JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that Gram Panchayat, without making compliance of Rules 156, 157 and 158 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, has issued an illegal patta in favour of respondents no.3 and 4, who neither belong to Scheduled Caste, Scavengers, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Village Artisans nor are landless persons. Respondents no.3 and 4 are Mahajan by caste, whereas patta has been issued in their favour with stipulation that presently petitioner was in possession of the same and, as and when his possession would be removed they would be entitled to take possession of the land . This patta has been issued on analogy that land has been treated to be strip of land situated opposite their house whereas petitioner who is member of scheduled caste remained in possession of this land for last several years. Learned counsel invited attention of the court towards the patta and argued that patta is full of over-writings and inaccuracies. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner was earlier allotted survey number of this very land on 16.02.1994, which proves that he was in possession of this land even before 1994. There was then no question of issuing patta in favour of respondents in 1998. Respondent District Collector has erred in law in dismissing revision petition without considering any of his arguments. According to learned counsel, vacant possession of the land with Gram Panchayat is prerequisite condition for allotment of land and issue of patta. In this case admittedly when stipulation made in the patta that land was in possession of the petitioner, this land could not have been treated as land available for allotment. 3. Shri Jinesh Jain, learned Government Counsel, opposed the writ petition and submitted that order passed by Gram Panchayat and District Collector are perfectly valid and do not call for any interference. 4. Perusal of impugned orders and the manner in which allotment has been made in favour of respondents no.3 and 4, clearly show that there has been a flagrant violation of Rule 158 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. If land was already in possession of petitioner, no patta could be issued with stipulation that as and when possession of the petitioner is removed, the allottee would be entitled to take possession of the same. If land was already in possession of petitioner, no patta could be issued with stipulation that as and when possession of the petitioner is removed, the allottee would be entitled to take possession of the same. Such a conditional patta as per the scheme of the Rules of 1996 could not have been issued. 5. Learned District Collector, in my considered opinion, has erred in law in not considering the factual aspects as well as legal aspects of the matter. Writ petition deserves to be allowed. The order passed by District Collector is set aside and consequently the patta Annexure-3 issued in favour of respondents no.3 and 4 are also quashed and set aside. Petitioner is declared entitled to retain possession of the land and apply for patta to Gram Panchayat in accordance with law on the basis of his possession.Writ petition stands allowed.Writ Petition Allowed. *******