Vijay Bishnoi, J.

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 28.6.1997 passed by the Additional District Collector, Pali (for short 'the revisional court') in revision petition No.130/95 whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 11.9.95 passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Sojat in an appeal preferred on behalf of the respondent Chandu son of Rawat Ram whereby, while accepting the appeal, the Panchayat Samiti, Sojat has cancelled the Patta issued in favour of the petitioner on 10.2.1968 by the Gram Panchayat Chandawal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Chandu has filed an appeal before the Standing Committee, Sojat challenging the Patta issued in favour of the petitioner on 10.2.1968 by the Gram Panchayat Chandawal on the ground that the said Patta has been issued for the land, for which, Patta has already been issued in his favour in the year 1965. The Standing Committee of the Gram Panchayat after taking into consideration the record of the Gram Panchayat and after inspecting the site has given a specific finding that the Patta was issued in favour of respondent Chandu in the year 1965 for the land adjoining to the road and there is no space in between the road and the land, for which, the Patta has been issued in favour of respondent Chandu, therefore, the action of the Gram Panchayat, Chandawal of issuing Patta dated 10.2.1968 in favour of the petitioner is illegal. The Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti has also observed that the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat has illegally issued Patta dated 10.2.1968 in favour of the petitioner, who happened to be his daughter, without ascertaining the fact that whether any land is lying as 'padat' in between the road and the land of the respondent Chandu.

4. Being aggrieved with the order of the Standing Committee of Panchayat Samiti of cancellation of Patta of the petitioner, she has preferred a revision petition before the revisional court under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act of 1994'), however, the revisional court has dismissed the said revision petition vide impugned order dated 28.6.97. Hence, this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti has illegally entertained the revision petition filed by the petitioner after a delay of about 29 years. It is submitted that the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti has illegally condoned the delay in filing the appeal though no sufficient cause was shown by respondent Chandu to file the appeal after a great delay.

6. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1415/97 - Sita Ram v. The Additional Collector, Nohar & Ors. decided on 22.5.2009 and a Division Bench decision of this Court at Jaipur rendered in the case of Anandi Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in RLW 1996(1) Raj. 396.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samit as well as the revisional court have not taken into consideration the argument of the petitioner that she has purchased the land by way of auction and thereafter the Gram Panchayat has issued the Patta in her favour. It is also contended that the order dated 11.9.95 has not been passed by the Standing Committee of Panchayat Samiti but was only passed by the Chairman i.e. the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti and, thus, the said order is liable to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel Mr. Manish Patel appearing for the State has opposed the writ petition and argued that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti as well as the revisional court, hence, this writ petition is