1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 08.09.2003 (Annex.12) whereby the revision petition field by the petitioner was dismissed by the District Collector, Rajsamand. A further prayer has also been made to set aside the pattas (Annex. 2 to 4) issued in favour of respondent No.6 after declaring pattas to be null and void. It is lastly prayed that the respondent No.5 be directed to perform their duties as per the provisions of law and keep the land free from encroachment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pattas (Annex.2 to 4) were issued in favour of respondent No.6 and if the proceeding undertaken by the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of issuance of patta is looked into then it would clearly reveal that at the instance of respondent No.6, entire process was manipulated and thereby pattas were issued in violation of the provisions of law. In that regard it is contended that not only pattas were issued prior to finalisation of the process of issuance of such pattas but it further shows that as against the decision of allotment of one plot and three plots were allotted to non-petitioner No.6. Looking to the fraudulent act of the respondents, the petitioner approached Collector by invoking the provisions of Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act of 1994 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1994") but then petitioner was non-suited by the Collector mainly on the ground of delay in maintaining revision petition. In the impugned judgment, the Collector has recorded its finding to the effect that revision petition has been preferred after a period of 21 days and thereby it being beyond the period of limitation, cannot be entertained. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no limitation is provided under Section 97 for maintaining revision petition and thereby the Collector has misguided by himself in deciding the issue by taking it to be case where revision petition is to be filed within period of limitation. On this ground itself learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of learned Collector deserves to be set aside. If a provision does not provide a limitation for presenting the revision petition then the same cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay more so when the petitioner had approached the revisional authority stating that the pattas were issued in favour of respondent No.6 by a fraudulent act on the part of the respondents. In this regard attention of the Court was drawn towards the proceeding undertaken by the Gram Panchayat and Annex.3 to 4 i.e. the pattas issued in favour of the respondent No.6. Referring to the representation submitted by the petitioners at Annex.5 and 6 it is contended that when pursuant to the representation, nothing was done by the respondents then the petitioner was left with no option but to prefer revision petition. The revision petition was not preferred by the petitioner with any delay inasmuch as immediately when petitioner could know about the allotment of pattas in favour of respondent No.6 in the Year 1981, he immediately filed a representation and approached the revisional authority thereafter thus without considering this aspect of the matter, the revision petition was dismissed erroneously on the ground of delay. The prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is thus to set aside not only the impugned order but also the pattas issued by the respondents Gram Panchayat.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents however, contends that the order passed by the District Collector is in accordance to the provisions of law inasmuch as petitioner had not approached the revisional authority within reasonable time inasmuch as pattas were issued by the Gram Pancahayat pursuant to the auction made and therein the petitioner had also participated, therefore, the petitioner was well aware of the auction of the plot by the Gram Panchayat and for that purpose reference of the auction proceedings as placed on