JUDGMENT : 1. All the above-mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by a common order as the issue involved is identical. For convenience, the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8148/2012. 2. The prayer in the present writ petition is to set aside the order dated 20.06.2012 passed by the District Collector, Barmer vide which he has cancelled the Patta issued in favour of the petitioners. Patta was issued to the petitioner on 20.12.2008 (Annex.1) by the Gram Panchayat for the land measuring 1500 sq. feet under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. The respondent No.3 filed a complaint/revision petition before the District Collector, Barmer for cancellation of Patta issued in favour of the petitioner on 20.10.2010 alleging that the Patta was issued to the petitioner in a fraudulent manner and in violation of the provisions laid down under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rules of 1996. Notices were issued to the petitioner and Gram Panchayat on 22.10.2010. The Gram Panchayat did not appear despite service. However, the District Collector after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, cancelled the Patta vide impugned order dated 20.06.2012. 3. While praying for setting aside the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent No.3 has since died and the Gram Panchayat never contested the revision petition and nor filed their reply. No record was produced before the Collector and the Collector arbitrary cancelled the Patta in the absence of the record. The respondent No.2 had himself issued the Patta, hence his statement before the Collector is false on the face of it and thus, the petitioner cannot be punished on account of the non-availability of the record. The Patta was issued under the signatures and seal of the Sarpanch as well as Gram Sewak cum Secretary and therefore, there was no cause or reason to deny the same or not produce the record. At least, the Panchayat Resolution register should have been called and examined by the respondent No.1 for proper adjudication of the case. 4. Reply has been filed by respondent No.1. Reply has also been filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in CWP No.8147/2012. 5. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. 6. At least, the Panchayat Resolution register should have been called and examined by the respondent No.1 for proper adjudication of the case. 4. Reply has been filed by respondent No.1. Reply has also been filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in CWP No.8147/2012. 5. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. 6. No doubt, the respondent No.3 has since died but the same has no bearing on the matter to be decided on merits, inasmuch as, a revision is maintainable as the authority has the power of revision and review even on its own motion with respect to any proceedings to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein. 7. A perusal of the order passed by the District Collector shows that the Gram Sewak cum Secretary vide his letter dated 17.1.2011 informed the respondent No.1 that the record with respect to the allotment of Patta to the petitioner was not available with the Gram Panchayat Gudamalani. On an application moved by the counsel for the petitioner, the Gram Sewak cum Secretary was summoned, who too appeared and informed that the said record was not available. Thereafter, even the Development Officer of the Panchayat Samiti was directed to produce the record who vide his letter No.567 dated 28.5.2012 informed that no such Patta was available on record. Thus, the grant of Patta @ Rs.200/- was found to have been allotted fraudulently. Even if, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he cannot be punished for the non-availability of the record is accepted, still the very allotment is in violation of Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. Rule 157 of the Rules reads as under:- “Rule 157. Regularisation of old houses.- (1) 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 (in Form XIIIA) after depositing charges as under:- (a) For old houses constructed more than fifty years ago Rs.100/- (b) For old houses constructed during last fifty years from the date of commencement of these rules Rs.200/- 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. (2) Families who do not have any house or house site anywhere and are in possession of abdi land by way of construction of a hutment/kutcha house upto year 2003, shall be entitled for regularisation of possession maximum upto 300 yards free of cost. The patta of such land (in form XXIII-B) shall be issued in the name of women head of such family.” 8. A perusal of the above rule shows that only a person who is in possession of an old house for more than 50 years or in the last 50 years was eligible after depositing the relevant charges fixed for the same. Under rule 157(2), those families are also entitled for the house in the name of women head of such family in case the said family did not have any house or house site anywhere else. Secondly, the family is in possession of the land on which there was construction of at least a hut or Katcha house upto the maximum of 300 yards. Both are requisite conditions of allotment. Whereas, there is nothing on record to show that the family of the petitioner did not have any other house or house-site. There is also no mention that they had any hut or even a Kutcha house constructed on the plot in their possession. 9. Reply to the revision petition has been perused. Not a word has been mentioned in the reply to the revision petition that the petitioner or his family members do not have any house or any other residential plot. Even in the writ petition, there is no such mention. There is not an iota of evidence that they were eligible for grant of Patta under Rule 157(2) for the allotment of the abadi plot. The argument that the proof of construction of a hut or Kutcha house did exist on the plot was evident from the fact that the petitioner was forced to file a civil suit and seek injunction against the respondent as they had tried to take possession of the plot by breaking the house on it, is hard to believe, inasmuch as, no date or detail of the civil suit has been placed on record and nor any complaint or FIR was registered for the alleged action of the respondents in trying to take the possession by removing and breaking the alleged construction on the said plot. Not even a photograph has been placed on record to show that there was any construction ever or whether any construction was removed or that there is any construction as on date. It is therefore, evident that the allotment, if at all, is in gross violation of the rules, the petitioners were neither eligible for the allotment at that point of time and nor even on date. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the sale deed cannot be cancelled except through a civil suit. The District Collector has no right to cancel the same. The said argument does not help the petitioner in the facts of the present case. There is no registered Patta and nor any sale deed has been registered in any of the above cases except in CWP No.8147/2012. No doubt, a registered sale deed cannot be set aside in revisional jurisdiction and that the civil suit is the proper remedy. However, same is not a bar in case the very Patta is unlawfully issued as held by this Court in the case of Nagar Mal Vs. Addl. District Collector, Sikar & Ors. reported in 2013(1) WLC (Raj.) 768. Para 6 of the said judgment reads as under:- “As far as the argument of the counsel for the petitioners with regard to the issue of the pattas being registered and therefore being beyond the scope of correction by resort to revising power is concerned, I am of the view that the revising power under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 cannot be made redundant by the mere registration of pattas unlawfully issued in the first instance SBCWP NO.11006/127 to the petitioners as they appear to have been in the present case. Registration of the pattas is only a consequential event and when the pattas are found to have been unlawfully issued contrary to the obtaining rules and even by resort to fraud, the mere registration thereof cannot be treated as a safe harbour. It is trite that fraud vitiates and unravels everything built on it. The cancellation of pattas by the Additional Collector will also thus entail its inexorable consequences in law rendering the registration thereof ineffective and inconsequential.” 11. As also, the Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Municipal Council, Pali Vs. It is trite that fraud vitiates and unravels everything built on it. The cancellation of pattas by the Additional Collector will also thus entail its inexorable consequences in law rendering the registration thereof ineffective and inconsequential.” 11. As also, the Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Municipal Council, Pali Vs. Deendayal and Others, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.485/2013 and other connected matters, decided on 16.07.2015 held:- “We do not find any error of law in the order of the learned Single Judge, by which he had, after accepting the interpretation of Section 80(2)(b) of the Act of 1959 following the Division Bench judgments, held that the District Collector had powers, even beyond the stage of ‘proposal’, to cancel any allotment, lease or sale and that in the circumstances, the orders of the District Collector and the Divisional Commissioner were not valid in law and that all questions of facts should be decided by the Collector afresh in accordance with law.” 12. From the above, it is evident that the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of the plot under Rule 157(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules. The said allotment is for the weaker section and to recognise the settled possession and in no way provided to enrich those who already have another residential house or site. 13. Thus, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the findings recorded by the Collector vide his order dated 20.06.2012. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits.