[2025:RJ-JP:8181] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11736/2010 Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Resident of Ratlai, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. District Collector, Jhalawar. 2. Gram Panchayat Ratlai, Panchayat Samiti, Bakani Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar through its Sarpanch/Secretary 3. Rai Singh S/o Kishanlal Resident of Ratlai, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 24/02/2025 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.06.2010 passed by the District Collector, Jhalawar (for brevity, ‘revisional authority’) whereby, while allowing the revision petition preferred by the respondent no.3, the subject patta dated 02.12.2004 issued in petitioner’s favour by the respondent no.2- Gram Panchayat, Ratlai, has been cancelled. The relevant facts in brief are that under a resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Ratlai dated 05.07.2004, the petitioner was issued the patta dated 02.12.2004 of the subject land which has been cancelled by the revisional authority vide order impugned dated 16.06.2010. [2025:RJ-JP:8181] (2 of 3) [CW-11736/2010] Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional authority did not appreciate that the revision petition was preferred by the respondent no.3 beyond the period of limitation of ninety days as provided under Section 97(3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity, ‘Act of 1994’). Learned counsel further submits that since, the subject patta was issued to him after auction wherein, he had paid entire auction amount, it was not liable to be cancelled. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the order impugned dated 16.06.2010 be quashed and set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, supporting the findings recorded by the revisional authority, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. A perusal of the provisions of Section 97 of the Act of 1994 reveals that no limitation for filing the revision petition is prescribed therein. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the provisions of Section 97(3), is wholly misconceived. Section 97(3) provides for limitation of ninety days for reviewing the order passed under Section 97(1) of the Act of 1994 and not for filing the revision petition. In view thereof, this submission has no merit and is rejected. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject patta was issued to him in an auction, is against the facts on record. The order impugned dated 16.06.2010 reveals that it was contended by him before the revisional authority that the subject patta was issued to him pursuant to resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Ratlai dated 05.07.2004, a copy whereof is [2025:RJ-JP:8181] (3 of 3) [CW-11736/2010] available in the record of the revisional authority. It says that to augment income of the Gram Panchayat, a decision was taken to allot the patta of the old buildings/houses at the maximum rate of Rs.1900/- per patta and one such patta was issued in favour of the petitioner. The subject patta placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure 1 also corroborates that it was issued pursuant to the aforesaid resolution and not in pursuance of any auction. Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 provides for regularization of old buildings/houses at the rate and in the manner prescribed therein. Indisputably, no such procedure was followed before issuing the subject patta to the petitioner. In view thereof, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order impugned dated 16.06.2010 passed by the revisional authority based on appreciation of evidence on record. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /33