Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) BY the instant writ petition, petitioner has questioned the legality and propriety of impugned order dated 29th of August, 2014 (Annex.5) passed by Additional District Collector (Admn.) Bikaner. By the aforesaid order, learned Additional District Collector has rejected revision petition of the petitioner under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'Act') precisely on the ground that it is filed after inordinate delay of more than three decades and besides that civil litigation in this respect is pending adjudication before the competent civil court.
(2.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, averred that allotment of land by the Gram Panchayat was dehors the rules inasmuch as patta issued in the name of private respondent for the land in question is not part of Aabadi land. That apart, it is also averred that no resolution was adopted by the Gram Panchayat for issuance of patta in the name of private respondent and rules governing the province of allotment of Aabadi land by the Gram Panchayat were not followed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
(3.) THERE remains no quarrel that Gram Panchayat allotted Aabadi land to second respondent on 16.02.1982 vide Annex.2 and since then second respondent is in possession over the land in dispute. The learned Additional District Collector has also observed that although at the time of issuance of patta, Sujandesar was part of Gram Panchayat, but after promulgation of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, Sujandesar has become part of the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner, therefore, it is not desirable to exercise revisional jurisdiction for upsetting the patta issued in the name of second respondent. In totality, the learned Additional Collector was impressed by the fact that revision petition is filed after 32 years for which no plausible explanation is tendered by the petitioner. While construing period of limitation, the learned Additional Collector has also observed that even if no period of limitation is prescribed, a party cannot be permitted to avail the remedy after such an inordinate delay.;