ORDER : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Additional district Collector, Bali, District Pali has affirmed the notice/order dated 02.08.2024, whereby the respondent No.1 - Gram Panchayat has imposed a penalty of Rs.1000/- and Rs.50/- per day on continuous possession of the petitioner over land, which the petitioner has illegally made. 2. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Additional District Collector, Bali, District Pali under section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1994’), which came to be rejected by the revisional authority vide order dated 27.01.2025. 3. Challenging the orders aforesaid, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat is illegal and contrary to section 62 of the Act of 1994. He submitted that prior to imposition of penalty, the Gram Panchayat neither issued any notice nor provided a copy of the resolution to the petitioner. 4. He further submitted that the revisional authority did not appreciate the evidence and record and has cursorily rejected the petitioner’s revision petition. 5. Mr. Shrimali, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that maybe, a copy of the resolution No.2 was not provided to the petitioner but notice in relation to encroachment was very much affixed by the Gram Panchayat on the petitioner’s illegal encroachment and therefore, the requirement of issuance of notice has already been complied with. 6. He submitted that the petitioner has made an illegal encroachment and therefore, a penalty has rightly been imposed in exercise of powers conferred by section 62 of the Act of 1994. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. So far as the facts are concerned, there is hardly any dispute. The petitioner’s case is that the respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat could not have imposed penalty, is untenable in the eyes of law as the respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat had issued/affixed a notice over the petitioner’s encroachment. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to establish before the respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat that the possession in question was not unlawful by way of filing reply and producing evidence. 9. Be that as it may. 10. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to establish before the respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat that the possession in question was not unlawful by way of filing reply and producing evidence. 9. Be that as it may. 10. Upon perusal of the notice/order dated 02.08.2024, this Court finds that the penalty of Rs.1000/- so also Rs.50/- per day as imposed on the petitioner is contrary to the provision of section 62 of the Act of 1994 which stipulates imposition of penalty of Rs.200/- and on continuous breach Rs.10/- per day. 11. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the merit of the notice/order dated 02.08.2024 as affirmed by the revisional authority vide order dated 27.01.2025. 12. The notice/order dated 02.08.2024 is quashed to the extent of imposing penalty of Rs.1000/- and Rs.50/- on continuous breach. The respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat shall issue a fresh demand notice imposing penalty of Rs.200/- plus Rs.10/- for the number of days the petitioner continued breach - until the interim order came to be passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 21.11.2024. 13. Needless to observe that dismissal of the present writ petition will not have any bearing on the suit preferred and pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Desuri, Pali in which interim order has been passed. 14. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.