JUDGMENT 1. - This petition for writ is preferred to challenge the order dated 25.1.2011 (Annex.11) passed by the Addl. Collector, Nohar, District Hanumangarh while exercising powers under Section 97 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the Gram Panchayat concerned allotted a piece of land to the petitioner under a 'patta' dated 22.2.1988. Shri Amar Singh, a private respondent by way of filing an appeal challenged validity of the same. The appeal came to be accepted on the count that the land was allotted to the petitioner without adhering the mandatory provisions of Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, that came to be dismissed on 25.1.2011. The learned revisional authority after hearing counsel for the parties gave a definite finding in the terms that the 'patta' dated 22.2.1988 was issued without having authority of law and also by making inter-polation in the official records. The learned revisional authority after hearing counsel for the parties gave a definite finding in the terms that the 'patta' dated 22.2.1988 was issued without having authority of law and also by making inter-polation in the official records. The relevant consideration made by the learned revisional court reads thus : " fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k mHk; i{k dh cgl ij euu fd;k x;kA izLrqr nLrkostkr ,oa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh dk v/;;u fd;k x;kA Jh Hkwjkjke iq= gjn;kyflag tkfr tkV lk0 Hkkstlj ds uke ls fely ua0 45 fnukad 22-2-1988 dks iV~Vk tkjh fd;k x;k gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa fely la0 45 Hkwjkjke ds uke ds iV~Vksa dh nks QkVksa izfr layXu gS ftlesa iV~Vk ua0 dk mYys[k ugha gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ds i`"B la0 9 ij layXu Hkwjkjke iq= gjn;ky tkV ds uke tkjh iV~Vs dh vizekf.kr QksVksa izfr esa jlhn la o fnukad ds vkxs dkaV NkaV dh gqbZ gSA nwljh QksVksizfr i`"B la0 15 esa Hkwjkjke iq= gjn;ky tkfr tkV lkfdu pdz Hkkstklj fy[kk gqvk gS rFkk jlhn la0 67 fnukad 22-2-1988 jkf'k :0 300@& tek gSA iV~Vksa dh iqLr ij Hkh ,d:irk ugha gSA i`"B la0 9 dh QksVksa izfr ij t;izdk'k ds gLrk{kj gSa ,oa i`"B la0 15 dh QksVksizfr ij xksiky o t;izdk'k nksuksa ds gLrk{kj gSaA nwljh iqLr ij tehu ds iM+kslh ds uhps d ds vkxs pd Hkkstklj fy[kdj mls dkVk tkdj vkxs chM Hkknjk fy[kk x;k gSA ftllsa ;g izdV gksrk gS fd ,d gh fnu esa ,d gh O;fDr ds uke nks iV~Vs tkjh fd;s x;s gSaA ftuesa fHkUurk gSA xzke iapk;r }kjk iapk;rh jkt vf/kfu;e] 1994 dh /kkjk 140 ls 156 rd dh ikyuk ugha dh x;h gSA mDr iV~Vksa ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ fjdkMZ iapk;r dk;kZy; esa miyC/k ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ }kjk Hkh iV~Vs dh ewy izfr o izekf.kr izfr U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugha dh gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj iV~Vs dh ewy izfr izkFkhZ ds ikl ugha gS] bl izdkj iV~Vksa dh mDr QksVksa izfr;ka izekf.kd o fof/k vuqlkj lgh ugha ekuh tk ldrhA vr% mDr iV~Vs lansgkLin izrhr gksrs gSaA " 4. The revisional authority also found that the land inquestion was also never in the possession of respondent Amar Singh and is a Government property. The revisional authority also found that the land inquestion was also never in the possession of respondent Amar Singh and is a Government property. The findings given by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority are pure finding of facts and does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is, therefore, dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******