Point of Law: District Collector is not empowered to review his own order as there is no provision of law available which permits him to do so.

ORDER :

1. These Civil Writ Petitions have been preferred claiming for the following reliefs:-

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5965/2021:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and:-

I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 20.12.2017 (Annex.4) passed by the Board of Revenue and judgment dated 07.10.2013 (Annex.2) passed by Revenue Appellate Authority Chittorgarh (Camp Udaipur) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

II. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 28.06.2013 (Annex.1) be restored.

III. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

IV. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2087/2021:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and:-

I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 11.10.2017 (Annex.4) passed by the Board of Revenue and judgment dated 07.10.2013 (Annex.2) passed by Revenue Appellate Authority Chittorgarh (Camp Udaipur) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

II. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 28.06.2013 (Annex.1) be restored.

III. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

IV. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents preferred an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Conversion Rules, 2007 for the conversion of the lands situated at Khasra no. 3757, 3758, 3759 and 3761, admeasuring a total of 2.66 hectares. Thereafter, the petitioner-State sought a report from the concerned Patwari and Tehsildar. That report dated 08.11.2012 was submitted by the concerned Patwari and reprot dated 16.11.2012 was submitted by the concerned Tehsildar.

2.1 That the aforesaid application was rejected by the District Collector-Udaipur vide order dated 28.06.2013 on the ground that the land in question was falling in the periphery belt and that therefore the conversion application was bad.

2.2 Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the private respondents before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Chittorgarh (Camp Udaipur) which was allowed vide judgment dated 07.10.2013.

2.3 Against the said judgment, the petitioner-State preferred an appeal before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer which was dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2017.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State assails the impugned orders on the grounds that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that the lands in question was falling within the periphery belt and therefore the same could not have been converted. And that the District Collector, Udaipur vide impugned order dated 28.06.2013 upon finding certain irregularities with respect to the lands in question rightly cancelled the earlier order dated 23.01.2013.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-State and submits that the present petition was preferred in the year 2021 against the order passed by the learned Board of Revenue in the year 2017, and that there is an inordinate delay of about three-four years, for which no justification has been advanced by the petitioner-State. And that although no limitation period is prescribed for filing of a writ petition, a lack of explanation/justification thereof ought to be viewed adversely against the petitioner-State, and their petition ought to dismissed at threshold. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The State of Madhya