JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. These writ petitions are directed against separate orders dated 21.1.16 passed by the Additional Collector (Second), Jodhpur in revision petition no.4/15, 6/15 & 7/15, whereby while allowing the revision petitions preferred by the fourth respondent - Smt. Anand Kanwar, the pattas of abadi land issued in favour of the petitioners by Gram Panchayat,Bavdi, stand cancelled. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioners herein Jabbar Singh, Madan Kanwar and Fateh Kanwar, were issued pattas of the residential plots ad measuring 492.22, 455.61 & 452.33 sq. yards respectively, pursuant to the resolution adopted by Gram Panchayat, Bavdi in its meeting held on 20.3.14. The legality of the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners was questioned by the fourth respondent by way of separate revision petitions before the Additional Collector (Second), Jodhpur, under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act'). The case as set out by the fourth respondent was that the land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas was in occupation of one Shri Doongar Singh, her father in law. Shri Doongar Singh had three sons, namely, Mohan Singh, Gaje Singh and Bhagwan Singh. The fourth respondent, the widow of Shri Bhagwan Singh, claiming ?rd share in the said land, questioned the legality of pattas issued in favour of the petitioners herein, stating that the petitioners were not in possession of the land in question, however, they purchased the said land from two sons of Doongar Singh, namely, Mohan Singh and Gaje Singh by way of agreement to sell and got the patta issued in their favour. The fourth respondent claimed that the pattas have been issued in favour of the petitioners herein without following the procedure laid down. The fourth respondent contended that she had raised objection against issuance of pattas before the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bavdi, but to no avail. 3. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the revisional authority arrived at the finding that the plots in question were open plots and no construction was existing thereon and therefore, the pattas could not have been issued in favour of the petitioners under Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('the Rules'). The revisional authority found that before issuing of the pattas of the plot measuring more than 300 sq.yd. the sanction was not obtained from the competent authority. The revisional authority found that before issuing of the pattas of the plot measuring more than 300 sq.yd. the sanction was not obtained from the competent authority. The revisional authority found that the land was earlier in the name of somebody else yet the pattas were issued in favour of the petitioners without scrutiny of documents relating to sale and without obtaining the report from Patwari Halka. The revisional authority observed that had the plots sold by way of auction,it would have augmented the income of Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, while setting aside the pattas, the matter has been remanded to Gram Panchayat for taking the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Hence, these petitions. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the fourth respondent had not challenged the legality of the resolution adopted by the Gram Panchayat and therefore, the revision petition was not maintainable. Learned counsel submitted that fourth respondent did not question the legality of the patta on account of procedure laid down being not followed rather she claimed ?rd share in the land in question covered by the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners and thus, the revisional authority has seriously erred in setting aside the pattas on the ground of alleged violation of the provisions of the Rules. Learned counsel submitted that before issuing the pattas the Gram Panchayat was not required to obtain the sanction from any authority. Learned counsel urged that there is no requirement of report being obtained from Patwari either. Learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on record suggesting that no constructed houses were existing on the plots in question and thus, the revisional authority has seriously erred in setting aside the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that if the fourth respondent has any claim over the land in question, it is always open for him to avail the remedy of suit available under the general law. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, in the instant case, the petitioners claimed patta of the Abadi land on the strength of his alleged old possession under Rule 157 of the Rules. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, in the instant case, the petitioners claimed patta of the Abadi land on the strength of his alleged old possession under Rule 157 of the Rules. Rule 157 of the Rules, which deals with regularisation of the old houses as it existed at the relevant time when the patta was issued in favour of the petitioner herein may be beneficially quoted : 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, may be issued by the Panchayat 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 abadi land by way of construction of a hutment/Kucha house up to year 2003 shall be entitled for regularisation of possession maximum up to 300 yards free of cost. The patta of such land shall be issued in the name of women head of such family. 7. From bare perusal of Rule 157 of the Rules, it is manifestly clear that it permits regularisation where the persons are in possession of the old house in abadi land and desire to get a patta issued. It further provides that for old houses constructed more than 50 years ago, the patta may be issued by depositing Rs.100/- and for old house constructed during last 50 years from commencement of the Rules i.e. 30.12.96, the patta may be issued on depositing charges Rs.200/-. 8. A perusal of the applications filed by the petitioners for issuance of the pattas of the disputed plots reveal that the petitioners claimed patta of the plot for the purpose of availing the benefit of loan and for construction of the house. It is nowhere mentioned in the application filed that the petitioners are in possession of old houses constructed over the land in question. It is nowhere mentioned in the application filed that the petitioners are in possession of old houses constructed over the land in question. It is pertinent to note that even in the inspection report alleged to have been submitted by the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, there is no mention of existence of any old house constructed over the land in question. There is nothing on record suggesting that before issuing the pattas in favour of the petitioner the existence of old constructed houses over the plots in question was ascertained by the Gram Panchayat. As noticed herein above, Rule 157 permits regularisation of old houses constructed over the abadi land of Gram Panchayat and not the open plots and thus, the proceedings taken by Gram Panchayat for issuing pattas of huge open land in favour of the petitioners in the garb of Rule 157 of the Rules, is ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction. 9. A perusal of the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent reveals that while claiming ?rd share in the land in question on the ground of same being the ancestral land in possession of her father in law, the legality of the patta was questioned by her on the ground of the procedure laid down being not followed and thus, the contention sought to be raised by the petitioners that the fourth respondent had not challenged the legality of the pattas issued on account of violation of procedure laid down under the Rules, is devoid of any merit. 10. Moreover, under Section 97 of the Act, the revisional authority is empowered to call for and examine the record of any proceedings of Panchayat Raj Institution either on its own motion or an application from any person interested to satisfy itself as to correctness, legality and propriety of any decision or order passed therein as to irregularity of such proceedings. The revisional authority is empowered to modify, annual, reverse the decision of the Panchayati Raj Institution as also to remit the matter for reconsideration. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the orders impugned passed by the revisional authority setting aside the decision of the Gram Panchayat in issuing pattas in favour of the petitioners for the conclusion arrived at, as aforesaid, cannot be faulted with. 11. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the orders impugned passed by the revisional authority setting aside the decision of the Gram Panchayat in issuing pattas in favour of the petitioners for the conclusion arrived at, as aforesaid, cannot be faulted with. 11. No case for interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 12. The writ petitions are therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.