1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8096/2008 (Raja Ram Seva Sadan Vs. State & Ors.) Date of order : 23.10.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. B.P. Bohara with Mr. K.K. Maharshi, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by District Collector, Barmer in Revision Petition No.2/05 filed by respondent No.3 - Jorawar Singh whereby the patta issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The Disrict Collector, Barmer while exercising power under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 gave its finding that the said patta was issued totally in contravention of the provisions of Rules. For issuing patta, the condition precedent is to obtain confirmation from the State Government, if any patta is issued for the land more than 500 yards. Admittedly, no confirmation was obtained from the State Government and on the basis of old possession, the patta has been issued. In my opinion, 2 the finding of District Collector, Barmer does not require any interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant was having no locus standi to prefer the said revision petition because only interest party can file revision petition or can raise grievance with regard to allotment of land under Section 97 of the Act. In my opinion, if any person residing in the same village is raising voice against any illegality then he can be termed as an interested party. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 was not an interested party is not tenable because a citizen of a villager is pointing out any illegality then it is the duty of the State to act upon, which has been done by the District Collector in this case. Therefore, the order impugned does not require any interference. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J.