SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) Heard. Perused the material available on record. Issue notice. Shri Kuldeep Singh associate to Shri Manish Patel, AGC puts in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the parties state that identical bunch of writ petitions led by SBCWP No.13015/2017 : Naina Ram vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. have been decided by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2018 and thus, the instant bunch of writ petitions may also be decided in the same light. The orders which are assailed by the petitioners in these bunch of writ petitions are charted below:- SCHEDULE S.No. S.B.C.W.P. Number Patta No. and Date of and date of revisional order Name of the petitioner issuance 1. 788/2019 Patta No.74 27.05.2015 Puna Ram 20.11.2004 2. 790/2019 Patta No.28 30.06.2015 Chena Ram 20.11.2004 3. 792/2019 Patta No.214 27.05.2015 Arvind 20.11.2004 4. 793/2019 Patta No.190 03.06.2015 Thana Ram 20.11.2004 5. 801/2019 Patta No.4 17.06.2015 Kavra Ram 20.11.2004 6. 991/2019 Patta No.36 15.07.2015 Durga Das 20.11.2004 7. 994/2019 Patta No.271 27.05.2015 Bhanwara Ram 20.11.2004 8. 995/2019 Patta No.165 15.07.2015 Gopa Ram 20.11.2004 9. 1018/2019 Patta No.184 11.12.2015 Smt. Bhanwari 20.11.2004 10. 1022/2019 Patta No.73 11.12.2015 Bhana Ram 20.11.2004 While deciding the identical bunch of writ petitions, this Court held as under:- "Learned counsel Mr. Paramveer Singh Champawat and Mr. Tribhuvan Singh, Advocates representing the petitioners vehemently and fervently urged that the District Collector committed grave error in facts as well as in law while entertaining the revisions in question. The petitioners were in peaceful possession of the land under the questioned pattas for nearly 9 to 10 years before the revisions came to be instituted. The pattas were lawfully issued to the petitioners as per their after making due enquiry and following the requisite procedure provided under the Panchayati Raj Act and the Land Allotment Rules. The revisional authority went on to delve into disputed questions of facts and proceeded to quash the pattas of land lawfully issued to the petitioners without any justification whatsoever. He further submitted that the entire action was perpetrated at the instance of the JDA, which was bent upon to usurp the land in question lawfully owned by the petitioners for the purpose of establishing Sardar Patel Police University. He further urged that in view of the Full Bench decision in the case of Tara and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in 2015 (3) WLN 197 (Raj.), the revisions were liable to the dismissed as being time barred. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners craved quashing of the impugned orders and acceptance of the writ petitions.
(3.) Per contra, Mr. Manish Patel, learned AGC, representing the Panchayati Raj Department, has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He submitted that the disputed pattas were issued in favour of the petitioners without following the due process of law and as such, the District Collector was absolutely justified in quashing and setting aside same by the impugned order, which as per Mr. Patel, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference therein.;