A revision against a patta issued under the Panchayati Raj Act should not be entertained after a delay of 9 to 10 years without any justification.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging order dt. 30.06.2015 & 27.05.2015 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur whereby revision petition has been allowed and the valid pattas issued to the petitioners have been cancelled.

2. Learned counsel for the parties have been submitted that the similar controversy has been decided initially by this Court led by SBCWP No. 13015/2017 [Naina Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] decided by a common order dt.20.11.2018.

3. Learned counsel has submitted that another identical bunch of writ petitions-SBCWP No. 841/2019 [Padma Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] and other connected writ petitions were decided by this Court on 17.01.2019. The order passed by this Court in SBCWP No. 841/2019 [Padma Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] and other connected writ petitions is quoted hereunder:-

4. 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 & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & 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.

Per contra, Mr. Manish Patel, learned AGC, representing the Panchayati Raj Department, has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners 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.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and gone through the material available on record.

The first and foremost circumstance, which convinces the court that the revisional authority acted totally in an unjust manner while entertaining the challenge to the subject pattas is that the revisions came to be instituted after nearly 9 to 10 years after the date of issuance of the pattas in question and that too at at the instance of the Vikas Adhikari concerned. No reason or cause was set up in the pleadings of the revisions as to why the pattas issued to the petitioners, who belong to the weaker sections of the society were being challenged after a gross delay of 9 years. The administration being the revisionist did not set up a case that it was not aware of these pattas for all these years. Though it is true that the concept of delay does not apply in strict sense to the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the District Collector by virtue of Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act, but while entertaining a revision filed after significant delay, the court has to remain mindful of the reasons b