JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant petition under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners seek setting aside of order Annex.9 dated 28.05.2007 passed by respondent No.1 in Panchayat Revision No. 24/2006 and quashing of patta Annex.6 dated 20.12.2004 issued by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.2. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders impugned as also the record of the case. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 granted a patta of an urban land vide Annex.6 on the conditions specified in Rule 157(b) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short 'Rules of 1996' hereinafter). It is contended that Rule 157 of Rules of 1996 provides regularisation of old houses. Rule 157 of Rules of 1996 reads as under : "Rule 157. Regularisation of old houses.- Where the persons are in possession of the old house in Abadi land and desire to get a Patta issued, patta may be issued by the Panchayat after depositing charges as under : (a) For old houses constructed more than fifty years ago Rs. 100/- (b) For old houses constructed during last fifty years from Rs. 200/- the date of commencement of these rules. [Provided that no fees shall be charged under Clause (a) and only 10% fees shall be charged under Clause (b) from the families included in the list of below poverty line.] 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.2 did not have old house constructed during last 50 years from the date of commencement of these Rules of 1996. The site was inspected by Tehsildar, Sojat vide Annex.8 and in presence of both the parties, more particularly in presence of Patwari of the area, it was noticed that plot of which the patta has been granted in favour of respondent No.2 vide Annex.1, is an open land. There had not been any construction raised on it and therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.3 fell in error in granting patta in favour of respondent No.2, contrary to the provisions of Rule 157 of Rules of 1996.It is further contended that respondent No.1 revisional Court dismissed the revision with the aid of Rule 162 of Rules of 1996. Rule 162 of Rules of 1996 relates to allotment of Abadi land to Government institutions. Rule 162 of Rules of 1996 relates to allotment of Abadi land to Government institutions. Rule 162 of Rules of 1996 reads as under:- "Rule 162. Allotment of Abadi land to Government Institutions.-(1) Panchayats may allot lands free of charge within Abadi area to School, Dispensary, Anganvadi, upto 500 sq. Yards subject to confirmation by the Zila Parishad concerned. (2) Any other allotment free of charge or at concessional price shall be only with the prior approval of the State Government. 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, even taking the aid of Rule 162 of Rules of 1996, case of respondent No.2 do not fall within the ambit of either Rule 157(b) or Rule 162 of Rules of 1996. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3 supported the impugned order. Mr. S.K. Gupta appearing for respondent No.2, in whose favour the patta has been granted, submits that patta has been granted under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 162 of Rules of 1962. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 162 of Rules of 1996 provides that Panchayats may allot lands free of charge within Abadi area to School, Dispensary, Anganvadi, upto 500 sq. Yards subject to confirmation by the Zila Parishad concerned. Obviously, the case of respondent No.2 do not fall in this clause for the reason that patta has been granted in favour of President/Manager of Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti, Sisarwada, Tehsil Sojat and therefore, it is neither a school nor dispensary or Anganwadi. 7. Coming to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 162 of Rules of 1996 which empowers, for allotment free of charge or at concessional price with the rider that for such an allotment, prior approval of State Government is necessary. On being asked to counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3, they failed to show any prior approval of the State Government granting patta in favour of respondent No.2 by respondent No.3. Even otherwise, patta Annex.6 clearly reveals that patta has been granted by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.2 under Rule 157(b) of Rules of 1996. The fact remains that Rule 157(a) and (b) both deal with regularisation of old houses. President/Manager of Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti cannot be said to have old houses in possession, more particularly, houses for which regularisation can be made. The fact remains that Rule 157(a) and (b) both deal with regularisation of old houses. President/Manager of Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti cannot be said to have old houses in possession, more particularly, houses for which regularisation can be made. Rule 157 of Rules of 1996 requires old houses constructed more than fifty years ago from the commencement of these Rules which came into force in 1996. Obviously, 50 years ago, respondent No.2 even did not come into existence. In the circumstances therefore, in my view, the patta as well as the order of revisional Court cannot sustain and are liable to be set aside, more particularly, in view of the site inspection report prepared by Tehsildar Annex.8 wherein, it has been mentioned that the land was lying vacant and there had not been any construction raised thereon. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned Annex. 9 dated 28.05.2007 and patta Annex.6 issued by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.2 dated 20.12.2004 stand quashed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Stay petition also stands disposed of.Writ Petition Allowed. *******