JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. - The petitioner has preferred an application (IA No. 4498/14) for substitution of the legal representatives of petitioner No. 1, who has expired on 2.7.14. The application is allowed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dated 19.7.13 passed by the District Collector, Bhilwara, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioners questioning the legality of the patta issued in favour of the second respondent by Gram Panchayat, Sidiyas, has been dismissed. 3. The relevant facts are that a patta of the land measuring 1200 sq. ft. was issued in favour of the second respondent, a member of schedule caste, by Gram Panchayat, Sidiyas, under Rule 158 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (''the Rules''). The legality of the patta issued in favour of the second respondent was questioned by the petitioners by way of revision petition before the District Collector, Bhilwara, on the ground that the land covered by the patta issued in favour of the respondent has been in their use and occupation for last 60-70 years. After due consideration, the District Collector, Bhilwara arrived at the finding that the patta in favour of the petitioner was issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Sidiyas, after following the procedure laid down under the Rules of 1996. The claim of the petitioners that the disputed land is situated in the south of khatedari land of their father was found factually incorrect inasmuch as the land covered by the patta issued in favour of the second respondent is situated in north of the khatedari land of the petitioners'' father. Accordingly, the revision petition preferred has been dismissed. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent-Smt. Aiji is having old residential house in the abadi area and therefore, was not entitled for allotment at concessional rate. Learned counsel submitted that the averments made by the petitioners regarding location of the plot stands substantiated by the reports submitted by two Panchas. It is contended that on the basis of the long possession, the petitioners have plausible claim for grant of patta in their favour. It is further contended that the patta issued in favour of the second respondent in gross violation of the Rules, deserves to be quashed. 5. It is contended that on the basis of the long possession, the petitioners have plausible claim for grant of patta in their favour. It is further contended that the patta issued in favour of the second respondent in gross violation of the Rules, deserves to be quashed. 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, the patta of the land in question has been issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the second respondent under Rule 158 of the Rules, which deals with the allotment of lands to weaker sections. The second respondent, a member of the schedule caste, not having own house, was entitled for allotment at concessional rate under the said rule. It is sought to be contended by the petitioners that the second respondent was having his own house in abadi area but a perusal of the revision petition preferred by the petitioners and the order impugned reveal that no such case was ever set out by the petitioners before the revisional authority and thus, the contention sought to be raised by the petitioners for the first time before this Court without there being any foundation of facts, cannot be entertained. 7. Apart from the fact that the averments made by the petitioners regarding the location of the disputed plot were found incorrect, there is nothing on record suggesting that the petitioners are in long possession of the disputed plot. The petitioners have not been able to make out any case as to under which provision, they are entitled to claim patta of the land in question on the basis of alleged unauthorised occupation and thus, the contention sought to be raised by the petitioners regarding their plausible claim over the disputed plot is also devoid of any merit. 8. A perusal of the order impugned further reveals that after due consideration of the proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat, the revisional authority has arrived at a categorical finding that the patta of the land in question has been issued in favour of the second respondent, a member of weaker section, after following the procedure laid down. 9. 8. A perusal of the order impugned further reveals that after due consideration of the proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat, the revisional authority has arrived at a categorical finding that the patta of the land in question has been issued in favour of the second respondent, a member of weaker section, after following the procedure laid down. 9. In view of the discussion above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the revisional authority does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.