Mr. 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.

4. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the third respondent while supporting the order passed by the revisional authority submitted that the patta of the land in question was issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner in clandestine manner. Learned counsel submitted that without there being existence of old residential house, no proceedings under Rule 157 of the Rules could have been taken by the Gram Panchayat for issuing patta in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that Rule 157 only permits regularisation of the old houses constructed over the plot and not the open land and thus, the patta issued in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat acting without jurisdiction is void ab initio.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

6. A bare perusal of Rule 157 of the Rules, makes it abundantly clear that it permits regularisation where the person are in possession of old house in abadi land and desire to get a Patta issued. It further provides that for old houses constructed more than 50 years ago, the Patta may be issued by depositing Rs.100/- and for old house constructed during last 50 years from the date of commencement of the Rules i.e. 30.12.96, the Patta may be issued on depositing the charges Rs.200/-. It has come on record that as a matter of fact, no constructed house was existing at the site at the time of issuance of the patta or even thereafter. The ‘bara’, if any exist