1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 7241/07 (Sohan Singh vs. District Collector, Rajsamand & Ors.) Date of Order:- 20.11.2007. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr.S.P.Sharma, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT:- This writ petition is directed against order dated 16.4.07 passed by District Collector, Rajsamand in Panchayat Revision Petition No.41/07, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner u/s 97 of Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, assailing the validity of patta No.852/9 dated 27.11.83 issued in favour of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, has been rejected. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Gram Panchayat, Binol granted a Patta bearing no. 852/9 dated 27.11.83 of the land ad measuring 15' x 72' at village Sadra, in favour of Shri Chena (father of respondent nos. 2 and 3) . The validity of the said Patta was assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the Patta of the said land was obtained by father of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in collusion with the Gram Panchayat. It was further urged that the said land forms part of C.C.Road a common way used by the villagers and on account of the construction of the house by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 on 2 the land in question , the width of the road has been reduced. Since the revision petition preferred was barred by time, therefore, an application u/s 5 was also filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay. The application was allowed by the revisional authority vide order dated 25.9.06 and the revision petition was heard on merits. The learned Collector has arrived at the finding that as per the report of the Commissioner, the C.C.road existing at the site is 14' wide and not 7' as claimed by the petitioner. It was further observed that no house or plot of the petitioner is existing on the said road and even in the civil suit pending for injunction in respect of the disputed land, the petitioner is not a party . The revisional authority held that the petitioner has not been able to establish his locus standi to assail the validity of the said Patta. That apart, the revisional authority observed that no justifiable ground exists for assailing the validity of the Patta after a lapse of about 22 years from the date of the issuance of the Patta . Accordingly, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. It is contended by the learned counsel that while passing the order impugned , the revisional authority has altogether ignored the inquiry report submitted by Vikas Adhikari,Panchayat Samiti, Rajsamand submitted in pursuance of directions of the revisional authority. It is contended by the learned counsel that 3 admittedly two Pattas bearing nos. 852/09 dated 27.11.83 were issued , one in favour of Chena s/o Deva Gurjar and another in the name of Smt.Bhanwari Bai w/o Vardaji Kalal, thus, the irregularity committed is apparent on the face of record. It is contended by the learned counsel that the revisional authority has erred in holding that in absence of explanation of the Panchayat regarding the issuance of two Pattas bearing No. 852/09 , it appears to be a clerical mistake. The learned counsel contended that the revisional authority has erred in holding that the petitioner has no locus standi to assail the validity of the Patta. The learned counsel urged that since the Patta of the land issued forms part of the way, therefore, the every villager who use the said common way has locus standi to maintain the revision petition. It is to be noticed that the revisional authority on the basis of the report of the Commissioner has arrived at a categorical finding that the disputed land covered by impugned Patta does not form part of the common way as alleged by the petitioner. If the disputed land does not form the part of the common way then, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party so as to make him entitle to assail the validity of Patta issued in favour of the petitioner. Even the report of the Vikas Adhikari dated 29.3.2006 referred by the petitioner nowhere mentions that the disputed land forms part of the public way. It is also 4 pertinent to note that earlier a revision petition was preferred assailing the validity of the said Patta by Bheem Raj, son of the petitioner but, the same was withdrawn . There exists no plausible explanation on record regarding challenge to the said Patta after an inordinate delay of 22 years. It is also to be noticed that the Patta has been issued in favour of the father of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, a person belonging to lower echelon of the society free of cost for construction of the house and admittedly, the respondents have already constructed their house on the land in question. Thus, in the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order impugned passed by the revisional authority rejecting the revision petition preferred by the petitioner appears to be just and proper. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order warranting interference in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J.