JUDGMENT 1. - The Gram Panchayat, Dalot allotted a piece of land to the petitioner by granting a patta dated 3.3.2009. The allotment aforesaid was questioned by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Arnod by way of filing a revision petition before the Collector, Pratapgarh. The Collector vide the order impugned dated 24.8.2011 accepted the revision petition and set aside the patta granted to the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. 2. The submission of learned counsel is that the Collector accepted the revision petition with a conclusion that before making allotment no procedure as required was adhered but no reason to arrive at the conclusion is prescribed. The argument advanced is substantiated by the judgments of this Court in Laxman Singh v. State & Ors. Gordhan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2005 (3) WLC (Raj.) 103 and Durga Devi v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2006 WLC (Raj) UC 552. 3. Examined the order impugned in light of the argument advanced. 4. The Collector while accepting the revision petition preferred by the Vikas Adhikari examined entire record including the proceedings of Gram Panchayat. On such examination the Collector found glaring irregularities in the allotment of land. 3. Examined the order impugned in light of the argument advanced. 4. The Collector while accepting the revision petition preferred by the Vikas Adhikari examined entire record including the proceedings of Gram Panchayat. On such examination the Collector found glaring irregularities in the allotment of land. The relevant portion of the order impugned reads as under:- " y{ke.kflag firk HkS:flag ds izkFkZuk i= esa fnukad dk vadu ugha gS rFkk 100 oxZxt Hkwfe dh dher jkf'k 7500@& olwy dh xbZ gSA fdUrq mDr jkf'k dh x.kuk fj;k;rh nj vFkok uhykeh esa mi iath;d }kjk fu/kkZfjr njksa ij dh xbZ gSA] dk vHkko gSA blds lkFk gh fujh{k.k fjiksVZ iapx.k esa fujh{k.k dh fnukad vafdr ugha gSA fu;e 158 esa detksj oxksZa dks vkoaVu dk izko/kku gSa rFkk fu;e 150] 151] ,oa 152 esa uhykeh ds izko/kkuksa dks ifjHkkf"kr fd;k x;k gSA fely esa vkoafV ds detksj oxZ esa vkus dk dksbZ lk{; miyC/k ugha gSA ;fn mDr Hkw[k.M uhykeh esa Lohd`r cksyh esa tkjh fd;k x;k gS rks fu;e 150] 151] rFkk 152 dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZ gSA lEHkor;k iapk;r us fu;e 154 ( 3 ) ls cpus ds fy, ek= 7500@& esa Hkw[k.M dk iV~Vk 7500@& esa tkjh fd;k tkuk lafnX/k izrhr gksrk gSA vafdr firk fouksn dqekj tSu dks fu;e 156 ds [k.M ( d ) ( [k ) ( x ) esa of.kZr izko/kkukuqlkj vkilh ckrphr ds ek/;e ls Hkw[k.M dk iV~Vk :i;s 7500@& esa tkjh fd;k x;k gSA fdUrq :i;s 7500@& fu;e 156 ( 2 ) esa of.kZr izko/kkukuqlkj gS vFkok ugha] dk lk{; fely esa miyC/k ugha gSA fujh{k.k QnZ esa vkKk dh rkjh[k vafdr ugha gksdj] ,d gh iap ds gLrk{kj gSa] 'ks"k 02 iapksa ds gLrk{kj ekStwn ugha gSA fely esa izR;sd dk;Zokgh esa vafdr fnukad esa dkaV&NkaV dh xbZ gSA " 5. The Collector also noticed that the entire process of allotment was made in wholesome violation of the Rules applicable. The Collector also noticed that the entire process of allotment was made in wholesome violation of the Rules applicable. The finding given in this regard also deserves to be quoted and i.e.:- " 9& fu;e 145 ( 1 ) ds vuqlkj dksbZ Hkh O;fDr xzke iapk;r ls vkcknh Hkwfe@NqVk gqvk Hkw[k.M ;k Hkwfe dh iV~Vh [kjhnuk dk bPNqd gks rks mls iapk;r dks fyf[kr vkosnu i= ,slk fooj.k nsrs gq, djsxk] tks dz; ds fy, izLrkfor Hkwfe dh igpku gsrq i;kZIr gksaA fdUrq gLrxt fuxjkfu;ksa ds vUrxZr fdlh Hkh foi{kh la[;k 03 us fu;e 145 ( 1 ) ds rgr vkosnu i= fu/kkZfjr izi= esa izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA fu;e 145 ( 2 ) ds rgr vkosnu i= ds lkFk LFky fujh{k.k ds O;;ksa ds isVs iPphl :i;s tek djokuk vko';d gSA foi{kh la[;k 03 dh vksj ls ,slh dksbZ Hkh jkf'k LFky fujh{k.k ds O;;ksa ds isVs tek ugha djokbZ xbZ gSA fu;e 145 ( 3 ) ds rgr vkosnudrkZ dks vkosnu ds lkFk LFky uD'kk layXu ugha djus ij uD'kk rS;kjh dh rS;kjh gsrq 25@& :i;s tek djok, tkus gksrs gSaA bl izdkj ds ekeyksa esa lfpo vkosnd dh mifLFkfr esa LFky fujh{k.k djus ds i'pkr~ uD'kk rS;kj djrk gSA foi{kh la[;k 03 dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu i= ds lkFk uD'kk layXu ugha ik;k x;kA uD'kk fodz; foys[k esa Nis & Nik;s izi= vafdr fd;k x;k gSA iV~Vk tkjh djus ds iwoZ lfpo }kjk izLrkfor LFkyksa dk fujh{k.k dj uD'kk rS;kj fd;k tkrk gS] tks lfpo us rS;kj ugha fd;k gSA vkosnudrkZ us mDr dk;Z ds iz;kstukFkZ rRlEcU/kh visf{kr jkf'k tek dh gks] bldk dksbZ lk{; i=koyh esa miyC/k ugha gSA " 6. In view of the consideration made by the Collector as quoted above, it is apparent that the conclusion of the Collector is supported with adequate reasons. As such, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel are having no application in present controversy. In the case of Durga Devi (supra) the Collector arrived at a conclusion without any reason and also without considering the report of Tehsildar, that was called by him to determine the issue. Similarly, in the case of Gordhan (supra) the inquiry made which was foundation for cancellation of pattas was in contravention of the admitted facts. 7. In the case of Durga Devi (supra) the Collector arrived at a conclusion without any reason and also without considering the report of Tehsildar, that was called by him to determine the issue. Similarly, in the case of Gordhan (supra) the inquiry made which was foundation for cancellation of pattas was in contravention of the admitted facts. 7. As already stated earlier, in the case in hand the Collector minutely examined the facts and then arrived at a definite conclusion by providing sufficient reasons. The order impugned neither suffers from any error of law nor from any error of fact and as such no interference is called for while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Laxman Singh v. State & Ors. 8. The petition for writ, thus, is dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******