.1977 by which the patta of the plaintiff issued by Gram Panchayat was cancelled. 8. According to leaned counsel for the appellant, the gazette notification has been placed on record now by the appellant and, therefore, it is fully proved that the land was not belonging or not vesting in Gram Panchayat on 28.11.1971, therefore, the patta is void ab-initio as issued wholly without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the said patta was cancelled by the order of the Collector dt. 27.01.1977. 9. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons given by the two courts below as well as the facts of the case. 10. It is not in dispute that the plot is of small size i.e 15 x15 feet. The Gram Panchayat took money for this plot in the year 1971 and issued patta. It is alleged that the said patta was cancelled by the order of the Collector, copy of which has been placed by the appellant in this second appeal as Exhibit-B which purports to be an office order only which says that the Gram Panchayat Sanwar and another Gram Panchayat have wrongly issued patta. A list is also annexed along with this order containing the particulars of the persons whose pattas have been cancelled. The contention of the plaintiff is that the order dt. 27.01.1977 was passed without notice to the plaintiff. It appears from the order dt. 27.1.1977 that that was an office order only and not an order in appeal or revision etc. or under any provision of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act or Rajasthan Municipality Act. Be it as it may be, a small piece of land given by the plaintiff by the local authority after charging money and admittedly, the plaintiff is in possession for since last about 35 years, I do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. 11. In view of the above, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 11. In view of the above, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal, having no merit, is hereby dismissed. * * * * *