Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were issued valid pattas in their favour in Village Reh, Gram Panchayat Dahimata, District Bhilwara. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have constructed the dwelling houses upon the lands in question for which a valid patta was issued by the Gram Panchayat. He further submits that the revisional authority allowed the revision petitions of the respondent No.2 only on the ground that the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners are forged since they bear same receipt number. He submits that it was a typographical error and that as per the ledger of account maintained by the Gram Panchayat, there are two different entries in the name of the petitioners and the receipt numbers are 13 & 20 for the amounts received by the Gram Panchayat. He, therefore, submits that when the two entries exist in the ledger (Rokadbahi) of the Gram Panchayat, then the receipt number for the amount received by the Gram Panchayat is also distinctly mentioned being 13 & 20. He further submits that merely by typographical mistake, if the same receipt number is shown in both the pattas, the same cannot be a ground to assume that the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners are not genuine. He submits that the entire material placed before the revisional authority was not considered while deciding the revision petitions preferred by respondent No.2 Sukhdev. He further submits that
