SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against order dated 31.7.13 passed by the Additional Collector (Second), Jodhpur, whereby the revision petition preferred by the third respondent questioning the legality of patta of a plot measuring 10200 sq. ft. issued in favour of the petitioner by Gram Panchayat, Bhopalgarh has been allowed and the patta issued stands cancelled.
(2.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner made an application to the Gram Panchayat, Bhopalgarh under Rule 157 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules"), for grant of patta of a 'bara' alleged to be in his long possession. The legality of the patta issued was questioned by the third respondent by way of revision petition before the Additional Collector (Second), Jodhpur on various grounds. After due consideration, the revisional authority arrived at the finding that there was nothing on record suggesting that an old residential house constructed by the petitioner herein was existing on the site and thus, no proceedings for issuing the patta under Rule 157 of the Rules could have been initiated by the Gram Panchayat. The revisional authority found that as a matter of fact the application filed for grant of patta is not signed by the petitioner. The revisional authority found that even in the comments prepared by the Gram Panchayat on the application made by the petitioner the description of the patta of the plot applied for has been mentioned as 'kabajasud bara ka patta" . The revisional authority found that the patta has been issued in favour of the petitioner in gross violation of the Rules. Accordingly, while allowing the revision petition, the patta issued stands cancelled. Hence, this petition.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the patta of the land in question was issued in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the old possession and thus, proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat for issuing the patta under Rule 157 of the Rules cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that the patta issued as aforesaid already stands registered on 18.12.09 and therefore, the same could not have been set aside by the revisional authority. Learned counsel submitted that the revision petition filed questioning the legality of the patta after a lapse of about 12 years was not open to be entertained by the revisional authority and was liable to be rejected on the ground of inordinate delay.;