Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing impugned order dated 19.12.2011 (Annex. 9) passed by the District Collector, Barmer upon revision petition filed by one Poonam Singh under Section 97, Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, by which, patta No. 140/04 issued on 20.10.2004 in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the District Collector for quashing patta is totally illegal because the patta was issued in favour of the petitioner upon old possession on the land in question after following procedure under Rules 145 to 148 of the Rules of 1996. The District Collector, Barmer did not examine the report of the Panchayat which is prepared before regularizing the plot of the petitioner. 3. Main contention of the petitioner is that the committee of the Gram Panchayat, Shiv inspected the site and found that the petitioner's possession is old possession and the patta has been issued after due satisfaction with regard to possession of the petitioner, therefore, the District Collector, Barmer illegally quashed the patta issued in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 4. In this writ petition, it is also pleaded that respondent No. 3 filed revision petition with malafide intention because some litigation is going on in between petitioner and respondent No. 3 but the District Collector even upon talking the above ground and objections did not consider the same and found that patta was wrongly issued in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the order impugned may be quashed and patta issued in favour of the petitioner may be restored. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused all the annexures annexed with the writ petition. 6. Admittedly, patta has been issued under Section 157 of the Rules of 1996, Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 reads as under; "Rule 157. Regularisation of old houses; Where the persons are in possession of the old house in Abadi Land and desire to get a patta issued, patta may be issued by the panchayat after depositing charges as under; (a) For old houses constructed more Rs. 100/- than fifty years ago. (b) For old houses constructed Rs. 200/- during last fifty years from the date of commencement of these Rules. 100/- than fifty years ago. (b) For old houses constructed Rs. 200/- during last fifty years from the date of commencement of these Rules. Provided that no fees shall be charged under Clause (a) and only 10% fees shall be charged under Clause (b) from the families included in the list of below poverty line." Upon perusal of the above provision it is abundantly clear that as per above provision patta can be issued for regularisation of constructed house; but, admittedly, application Annex. 1 was filed by the petitioner for regularising his possession upon the plot. Application Annex. 1 is as follows: ^^egksn;th] mijksDr fo"k; vtZ gS fd eSa euksgj flag D/o cyoUr flag dkse jko.kk jktiwr lkfdu f'ko okys dk esjk dCtk lqnk IyksV ;g esjk IyksV lkyksa ls iwoZtksa dk dCtk gSA mDr IyksV dk eSa xzke iapk;r f'ko ls iV~Vk ysuk pkgrk gwaA ftldk fu;ekuqlkj 'kqYd vnk dj nwaxkA mDr IyksV dk uD'kk Hkh izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk layXu gSA vr% vkils esjk fuosnu gS fd fu;ekuqlkj esjs IyksV dk iV~Vk fnyokus dh d`ik djsaA** 7. I have perused the other documents also including Annex. 4 dated 5.9.2006 which compensation was awarded to the affected families of Patwar Mandal Shiv whose houses were damaged in flood. The petitioner is claiming that by that order also he was paid compensation and his name is at S.No. 20. It appears from perusal of Annex. 4 that name of the petitioner's father is mentioned whereas as per the petitioner patta was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 2004. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that patta was rightly issued in his favour according to the rules. 8. As per Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 patta be issued upon consideration of Rs. 200 if any constructed house is there but, in the application itself, the petitioner has stated that he is seeking regularization of his possession upon the plot, therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner's case is not covered under Rule 157 (b) because Rule 157 is incorporated to regularize the old house and not plot. In this view of the matter, on case is made out for interference. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.