Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing order passed by the Addl. Collector, Deedwana (District Nagaur) dated 26.08.2010 (Annex.-12) and order of the Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City, dated 13.11.2009 (Annex.-10) and prayed that order of the Panchayat Samiti dated 10.06.2002 (Annex.-3) may be restored and the respondents may be restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioner in the garb of patta Annex.-1 and order of the Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City dated 13.11.2009. 2. As per facts of the case, the petitioner is claiming that she is in possession of plot which is situated in the abadi land of ward No.7 of village Ugarpura Tehsil Kuchaman City (District Nagaur) where she is residing with her adopted son from last 60 years. The age of the petitioner is 80 years and as per pleading she is illiterate poor lady earning her livelihood being agriculture labour. 3. It is submitted that in the 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku 2001Gram Panchayat, Ugarpura issued patta free of cost of the land measuring 2411 Sq Yds for school without following the procedure laid down under Rules 145 to 149 and Rule 162 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. Against said patta, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City, in which, the Panchayat Samiti inspected the site on 28.05.2002 and, after hearing, the Standing Committee allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and patta issued by Gram Panchayat Ugarpura on 09.10.2001 was set aside vide order dated 10.06.2002. The Standing Committee observed that patta has been issued without following the mandatory provisions of the rules and ignoring the fact that petitioner is in possession from last many years. 4. Respondent No.3 School preferred revision against the order dated 10.06.2002 passed by the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City before the Addl. Collector, Deedwana. The revision filed by the school was rejected as withdrawn on 29.07.2002. After withdrawal of the revision by the School, local residents respondent No.5 Nathu Ram and 3 other persons filed suit for cancellation of patta, in which, application for temporary injunction filed by respondent No.5 was rejected by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Parbatsar vide order dated 06.01.2004 while holding that no prima facie case is made out in favour of the applicants. 5. Dn.), Parbatsar vide order dated 06.01.2004 while holding that no prima facie case is made out in favour of the applicants. 5. In the year 2007, the Head Master of the school and other authorities tried to dispossess the petitioner and her son forcibly from the plot in question, in the event, the adopted son of the petitioner Bhuwana Ram filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Parbatsar and, along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed, in which, the Court appointed a commissioner on 26.10.2007 to submit his report in the Court on 27.10.2007. A review petition was filed by respondent No.5 Natthu Ram against the order dated 10.06.2002 before the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City on 15.06.2009 on the ground that patta was issued in the 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku in presence of all the authorities of the State administration, therefore, no jurisdiction is left with the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City to set aside the patta. As per allegation Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City, without registering and granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the review petition, accepted the same vide order dated 30.11.2009 whereby the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City set aside the order dated 10.06.2002 while holding that there was no jurisdiction left with the Panchayat Samiti to set aside the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat in the 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku. 6. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the order of the Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City dated 30.11.2009 passed upon the review petition before the Addl. Collector, Deedwana. The Addl. Collector, Deedwana rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 26.08.2010 in which it is held that order of the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City dated 10.06.2002 whereby the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat Ugarpura in the revenue campaign ('iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku) in presence of the Addl. Collector, Nawa who approved the patta in the name of the school for allotment free of cost was set aside was totally without jurisdiction. The review petition was filed by respondent No.5 as President of the “Abhibhawak Sangh”, Ugarpura; but, in fact, he was not President of the “Abhibhawak Sangh” but the Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City entertained his review petition illegally. 7. The review petition was filed by respondent No.5 as President of the “Abhibhawak Sangh”, Ugarpura; but, in fact, he was not President of the “Abhibhawak Sangh” but the Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City entertained his review petition illegally. 7. In the writ petition, it is also pleaded that some villagers of Kuchaman City wrote a letter to the Gram Panchayat Ugarpura and the Gram Panchayat, in its meeting dated 20.09.2008, passed a resolution that all the persons residing in the abadi area are living there in the abadi land without having patta of their plots. The petitioner being aggrieved by order passed by the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City dated 30.11.2009 upon the review application filed by respondent No.5 and other persons, so also, order dated 26.08.2010 passed by the Addl. Collector, Deedwana has filed this writ petition seeking to quash both these orders. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the plot in question and residing along with her adopted son for last 60 years, therefore, the land in question cannot be allotted to any other person or institution because none of the persons living in the abadi of village Ugarpura are having patta of the plots in which they are living. For the first time, when patta was issued by the Gram Panchayat on 09.10.2001 without following the rules the petitioner filed appeal before the Standing Committee of Poanchayat Samiti Kuchaman City and that appeal was accepted on the ground of possession by the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City vide order dated 10.06.2002 whereby the patta of land in question was issued in favour of the school in the 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku was set aside. Against said order, revision petition filed by the Head Master of the school was also rejected as withdrawn and, in the civil suit, respondent No.5 Natthu Ram and 3 other persons did not get any relief; but, after 7 years, respondent No.5 Natthu Ram filed a review petition before the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City on 15.06.2009 being President of “Abhibhawak Sangh” and raised ground that Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City was not having any jurisdiction to cancel the patta issued in the 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku. The Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City allowed the review petition vide order dated 30.11.2009 without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vide Annex.-9; meaning thereby, on the one hand, appeal filed by the petitioner was accepted on 10.06.2002 by the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City whereby patta issued for the school was set aside and, on the other hand, the same Panchayat Samiti reviewed the said order vide order dated 30.11.2009 after seven years, that too, without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also submitted that for condonation of delay no application was filed along with review petition for reviewing the order dated 10.06.2002, therefore, the order dated 30.11.2009 is patently illegal order and as such the said order deserves to be quashed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 was filed by the petitioner before the Addl. Distrcit Collector, Deedwana (District Nagaur). The Addl. Collector, vide its order dated 26.08.2010 upheld the order passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City upon review petition holding that son of the petitioner, Bhuwana Ram filed a civil suit against the school on the ground of possession upon the land but that suit has already been dismissed on 01.07.2008, in which, the fact of issuing patta dated 09.10.2001 by the Gram Panchayat Ugarpura and cancellation of said patta was brought to the notice of the civil Court. The Addl. District Collector, Deedwana observed in the order dated 26.08.2010 that land in question is abadi land, therefore, for determination of civil right jurisdiction is left with the civil Court. While giving the above finding, the revision petition was dismissed solely on the ground that the suit of the petitioner's son Bhuwana Ram filed for the same land has already been dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Kuchaman City. 10. It is submitted that the order of the Addl. District Collector, Deedwana is totally erroneous because he has taken into consideration the fact of dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner's son but ignored the fact that the suit filed by some villagers including the respondent No.5 was also dismissed. Therefore, the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Deedwana dated 26.08.2010 deserves to be quashed and the respondents may be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in question. 11. Therefore, the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Deedwana dated 26.08.2010 deserves to be quashed and the respondents may be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in question. 11. It is argued that in the the 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku there was no provision to issue patta free of cost but, in the garb of the 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku illegally patta was issued in favour of the school, therefore, upon appeal filed by the petitioner, the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City set aside the patta issued in favour of the school. However, respondent No.5 and some other villagers are bent upon dispossessing the petitioner, therefore, the Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City accepted the review petition after lapse of 7 years; but, this fact has not been considered by the Addl. Collector, Deedwana while deciding the revision filed by the petitioner. Therefore, both the order impugned deserve to be quashed and petitioner is entitled to remain in possession of the said land upon which she is enjoying possession for last more than 60 years. 12. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Bissa, counsel appearing on behalf of the Panchayat Department vehemently argued that for the purpose of a pious work of education of children there is provision in the Panchayat Raj Act and rules to issue patta free of cost, therefore, in the year 2001, decision was taken in the 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku under Rule 162(1) of the Rules of 1996 to issue patta. Therefore, the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City was not having any jurisdiction to quash the patta issued in favour of the school in the programme known as 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku but the same was set aside by the Panchayat Samiti in appeal filed by the petitioner illegally without jurisdiction. Therefore, when above fact was brought to the notice of the Panchayat Samiti in review petition, then, it was felt necessary to hold that no jurisdiction vests with the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City to quash the patta issued in the revenue campaign by the respondent department of the State for the pious work of education of the children. Therefore, when above fact was brought to the notice of the Panchayat Samiti in review petition, then, it was felt necessary to hold that no jurisdiction vests with the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City to quash the patta issued in the revenue campaign by the respondent department of the State for the pious work of education of the children. It is contended that even if review petition filed by the Abhibhavak Sangh after delay and accepted by the order of the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City it cannot be said that order dated 10.6.2002 was within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. Accordingly, the Pan-chayat Samiti Kuchaman City has rightly reviewed the order dated 10.6.2002 whereby patta issued by the Gram Panchayat Ugarpura was set aside. 13. Learned counsel for the Panchayat department vehemently argued that in whole of the writ petition it is nowhere stated by the petitioner that she is having any title over the land in question. There is no valid patta in favour of the petitioner for land which is in dispute which was allotted to the school for the pious work of education of the children in the revenue campaign for upliftment of the village. Therefore, without any title solely on the ground of alleged possession the petitioner's son Bhuwana Ram filed suit before the civil Court and that was dismissed; meaning thereby, the civil Court denied the relief to the petitioner and her son to remain in possession because she was not having any title over the said land. Further, in this writ petition also, no prayer or assertion is made by the petitioner that she is entitled to get patta in her favour or she has made any effort to get patta in her favour; meaning thereby, without any title the petitioner is raising voice before this Court that patent illegality has been committed by the respondent Panchayat department as well as Addl. Collector, Deedwana while exercising power under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The conduct of the petitioner disentitles her to get any relief in this writ petition because the civil Court refused to grant any relief to the petitioner on the basis of possession and she is claiming right to remain in possession in this writ petition. Collector, Deedwana while exercising power under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The conduct of the petitioner disentitles her to get any relief in this writ petition because the civil Court refused to grant any relief to the petitioner on the basis of possession and she is claiming right to remain in possession in this writ petition. Such type of conduct cannot be accepted while deciding the case under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. More so, such type of practice of the citizens who are completing ignoring the provisions of law and claiming their right only on the basis of possession need be deprecated. Therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents submits that the applicants are not claiming their personal right but the Abhibhavak Sangh felt it necessary to file the review petition against the decision of the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti dated 10.06.2002 because it was hurdle for the purpose of constructing the school, therefore, the petitioner's allegation that the respondents in their personal capacity filed the review petition is totally unwarranted. In fact, the review petition was filed by the “Abhibhavak Sangh” of the village and not by respondent No.5 in his personal capacity, therefore, without impleading the Abhibhavak Sangh as party the petitioner has preferred this writ petition which is not maintainable. The petitioner has tried to mislead this Court while impleading respondent No.5 by name whereas she has herself stated that review petition was filed by respondent No.5 as President of the Abhibhavak Sangh of the school. 15. It is also argued that petitioner has invited attention of this Court towards the fact that adopted son of the petitioner filed a civil Suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Parbatsar and along with the suit an application for temporary injunction was filed in which commissioner was appointed on 26.10.2007 by the Civil Judge and commissioner inspected the site on 27.10.2007 in presence of both the parties; but, it is nowhere disclosed that the suit filed by the son of the petitioner was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Parbatsar and along with the suit an application for temporary injunction was filed in which commissioner was appointed on 26.10.2007 by the Civil Judge and commissioner inspected the site on 27.10.2007 in presence of both the parties; but, it is nowhere disclosed that the suit filed by the son of the petitioner was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Kuchaman City vide judgment dated 01.07.2008 because he has failed to produce any evidence; meaning thereby, on the basis of the commissioner's report which is procured by the civil Court, is placed before the Court for claiming right, without disclosing the fact that the said suit has been dismissed on 01.07.2008. The Abhibhavak Sangh filed a review petition before the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City after dismissal of the suit. This fact itself speaks that suit of the petitioner's son was pending, therefore, till decision of the suit there was no occasion to file review petition before the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City by the Abhibhavak Sangh because the matter was sub-judice but, as soon as suit has been dismissed the Abhibhawak Sangh filed application for reviewing order dated 10.06.2002. 16. On the basis of above material concealment of fact it is apparent that petitioner has misled this Court which is evident from certified copy of the judgment rendered by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Kuchaman City placed on record as Annex.-R/5/11. Therefore, once the civil Court has refused to grant any relief to the petitioner's son for the land in question in this writ petition on the basis of possession, the petitioner cannot claim any right upon the land in question, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and considered the judgment rendered by this Court, cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, reported in RRT 2002 (1) page 63, in which, as per the petitioner, it is held by this Court that mandatory provisions are required to be followed at the time of issuing patta. 18. In this case, the following facts are not in dispute : A. There is no title in favour of the petitioner or her son and she is claiming her right solely on the basis of possession. 18. In this case, the following facts are not in dispute : A. There is no title in favour of the petitioner or her son and she is claiming her right solely on the basis of possession. B. Admittedly, the land was allotted by the Gram Panchayat Ugarpura for the school on 09.10.2001 in the revenue campaign 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku. C. The Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City accepted the appeal No.35/2002 filed by the petitioner and set aside the patta solely on the ground of possession which is evident from Annex.3. D. From the facts narrated in the writ petition, it is abundantly clear that the fact of dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner's adopted son vide judgment dated 01.07.2008 is not disclosed by her and only assertion is made that a commissioner's report was obtained by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Parbatsar in the suit. E. Admittedly, the patta was issued in the revenue campaign 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku for the purpose of pious work of education and petitioner is claiming her right on the basis of her possession over the land without any title. So also, it is admitted position of the case that no effort was made by the petitioner to get regularisation of her possession over the land in question even though there are provisions in the Panchayati Raj Act. In this writ petition also, it is nowhere prayed that petitioner is entitled for regularisation of her land in her favour on the basis of old possession. Upon the above admitted facts and other record of the case, this Court is of the view that any person seeking interference by this Court for his claim is required to furnish complete details of the facts and should come before the Court with clean hands. Here, in this case, in para 9 of the writ petition, an assertion has been made by the petitioner that a civil suit was filed by her adopted son Bhuwana Ram when the respondents tried to forcibly dispossess them in which commissioner's report was sought to prove the possession; but, in whole of the writ petition it is nowhere stated that the suit filed by her adopted son was dismissed because no evidence was led by him to prove the old possession. The trial Court while deciding the issue No.1 gave the following finding : ^^bl fook|d dk izek.k Hkkj oknh ij FkkA fdUrq oknh dh vksj ls mä fook|d dks izekf.kr djus ds fy;s dksbZ ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZA bl dkj.k lk{; ds vHkko esa oknh fook|d la[;k 1 dks vius i{k esa izekf.kr djus esa lQy ugha jgk gSA vr% fook|d la[;k 1 oknh ds fo:)] izfroknhx.k ds i{k esa r; fd;k tkrk gSA** The above finding clearly reveals that son of the petitioner who filed the suit did not adduce any evidence to prove the fact of old possession and the fact that respondents are forcibly dispossessing him; meaning thereby, once the suit is dismissed by the civil Court, then, it is not proper to claim right again in other forum. From the facts of this writ petition, it is revealed that the petitioner has tried to mislead this Court while not disclosing correct fact of dismissal of suit filed by her son before this Court. Therefore, on this ground alone the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 19. Without prejudice to the above finding, I have examined the case on merit also. Admittedly, an appeal was filed before the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City by the petitioner in the year 2002 and Standing Committee, Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City while accepting the appeal filed by the petitioner set aside the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat Ugarpura under Rule 162(1) of the Rules of 1996. It is strange that patta issued by the Gram Panchayat Ugarpura for the purpose of education in the revenue campaign the 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku in presence of the Addl. Collector, Nawa representative of the State, on the other hand, the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City set aside the said patta on the ground that there was no approval. I have examined the provisions of the rules. In my opinion, there was no jurisdiction with the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City to quash the patta because it was issued in the State sponsored programme 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku by the State Government; but, somehow the patta was cancelled. 20. I have examined the provisions of the rules. In my opinion, there was no jurisdiction with the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City to quash the patta because it was issued in the State sponsored programme 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku by the State Government; but, somehow the patta was cancelled. 20. In the year 2007, a civil suit was filed by Bhuwana Ram, adopted son of the petitioner against the Gram Panchayat and after dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner's son, however, it was felt necessary by the Abhibhavak Sangh to challenge the order dated 10.06.2002 for the purpose of getting better education facility for the children of the area in the school, therefore, review petition was filed after delay. The delay in filing review petition was thus caused due to pendency of the civil suit filed by Bhuwana Ram, petitioner's adopted son. In my opinion, upon the above facts, it cannot be said that any illegality is committed by the Standing Committee, Kuchaman City to review its order dated 10.06.2002 after delay. More so, for the pious purpose of education such type of illegal orders are required to be reviewed which is passed without jurisdiction which unnecessarily created hurdle for imparting education. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that there is no force in the argument of the petitioner that after long delay the Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City reviewed its earlier order illegally. I have also perused the order passed upon review petition, in which, it is categorically mentioned that notice was issued to the petitioner before passing order of review but petitioner did not appear before the Standing Committee of Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that she was not heard prior to passing order of review is also rejected. 21. The contention of the petitioner that under Rule 162 (1) of the Rules of 1996 patta can be issued with approval of the Government is not acceptable because patta was issued in favour of respondent in the revenue campaign known as 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku by the Government, therefore, obviously the decision taken by the Gram Panchayat Ugarpura in the said revenue campaign conducted under the auspices of the Addl. Collector, Nawa and other authorities of the Government does not require any further approval; more so, the patta issued in the said revenue campaign shall be treated to be issued with deemed approval of the Government because all the authorities remained present in the campaign. It is true that if patta is to be issued in regular way by the Gram Panchayat for education purpose, then too, the Gram Panchayat can issue patta free of cost with approval, therefore, the patta issued in the revenue campaign should be treated to be issued with deemed approval because it is issued in the presence of the State administration for the purpose of education of the village children during the revenue campaign 'iz'kklu xkoksa dh vksj' vfHk;ku. In this case, the Addl. Collector, Nawa who was present in the campaign put his signature which is evident from Annex.-1. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any violation of Rule 162(1) of the rules while issuing the patta. 22. The petitioner who is 80 years of age did not make any effort for regularisation for the land as per rules and challenged the valid patta issued for the education purpose and before this Court also no case is put forth for regularization of land and challenge, therefore, in my opinion, such type of conduct of the petitioner disentitles her to get any relief because, till today, it is nowhere prayed by the petitioner that patta may be issued in her favour in accordance with law because one the one hand she is claiming her right on the ground of possession upon the land in question for last more than 50 years and, on the other hand, no prayer has been made to regularize the land as per Rule 157 of the Rules. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief because order passed by the Addl. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief because order passed by the Addl. Collector, Deedwana (District Nagaur) is perfectly in consonance with law, so also, on the ground that the son of the petitioner availed the remedy of civil suit and the said civil suit was dismissed on the ground that no oral or documentary evidence produced to establish the fact of possession and without disclosing this fact the petitioner filed this writ petition for quashing order passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City upon review and order passed by the Addl. Collector, Deedwana in the revision filed by the petitioner. The instant litigation is abuse of the process of Court because having already been defeated in the arena of law before the civil Court, again, the petitioner is trying to establish before this Court that she is in possession of the land in question. 24. In the result, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.