SANGEET LODHA, J.

1. This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 2.8.17 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant questioning the legality of order dated 28.6.17 passed by the Additional District Collector, Jaisalmer, the revisional authority, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act"), cancelling the patta dated 17.9.07 issued in favour of the appellant by the Gram Panchayat, Habur, (now renamed as 'Punamnagar'), has been dismissed.

2. The facts relevant in nutshell are that the appellant submitted an application before the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Habur, for issuing patta of the old house constructed over the Abadi land in his possession. After inviting objections and taking into consideration the inspection report submitted by the Site Inspection Committee of Panchas constituted for site inspection under the provisions of Rule 146 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules"), Gram Panchayat, Habur adopted a resolution in its meeting held on 15.7.07 to issue patta of the disputed land in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, patta of the land ad measuring 65x65 sq. ft. was issued by Gram Panchayat, Habur in favour of the appellant on 17.9.07. As per the patta issued placed on record as Annexure 11, the same was issued after conducting auction on payment of Rs. 200/- whereas, as a matter of fact, the proceedings for issuing patta in favour of the appellant was taken under Rule 157 of the Rules, which provides for regularisation of old houses.

3. The legality of the patta issued in favour of the appellant was questioned by the respondent no.2-Salak Khan by way of revision petition preferred under Section 97 of the Act before the Additional District Collector, Jaisalmer.

4. After due consideration of the record and the rival submissions, the revisional authority arrived at the finding that the patta is alleged to have been issued in favour of the appellant after conducting auction, however, the same has not been issued in the manner alleged, inasmuch as, before issuing the patta for Rs. 200/-, no auction was conducted by the Gram Panchayat. The revisional authority found that the house of the appellant's father is situated on the land adjoining to the plot in question and therefore, he could not have claimed patta of the land under Rule 157 (1) of the Rules. The revisional authority observed that there was nothing on record suggesting that the appellant was in possession of old house constructed over the disputed land prior to 1996 and accordingly, the patta issued was ordered to be cancelled.

5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional authority, the appellant preferred a writ petition before this court, which stands dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order under appeal.

6. It was contended on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge that the revision petition preferred after ten years since issuance of the patta in favour of the appellant, in absence of the application seeking condonation of delay, was not maintainable. That apart, it was contended that the patta issued in favour of the appellant after following the procedure laid down under the Rules, has been duly registered and therefore, could not have been cancelled in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

7. The learned Single Judge arrived at the finding that at the time of issuance of the patta, the appellant herein, was 14-15 years of age and therefore, the question of his being in old possession of the disputed plot cannot be accepted. The learned Single Judge observed that the factum of non existence of the old house on the plot in question stands admitted by the appellant and thus, the patta of the land issued in his favour in terms of Rule 157 of the Rules is bad in law. The learned Single Judge observed that if the patta issued suffers from any defect, the factum of i