JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 30.04.2010 as passed by the Additional Collector, Bhilwara in Revision Petition No.47/2009 filed under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. 2. The revisionist (respondent No.2 herein) stated the facts and grievance essentially in the manner that Gram Panchayat Thadoda had allegedly issued patta dated 04.04.1973 in favour for the non-applicants Nos.1 to 4 and then, by the impugned site plan dated 06.07.2009 the Gram Panchayat proceeded to set the said patta on an agriculture land belonging to the revisionist and located alongside the four lane highway. 3. The learned Additional Collector has noticed the submissions on behalf of the revisionist that he was not as such aggrieved of the patta in question but the plan prepared by the Panchayat on 06.07.2009, whereby this patta was attempted to be set on a place 28 feet inside the road was not correct because his khatedari land was situated at the relevant place adjoining the road. 4. 4. The learned Additional Collector has referred to the record and observed as under:- " izdj.k esa miyC/k ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 145 fu.kZ; fnukad 02-09-1981 okds xzke u;kxkao ls ;g rF; HkfyHkkafr :i ls izdV gksrk gS fd [kljk uEcj 897 esa ls 1 fcLok Hkwfe Hkou, oa iaFk fuekZ.k foHkkx ( ih0MCyw0Mh0 ) ds i{k esa vokIr gksus ls [kkrsnkj ds [kkrs esa mDr foHkkx ds uke jktLo vfHkys[k esa ifjofrZr fd;k x;k gS rFkk tekcUnh laor~ 2061 ls 2064 [kkrk uEcj 341 esa fd;s x;s bUnzkt ls [kljk uEcj 897@1 jdck 0-02 ch?kk o [kkrk uEcj 252 vkjkth uEcj 897 jdck 0-04 ch?kk Hkwfe jktLo vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj fuxjkdkj ds [kkrs esa vfHkfyf[kr gSA jktLo vfHkys[k ls ;g rF; fufoZokn gS fd [kljk uEcj 897 fuxjkdkj ds [kkrs dh Hkwfe xS0eq0 ckM+s ds :i esa vfHkfyf[kr gS vkSj vkjkth Hkw&Hkkx ls ,d fcLok Hkwfe jksM ds fy;s vokIr djus ls ;g rF; Hkh Li"V gS fd mDr vkjkth Hkw&Hkkx jksM ls lVk gqvk Hkw&Hkkx gSA tc [kkrsnkj dh Hkwfe jksM+ ls lVh gqbZ gS] rks ml ifjfLFkfr esa jksM+ ls 28 QhV nwjh ij jksM+ o [kkrsnkj dh Hkwfe ds e/; vf/kuLFk xzke iapk;r }kjk fnukad 06-07-2009 dks xzke iapk;r FkM+kSnk }kjk fnukad 04-04-1973 dks tkjh fd;s x;s iV~Vk dzekad 51 ds vk/kkj ij LFkkfir uD'ks dks fof/k ekU; gksuk fo'ouh; ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa fuxjkdkj dh vksj ls izLrqr fuxjkuh Lohdkj ;ksX; Bgjkrs gq;s izdj.k fodkl vf/kdkjh iapk;r lfefr] ek.Myx<+ dks fjek.M ;ksX; Bgjk;k tkrk gSA " 5. In view of the aforesaid findings, the learned Additional Collector has proceeded to accept the revision petition in the manner that the proceedings prepared by the Gram Panchayat on 06.07.2009 on the basis of patta dated 04.04.1973, have been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Panchayat Samiti with the directions that the matter be examined with reference to the alleged patta in favour of the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 4 and the situation at site and then, the order afresh be passed. 1 to 4 and the situation at site and then, the order afresh be passed. The learned Additional Collector has directed as under:- " fuxjkdj dh vksj ls izLrqr fuxjkuh iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e 1994/kkjk 97 ds vUrxZr okds xzke ekyhiqjk rg0 fctkSfy;k fo:) vkns'k xzke iapk;r FkMkSnk izdj.k la[;k 72 laor~ 2022 fnukad 07-08-1965 ckih iV~Vk dzekad 51 fnukad 04-04-1973 ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 06-07-2009 dks vf/kuLFk xzke iapk;r }kjk rS;kj fd;k x;k iV~Vk o uD'kk vikLr djrs gq;s izdj.k fodkl vf/kdkjh iapk;r lfefr e.Myx<+ dks bu funsZ'kksa ds lkFk fjek.M fd;k tkrk gS fd bl laca/k esa vf/kuLFk xzke iapk;r }kjk o"kZ 1965 esa xksnw firk ukFkw ekyh e'rd ftlds dkuwuh okfjlku foi{kh la[;k 1 ls 4 gS] muds i{k esa rFkkdfFkr iV~Vs ds vuqlkj fookfnr LFky ds laca/k esa ;g ijh{k.k fd;k tkos fd vk;k iz'uxr Hkw&[k.M rRle; ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj jksM ckm.M~h dh Hkwfe gS vFkok iapk;r dh vkcknh Hkwfe esaA bu rF;ksa ij foLr'r :i ls ijh{k.k dj ckn lquokbZ i{kdkjku ds xq.kkoxq.kksa ij vtfljs uo fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkosA vkns'k ds izfr vf/kuLFk xzke iapk;r FkM+kSnk o fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr fodkl vf/kdkjh iapk;r lfefr] e.Myx<+ dks ikyukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA " 6. Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that even when the patta was not questioned by the revisionist, the Collector has been in error in quashing the said patta dated 04.04.1973. The argument appears to be misconceived. 7. The observations and directions as reproduced above make it clear that the learned Additional Collector has not as such set aside the patta dated 04.04.1973 but has, of course, set aside the proceedings drawn by the Gram Panchayat on 06.07.2009 essentially for the reason that the place as sought to be asserted by the Panchayat was, prima facie, found to be contradicting the revenue record and the situation at site. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the learned Collector has considered it proper to remand the matter to the Panchayat Samiti for due examination of the record and the site and then for passing of the order afresh. 8. The directions as issued by the learned Additional Collector, particularly in view of the obtaining dispute, cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error. 9. The petition, therefore, stands rejected.Petition Dismissed. *******