Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—All these writ petitions are directed against identical orders passed by Additional District Collector, Kota, dated 27.3.2006 by which revision petitions filed by certain residents of village Aayana, Panchayat Samiti Itawa, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota, have been allowed and pattas issued in favour of petitioners for allotment of pieces of land to all of them except two, in the varying size of 5-1/2' x 8', 5-1/2 x 9', 10' x 11', 10' x 11', or 10' x 15', 20' x 12', 9' x 12' for running kiosks to earn their livelihood, have been cancelled. Two of petitioners, namely Swami Vivekanand School, Aayana (CW 10309/2009) and Bajrang Vayyam Shala (CW-4759/2009), were allotted a larger chunk of land measuring 6320 square yard for setting-up a school and 554 square yard for setting up a public gym, respectively, which too have been cancelled by the impugned orders. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that Gram Panchayat, Aayana issued patta of land in favour of petitioner on or about 20.12.2004. Originally, part of this land was allotted to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short, `BSNL') but BSNL informed the Gram Panchayat that it did not require the land and therefore allotment may be cancelled. Allotment made to BSNL was cancelled with approval of the Panchayat Samiti. Allotment is claimed to have been made in favour of petitioners on the basis of resolution passed by full quorum of the gram sabha on 26.8.2004. It is claimed that all the petitioners are below poverty line (for shot, `BPL'), and, are landless and unemployed persons. Object of allotment of land was to enable them to earn their livelihood. Similarly, allotment has been made to petitioner Swami Vivekanand School and Shri Bajrang Vyayamshala for running public school and public gym. Certain Villagers challenged allotment of lands and pattas by filing revision petitions, which were allowed by impugned judgment dated 27.3.2006. Petitioners filed review petition before Additional District Collector, Kota, who, by its order dated 5.4.2007 rejected the same, hence the writ petitions. 3. Smt. Kamla Jain, learned counsel for petitioners, argued that allotment of land to petitioners was made strictly in accordance with Rule 158 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, `the Rules of 1996') by resolution of Gram Sabha dated 26.8.2004; said resolution of the gram sabha mentions the fact that all petitioners are BPL, landless and unemployed persons. 3. Smt. Kamla Jain, learned counsel for petitioners, argued that allotment of land to petitioners was made strictly in accordance with Rule 158 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, `the Rules of 1996') by resolution of Gram Sabha dated 26.8.2004; said resolution of the gram sabha mentions the fact that all petitioners are BPL, landless and unemployed persons. Petitioners have established small kiosks over allotted plots and have been earning their livelihood by sale of eatables etc. or otherwise doing small jobs like cycle-repairing etc. It is argued that Additional District Collector erred in law in holding that provisions of Rule 141 to 167 of Rules of 1996 were violated whereas allotment in present case was made under Rule 158, which enables gram panchayat to make allotment of lands not only for residential but also commercial purpose, to members of Scheduled Caste, scavengers, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, village artisans, landless persons dependent on wage labour, IRDP selected families, Handicapped, Nomatic Tribes, Gadia Lohar etc. It is also argued that Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996 is a complete code in itself and it is as per said Rule that allotments have been made. Learned Additional District Collector was therefore wholly unjustified in holding that allotments were null and void. 4. Smt. Kamla Jain further argued that revision petitions were filed much belatedly and it was result of political rivalry between villagers. It is argued that disputed land is still in possession of petitioners, who are running their kiosks on the land. Prior to making allotment of land, a report of committee of panchas was obtained and thereafter objection from general public was called for on 20.11.2004. Learned counsel in this connection drew attention of the court towards proceedings of the gram sabha dated 20.11.2004. Reference was also made to the resolution of standing committee of panchayat samiti dated 26.4.2004 wherein proposal for allotment of eight shops was approved. Block Development Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Itawa, by his letter dated 6.10.2004, communicated permission of panchayat samiti to make allotment in favour of members of Scheduled Caste, scavengers, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, village artisans, landless persons dependent on wage labour, IRDP selected families, Handicapped, Nomatic Tribes, Gadia Lohar etc., on reserved price in terms of resolution No. 3 of standing committee dated 26.8.2004. Gram Panchayat before making allotment duly notified its intention to make such allotment enabling all those interested to apply for allotment. Gram Panchayat also issued a general notice on 2.10.2004 i.e. on the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti with intention to make allotment of small plots in the size of 10' x 11' and 10' x 8' out of land of Khasra No. 1772 inviting objections within a period of thirty days and such notice was affixed at as many as five locations in the vicinity of gram panchayat. It was argued that entire disputed land was covered in khasra No. 1772 and not in any other khasra. Learned Additional District Collector has erred in law in referring to other two khasra numbers in impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners further argued that action to cancel allotment, was initiated on the basis of audit report but in that audit report objection raised was only in respect of seven persons. Objection of audit party was that land was allotted to them on lesser rate than prevalent market rate. That objection is baseless because in the scheme of Section 158 allotment of land to persons of weaker society has to be made on concessional rate. If, however, the respondents insist on charging commercial/market rate, petitio-ners were/are agreeable to pay differential amount to them. Learned counsel invited attention of the court towards verification made by gram panchayat Aayana dated 6.9.2010, which is on record as Annexure-10 to show that petitioners are in actual physical possession of the land. Most of them are BPL, whereas some others are handicapped. Details of land of 13 plots, allotment of which was made out of the land of khasra No. 1772, was given in order to clarify that same was now covered under the abadi land. It is argued that most of these 13 persons were members of BPL whereas one is barber; yet another was said to be running of shop of cycle repairing. Learned counsel argued that sub-sec. (6) of Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996 empowers the gram sabha to make allotment of land for shops also. It was argued that measurement of khasra No. 1772 as per revenue record was 15 bighas, which is equivalent to 2.4 hectare, out of which five bighas was allotted for cattle-fair and remaining land for abadi. (6) of Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996 empowers the gram sabha to make allotment of land for shops also. It was argued that measurement of khasra No. 1772 as per revenue record was 15 bighas, which is equivalent to 2.4 hectare, out of which five bighas was allotted for cattle-fair and remaining land for abadi. Gram Panchayat had given an undertaking to government/ panchayat samiti that land earmarked for cattle fair, shall never be sold. 6. Smt. Kamla Jain, learned counsel, referring to order of Additional District Collector, argued that in most part of the order he has merely reproduced argument of the parties and reproduced the Rules from 141 to 167 of the Rules of 1996.He has summarized his opinion only in last part to hurriedly conclude that allotment of land and issuance of patta was illegal. None of the arguments advanced by petitioners has been considered. It was argued that review petition was also filed by petitioners seeking review of order dated 27.3.2006 but that review was also dismissed by Additional District Collector vide order dated 5.4.2007. In rejecting review petition, Additional District Collector wrongly held that all provisions of Sections 141 to 167 of the Rules of 1996 were violated and that land should have been put to auction at market rate or otherwise sold at market rate. Learned Additional District Collector has thus lost sight of the very object of Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996. All the petitioners are members of BPL and also belong to Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribe and artisan class. Learned revisional court failed to appreciate that revision petition was hopelessly time barred because pattas were issued on 20.12.2004 whereas revision petition was filed in the year 2009. No explanation was given nor any separate application for condonation of delay was filed. According to Section 67, appeal against issuance of patta should have been filed before panchayat samiti within 30 days whereas revision petition in present case was field after more than eight months. 7. In support of her arguments, learned counsel relied on judgments of Supreme Court in Sodan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee- (1989) 4 SCC 155 and Saudan Singh vs. N.D.M.C. - AIR 1992 SC 1153 . It is therefore prayed that writ petition be allowed. 8. 7. In support of her arguments, learned counsel relied on judgments of Supreme Court in Sodan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee- (1989) 4 SCC 155 and Saudan Singh vs. N.D.M.C. - AIR 1992 SC 1153 . It is therefore prayed that writ petition be allowed. 8. Per contra, Shri Jinesh Jain, learned Government Counsel, opposed writ petitions and argued that as per Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996 the land could be allotted only for residential purpose and maximum in the size of 150 square yard. The gram panchayat has no authority to allot land for commercial purpose. This land as per revenue record was entered as `gair-mumkin chowk. Land of public chowk could not be allotted to petitioners for commercial purpose or for any other purpose. Reference in this connection was made to jamabandi of Samvat 2062-65, copy of which is filed with reply of respondent State. Learned counsel in this connection relied on judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Jagpal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others - JT 2011(1) SC 617 = 2011(2) RLW 1389 (SC), and argued that Supreme Court in aforesaid case held that land meant for any use of villagers cannot be allotted to any person and unauthorized possession over the same cannot be permitted to be regularized. Supreme Court in aforesaid case has issued certain general directions. It is argued that according to Rule 162 of the Rules of 1996, the gram panchayat was required to obtain prior permission of zila parishad, even if allotment was to be made for the public purpose viz. running of public school or public gym etc. or even to government institution. It is argued that most of petitioners do not belong to BPL and in fact they are above poverty line. Most of them belong to particular community. Larger public interest has to give way to individual interest and since disputed land was meant for public utility, it could not be allotted to petitioners. 9. Learned counsel for respondent further argued that there is no time limit provided for filing revision petition and even otherwise it has not been filed with enormous delay but within reasonable time of eight months. Revision petition could be entertained even directly without requiring petitioners first to file appeal. 9. Learned counsel for respondent further argued that there is no time limit provided for filing revision petition and even otherwise it has not been filed with enormous delay but within reasonable time of eight months. Revision petition could be entertained even directly without requiring petitioners first to file appeal. In present case, however, it was necessary also because gram sabha and Sarpanch concerned had flouted relevant rules in making the allotments. It was therefore prayed that writ petition be dismissed. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused material on record. 11. In order to appreciate controversy in present case, it would be apposite to reproduce provisions of Rule 158, which is as under:- 158. Allotment of lands to weaker sections.- (1) The Panchayat may allot Abadi land upto 150 sq. yards in village Abadis at concessional rate to members of Scheduled Caste, Scavengers, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Village Artisans, Landless persons dependent on wage labour, Gadia Lohar who do not own house sites/house and also to flood victims whose houses have been washed away or the house sites have been rendered unfit for future habitation due to floods. (2) Rates to be charges from such allottees will be as under: (a) In village having population Rs. 2/- per sqr. Mtr. less than 1000 (1991 census) (b) In villages having population Rs. 5/- per sqr. Mtr. from 1001 to 2000 (1991 census) (c) In villages having population Rs. 10/- per sqr. more than 2000 (1991 census) Mtr. Provided that the State Government may allot such lands free of charge to any such category of persons. (3) Abadi land allotted free of charge shall be non-transferable. A seal in block letters "NOT FOR SALE" shall be affixed on the face of all such Pattas. In case any allottee transfers or sells such house site/house to any other person, allotment shall automatically stand cancelled, ownership shall vest in the Panchayat along with construction or material Lying thereon and transferee will be rejected as trespasser on such Abadi Land. (4) Panchayat may however by a resolution in the meeting, decide to allot such land by negotiation to such trespasser on market price on compassionate grounds. (5) The allottee shall be debarred from any subsequent allotment in future. (4) Panchayat may however by a resolution in the meeting, decide to allot such land by negotiation to such trespasser on market price on compassionate grounds. (5) The allottee shall be debarred from any subsequent allotment in future. (6) Provisions contained in Sub-rule (3), (4) and (5) shall also be applicable for shop sites allotted to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes etc. in Panchayat areas. (7) For allotment of house sites to flood victims at another place/places, the Panchayat concerned shall invite applications from such persons along with an undertaking that in case of allotment of house sites at another place/places, the house sites washed away in flood along with material shall vest in the Panchayat concerned free from all encumbrances. 12. A perusal of aforesaid rules would show that gram panchayat could make allotment of land to members of Schedule Caste, scavengers, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Village artisans, landless persons dependent on wage labour, IDRP selected families, Mandicapped, Nomatic Tribes Gadia Lohar etc. Such allotment can be made on concessional rate. State Government, however, has the power to make allotment free of charge also. The land so allotted is non-transferable. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 158 provides that sub-rules (3), (4) and (5) of this Rule shall also be applicable for shop sites allotted to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes etc. in Panchayat areas. 13. A perusal of order passed by Additional District Collector, Kota, shows that though in his order he has reproduced Rules 140, 143 to 150, 152, 154 to 156, 158, 159, 162 and 167, however, in conclusive part of the order, he has merely recorded a finding of general in nature that the rules have been violated but no such specific reason has been given as to which of said Rules was violated. He has further held that easementary rights of villagers have not been taken care of and that according to audit report, the land has been sold at lesser than the market rate, thus causing loss to revenue of the gram panchayat. The plots were not sold by way of auction. In spite of the fact that plots were allotted for commercial use, its premium was charged of residential land and that the land out of which commercial plots were allotted was not an abadi land but the government land. 14. The plots were not sold by way of auction. In spite of the fact that plots were allotted for commercial use, its premium was charged of residential land and that the land out of which commercial plots were allotted was not an abadi land but the government land. 14. Additional District Collector has not analysed and examined arguments raised by petitioners, namely, (i) that a part of the land of relevant khasra, out of disputed land, was allotted to BSNL, which land, on request of BSNL itself, became available for allotment; (ii) that this land was not allotted to Public Works Department for construction of road and (iii) that it was not allotted to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. It was also not examined that some of petitioners were said to be in possession of the land for a long period and according to sub-rule (4) of Rule 158, allotment of land to such persons could be made by negotiation. Auction may not be only mode of disposal of land under the Rules of 1996 and especially when such allotment is made under Rule 158. This rule however has two riders; one is that plot size should not exceed 150 square meters, and second is that such allotment has to be made to members of Schedule Caste, scavengers, Scheduled Tribes; Backward Classes, village artisans, landless persons dependent on wage labour, IDRP selected families, Handicapped, Nomatic Tribes, Gadia Lohar etc. The allotment that is made under Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996 need not be always for residential purpose but also can be for shops site in terms of sub-rule (6) thereof. Scope of enquiry therefore was to find out whether any one or more of the conditions of Rule 158 has/have been violated. 15. Petitioners have also cited another order passed by Additional District Collector, Kota, dated 12.8.2002, whereby revision petition filed by gram panchayat Aayana, challenging similar allotment, was dismissed. In that order it has been mentioned that five bigha land, out of total 15 bigha land of khasra No. 1772, has been kept reserved for cattle fair. Petitioners even filed review petition raising these arguments but same was rejected. 16. In that order it has been mentioned that five bigha land, out of total 15 bigha land of khasra No. 1772, has been kept reserved for cattle fair. Petitioners even filed review petition raising these arguments but same was rejected. 16. Contention that land of public chowk also needs to be examined in light of fact that in `jamabandi' of Samvat 2062-65, although land has been recorded as gair-mumkin chowk, but what is the significance of words "nivas and vas" and "not for grazing of cattle", has also not been analyzed. Matters are therefore required to be reconsidered by the revisional authority on remand, if necessary, by making an enquiry on the spot, either by himself or any of its subordinate officer not below the rank of Tehsildar. 17. In view of above discussions, the orders dated 27.3.2006 in revision petition and dated 5.4.2007 in review petition are quashed and set-aside. All matters are remanded to Additional District Collector, Kota, who shall satisfy himself as to compliance of Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996 and shall examine other arguments in the light of discussions made above on case to case basis and pass fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, accordingly. 18. Writ petitions are accordingly allowed in part.