JUDGMENT 1. - These special appeals are directed against a common order dated 24.1.08 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions Nos. 554/08, 555/08, 556/08 and 557/08 preferred by the appellants herein assailing the validity of a common order dated 22.10.07 passed by the Additional Collector, Barmer in the revision petitions filed by the respondent Shri Ganga Ram, have been dismissed. By order dated 22.10.07 passed by the Additional Collector which was impugned in the writ petitions, the pattas granted in favour of the appellants by the Gram Panchayat, Undoo stand cancelled. 2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the appellant Bhiya Ram who is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Undoo alongwith other appellants his sons Navla Ram and Mana Ram and brother Deraj Ram submitted the applications to the Gram Panchayat, Undoo for grant of the pattas in respect of the land said to be in their continuous possession for last more than 100 years. According to the appellants, the pattas of the land were issued in their favour by the Gram Panchayat after following the procedure laid down under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996( in short "the Rules of 1996" hereinafter). However, the validity of the pattas issued in favour of the appellants was assailed by the respondent Ganga Ram by way of revision petitions u/s 97 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 before the District Collector, Barmer, which were later transferred for hearing and decision to the Additional Collector, Barmer. 3. It was contended on behalf of the respondent Ganga Ram before the revisional authority that the appellant Bhiya Ram who is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Undoo by misusing his office has got issued the patta in his own favour and in favour of his sons and brother. It was submitted that before issuing the patta in their favour, the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1996 for disposal of the abadi land was not followed. It was further contended that the appellants were not in continuous possession of the abadi land/house as alleged therefore, they were not entitled for regularisation of their possession and to get pattas issued in their favour. 4. It was further contended that the appellants were not in continuous possession of the abadi land/house as alleged therefore, they were not entitled for regularisation of their possession and to get pattas issued in their favour. 4. After due consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record, the revisional authority found that while issuing the patta in favour of the appellants, the provisions of Rule 47(1) and 145 to 157 laying down the procedure for the regularisation of the possession and issuance of the pattas were not adhered to and the pattas were issued in favour of the appellants without holding a proper inquiry regarding their possession on the land in question. Accordingly, by the order impugned in the writ petitions dated 22.10.07, the pattas issued in favour of the appellants were cancelled. 5. The learned Single Judge after considering the matter in its entirety and objectivity found that the appellants have claimed their possession on the land in question for last more than 100 years whereas, as per the affidavits filed alongwith the writ petition, Bhiya Ram is of 70 years of age and Deraj Ram, Mana Ram and Navla Ram are of 65 years, 38 years and 33 years of age respectively therefore, the assertion made by them in the applications preferred for the grant of pattas is ex facie incorrect. That apart, the learned Single Judge observed that in the said applications, it has nowhere been mentioned that the forefathers of the appellants were in possession of the land or that the possession has devolved upon them by virtue of the land being in possession of their ancestors. The learned Single Judge further observed that except the application preferred by the appellant Bhiya Ram, all other applications were submitted by the respective applicants before Bhiya Ram himself in his capacity as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Undoo. After perusal of the order sheets, the learned Single Judge found that the proceedings for issuing pattas was drawn by the appellant Bhiya Ram in the capacity of Sarpanch alongwith the Up Sarpanch . The learned Single Judge also found that in the pattas issued over the seal of Gram Panahcyat, Undoo, one Shri Daula Ram has put his signature who is neither Sarpanch nor Up Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Undoo. The learned Single Judge also found that in the pattas issued over the seal of Gram Panahcyat, Undoo, one Shri Daula Ram has put his signature who is neither Sarpanch nor Up Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Undoo. After examining the record threadbare, the learned Single Judge arrived at a categorical finding that the proceedings taken for issuing pattas is based on fabricated documents. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the order impugned passed by the Additional Collector, Barmer. 6. A bare perusal of the material on record, goes to show that it is a glaring case of an elected representative taking undue advantage by misusing his office. It is apparent from the proceedings drawn by the appellant Bhiya Ram in the capacity of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Undoo that there was absolutely no documentary evidence produced on record so as to establish the continuous possession of the appellants on the land in question for last more than 100 years. The proceedings drawn for issuance of the pattas purported to be in conformity with the provisions of the Rules of 1996 laying down the procedure for regularisation of the possession and issuance of pattas of abadi land within the panchayat area appears to be a total farce. On being pointedly asked by this court, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants candidly submitted that no documentary evidence whatsoever was brought on record to establish the long possession of the appellants over the land in question. That apart, the learned counsel had no answer as to how the pattas have been issued by a stranger representing himself as Sarpanch, whereas he has nothing to do with the Gram Panchayat, Undoo. Suffice it to say that it is a case of gross misuse of the power by a person holding public office and the matter requires thorough inquiry at the end of the State Government . In any case, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case noticed above,the order passed by the the revisional authority cancelling the pattas issued in favour of the appellants cannot be faulted with. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by us in these intra court appeals. 8. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by us in these intra court appeals. 8. In the result, the appeals fail, the same are hereby dismissed .Appeals Dismissed. *******