ORDER 1. All the above noted writ petitions arise out of a common order dated 14.11.2017 passed by Upper District Collector, Hanumangarh in the revision applications preferred by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Gurmej Singh & Bhajan Singh, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were issued 'pattas' of the land in question way back in the year 1981. He submits that the 'pattas' of the land were issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat after taking recourse to Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1961. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the conditions mentioned in Rule 266 were duly complied with and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the 'pattas' of the land issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat. He further submits that there is no condition to the effect that for issuance of the patta of the land in question, there should be in existence a house. He, therefore, submits that the finding recorded by learned Revisional Authority vide its order dated 14.11.2017 is erroneous. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question since 1981, however, they are being sought to be dispossessed from the land in question on flimsy grounds. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioners may be allowed and the order impugned dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Revisional Authority may be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that in the revision petitions preferred by the respondents they have taken all the grounds which show that the 'pattas' have been issued to the petitioners de-hors the rules. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the 'pattas' of the subject land could not be issued to anybody as the land is of 'Johar Paitan' and since, beneficiaries of 'Johar Paitan' are the residents of entire village, therefore, the Gram Panchayat has wrongly issued the 'pattas' of such land to the petitioners. He submits that the procedure provided under the Rules of 1961 for issuance of such 'pattas' has not been followed. He submits that the procedure provided under the Rules of 1961 for issuance of such 'pattas' has not been followed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Revisional Authority has considered the submissions made before it and passed the order whereby the 'pattas' issued in favour of the petitioners have rightly been cancelled and, therefore, he prays that no interference of this court is warranted in the impugned order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Revisional Authority. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the impugned order dated 14.11.2017 as well as other relevant record of the case. 6. Perusal of the order dated 14.11.2017 shows that the Revisional Authority has relied upon Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1961') while deciding the controversy in hand and has come to the conclusion that since no construction was in existence on the land in question at the time of issuance of 'pattas' of the lands in question, therefore, the Gram Panchayat could not have issued the 'pattas'. It is further held that since as per the provisions of Rule 266, only the old possessions of the residential houses can be considered for issuance of such 'pattas' and in the present case, since no construction was in existence on the land for which the 'pattas' have been issued, therefore, the Gram Panchayat has committed an error while issuing the 'pattas' to the petitioners in these cases. It is also observed that the other points raised by the revisionists before the Revisional Authority have not been considered and only on singular ground stated above, the revision petitions have been allowed and the 'pattas' issued in favour of the petitioners have been canceled. The finding of the Revisional Authority does not appear to be in consonance with the 7. provisions of the law on the subject as Section 266 is actually Rule 266 of the Rules of 1961. As per Rule 266, it is not a pre condition that an old house should be in existence on the land for which the 'patta' is to be granted by the Gram Panchayat. The basis on which the revision petitions are allowed by the Revisional Authority is not sustainable and the reasoning adopted while passing the order impugned is also cryptic and perverse. 8. The basis on which the revision petitions are allowed by the Revisional Authority is not sustainable and the reasoning adopted while passing the order impugned is also cryptic and perverse. 8. This Court also take note of the fact that in the opening paragraphs of the revisional order, the Revisional Authority has summarized the grounds of the revisionists but none of the grounds had been discussed in the order therefore, it can safely be presumed that order to that extent is unreasoned and non- speaking. 9. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petitions are partly allowed. The order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Revisional Authority is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Revisional Authority for deciding the matter afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. 10. The parties shall appear before the Revisional Authority on or before 09.09.2022 and thereafter as ordered by the Revisional Authority. 11. The parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the land in question till the revision petitions of the respondents are decided by the Revisional Authority.