Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order of the Additional District Collector, Sikar dated 17.7.2009. The Additional Collector by the aforesaid order has allowed the revision petition filed by respondent no.2 Rampal. The respondent no.2 had filed the revision petition against the patta dated 26.12.04 issued by the Gram Panchayat Malikpur, Tehsil, Srimadhopur in favour of petitioner Prabhati Lal. This revision petition was earlier dismissed by order of Additional Collector dated 28.9.03. Respondent no.2 thereupon approached this Court by filing writ petition no.9092/05. Argument of respondent no.2 Rampal before this Court was that his revision petition has been dismissed only on the ground that the record relating to allotment of this very land made in his favour by patta dated 28.11.82 was not available in the Gram Panchayat, nor such record was produced by the Gram Panchayat. However, in reply to writ petition filed before this Court in the writ petition, Gram Panchayat admitted that allotment was in fact made in favour of respondent no.2 Rampal, who was petitioner in that writ petition and the resolution of Gram Panchayat to that effect was also produced with the reply. This Court, in that context observed that there appears to be some misrepresentation on behalf of the Gram Panchayat at the time of disposal of the revision petition filed by the petitioner i.e. the respondent no.2 herein. This Court therefore remanded the matter back to the District Collector to make thorough inquiry in regard to issuance of patta in favour of respondent no.2 and subsequent patta in favour of petitioner after calling entire record and pass fresh order with regard to allotment of land to either party. It was observed that if there was any misrepresentation or concealment by the concerned authorities of the Gram Panchayat or the concerned officer, necessary disciplinary action may be taken against them by the District Collector after making property enquiry. It is thereafter that the Additional Collector has passed the impugned order dated 17.7.09 cancelling the patta subsequently issued in favour of petitioner on 26.12.04. 2. Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that patta in the land of dispute could not have been issued to respondent no.2 by Gram Panchayat on 28.11.1982 because mutation of this land was attested in favour of Gram Panchayat much later on 11.2.1990. 2. Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that patta in the land of dispute could not have been issued to respondent no.2 by Gram Panchayat on 28.11.1982 because mutation of this land was attested in favour of Gram Panchayat much later on 11.2.1990. The relevant certified copy of the mutation register is at Annexure-1. Learned counsel also referred to Annexure-4, application of respondent no.2 dated 28.11.1982 to argue that the respondent no.2 had made application for allotment of land on 28.11.82 and on that very day entire proceedings were completed and the patta was illegally issued in his favour. Learned counsel even suggested that the land for which patta has been issued to the petitioner, in fact, is not the same land for which the patta was earlier issued to respondent no.2. No proper enquiry in regard to this issue has been made by the Additional District Collector. 3. Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel submitted that record of Gram Panchayat reveals that patta was issued in favour of respondent no.2 Rampal after charging fees on 23.9.1982, whereas in the earlier order dated 28.9.05 dismissing the revision petition, the Additional Collector observed that requisite fee was deposited on 8.9.1985. If that was true, how patta could be issued on 28.11.82? This clearly goes to show that patta has been illegally issued in favour of respondent no.2. No new material was produced before the Additional Collector, therefore, he could not have taken a different view than the one expressed in the previous order. It is argued that petitioner has been in possession of the land for a long time. This land being a sevai chak land, the old possession of the petitioner has been regularised by granting patta on consideration of the fact that he is imparting education to the children of the village. Mere fact that the petitioner is permanent native of another village would not be a reason not to grant him land in village Malikpur because petitioner has paid premium for purchase of such land. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 4. Per contra, Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 opposed the writ petition and submitted that when the earlier revision petition was filed by respondent no.2 before Additional District Collector, all the records were withheld and not produced before him by the Gram Panchayat. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 4. Per contra, Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 opposed the writ petition and submitted that when the earlier revision petition was filed by respondent no.2 before Additional District Collector, all the records were withheld and not produced before him by the Gram Panchayat. In fact, the patta was issued in the name of petitioner surreptitiously by the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Shri Bhinwa Ram on 26.11.04 when the fresh elections were round the corner and in fact election to the office of Gram Panchayat took place within a month thereof in January, 05. It is argued that in the patta issued to the petitioner wrong demarcation of boundaries was mentioned and prescribed procedure was completely violated. Initially the proposal was made for allotting the plot in the size of 60 feet x 60 feet but patta was issued in the size of 80 feet x 80 feet bearing patta no.680. Another patta being no.681 was then by way of afterthought issued as per the original proposal of the size of 60 feet x 60 feet, but subsequently it was cancelled. It is argued that petitioner does not belong to village Malikpur. He is permanent native of village Gyanpura. His ration card and report of Patwari of that village along with affidavit was produced before the learned revisonal authority. 5. Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel refuted the argument of the petitioner that this land was not available to Gram Panchayat in 1982 when patta was issued to respondent no.2. In fact, the land bearing old khara no.235, 327 and 306/49 was allotted to the Gram Panchayat by order of the District Collector dated 30.11.1981 for extension of abadi. Premium was deposited by the Gram Panchayat with the state treasury on 13.4.1982. It is this land out of which the disputed patta was issued to the petitioner. Possession of the respondent no.2 in the disputed land was from the time when his late father Shri Mahabux who actually was occupying this land and on application of respondent no.2 the Gram Panchayat after following due process of law, calling objections and preparing the Mauka report, alloted the land in question to father of respondent no.2 on 28.11.1982. Possession of the respondent no.2 in the disputed land was from the time when his late father Shri Mahabux who actually was occupying this land and on application of respondent no.2 the Gram Panchayat after following due process of law, calling objections and preparing the Mauka report, alloted the land in question to father of respondent no.2 on 28.11.1982. Proceeding to that effect was transacted in the records of the Gram Panchayat as per Rule 266(2) of Rajasthan Panchayat Rules. When the petitioner forceably sought to take possession of the land from respondent no.2, he had to file suit of injunction before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Srimadhopur for injunction, which injunction was granted in his favour. The order passed by the Additional Collector is perfectly legal and valid and does not suffer from any error as may be described as error apparent on the face of record so as to justify interference by this Court. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the core issue that is required to be decided in this petition is whether the patta issued in favour of petitioner could have been illegally issued or not? Finding that was recorded by the learned Additional District Collector on remand by this Court is that this patta pertain to the very same land for which earlier patta was issued in favour of father of respondent no.2 on 28.11.1982. The learned Additional District Collector has also held that there is no date indicated in the record as to when the mauka report was prepared at the time of allotment of land to the petitioner. No notice of such allotment was given to respondent no.2. Patta has been subsequently issued in favour of the petitioner with regard to very same land for which patta was already issued in favour of respondent no.2. Before recording such a finding, the learned Additional District Collector has examined records of the Gram Panchayat, Malikpur. Respondent no.2 has also sufficiently proved before this Court that Gram Panchayat was allotted this land by District Collector which deposited the premium with the state treasury. Order of the District Collector dated 30.12.1981 to this effect is on record. Before recording such a finding, the learned Additional District Collector has examined records of the Gram Panchayat, Malikpur. Respondent no.2 has also sufficiently proved before this Court that Gram Panchayat was allotted this land by District Collector which deposited the premium with the state treasury. Order of the District Collector dated 30.12.1981 to this effect is on record. Mere fact that land was mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat at later point of time would not make any difference because the land was basically alloted for extension of the abadi. 7. Curiously, the petitioner has sought to justify issuance of patta in his favour on the plea that in fact allotment of patta in favour of respondent no.2 / his father itself was not legal. It is nobody's case that patta issued to respondent no.2 was ever challenged by anybody before any legal forum known to law. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that this Court while remanding the matter to the Additional District Collector also directed him to make enquiry with regard validity of earlier patta issued to the respondent no.2, while examining correctness of subsequent patta issued to petitioner, after calling entire record. In my view, that judgement has to be read in totality and the aforesaid direction is preceded by the observation that their appears to be some misrepresentation by the Gram Panchayat before Additional Collector at the time of disposal of revision petition. That was so because no record was produced by Gram Panchayat before the Additional Collector. However, in that writ petition, reply was filed by Gram Panchayat wherein it was admitted that allotment was in fact made in favour of respondent no.2 way back in 1982 and resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat was also produced along with reply. It is in that context that this Court directed the District Collector to make thorough enquiry while remanding the matter whether or not there was any misrepresentation or concealment by the concerned authorities of the Gram Panchayat or the concerned officer and if so necessary disciplinary action be ordered. Aforesaid direction of this Court to District Collector to make enquiry about the issuance of earlier patta in favour of respondent herein was not a primary issue. Aforesaid direction of this Court to District Collector to make enquiry about the issuance of earlier patta in favour of respondent herein was not a primary issue. It was only for that limited purpose of finding out whether or not such patta was actually issued to the respondent herein and therefore this was merely a secondary issue to be determined only as a question of fact but the primary issue before this Court even now and before the Collector on remand was with regard to validity of the patta issued in favour of petitioner. Thus it is clear that misrepresentation was made by those authorities when the revision petition was earlier decided by the Additional District Collector. 8. In my considered view, impugned order passed by the Additional Collector does not suffer from any legal error, much less any such error apparent on the face of record, as may justify interference by this Court in its limited scope of writ of certiorari under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. This writ petition is therefore dismissed.