MOHANTY, M.–This is a revision petition filed under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur dated 29.8.97.in file No. 83197. (2). This brief facts of the case are that a portion of khasra No. 794 measuring 10 biswas situated in village Kankani Tehsil Luni is classified as `gair mumkin pahadi, in which a Bada has been constructed by Shri Gokalram the non-applicant against whom proceedings u/S. 91 of the L.R. Act was filed by the Tehsildar, Luni. The Tehsildar after hearing both the parties, imposed a penalty and ordered dispossession of the non-petitioner from the Government land. Against the order of the Tehsildar, an appeal was filed before the Collector, Jodhpur who after hearing both the parties, confirmed the order of the Tehsildar vide his order dated 02.6.97. A second appeal was filed before the R.A.A., Jodhpur which was accepted and the case was sent for regularisation. The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the R.A.A..Jodhpur dated 29.8.97. (3). The learned Dy. Govt. Advocate and the advocate for the non- petitioner argued the case only on the point of limitation. It was argued that the order of the R.A.A. was passed on 29.8.97 against which the present revision petition was filed on 28 ` 12.98. The revision was filed much after the 90 days limitation prescribed for the purpose. It is argued that the revision petition was. filed after 1 year & 1 month, while the petitioner had full knowledge of the decision of the R.A.A. dated.29.8.97. The order of the R.A.A., Jodhpur dated 29.8.97 was sent to the Tehsildar, Luni on 10.11.97 and tehsil received the same vide receipt No. 2123 dated 19.11.97. The non-petitioner filed an application before Tehsildar, Luni on 6.1.98 which was duly accepted by him on the same date and marked to the concerned Tehsil Patwari for further necessary action. Thus,, it is clear that from,the record, the Tehsildar had full knowledge of the decision of R.A.A. on 06.1.98. The District Collector, Jodhpur sent a letter to Tehsildar, Luni. The non-petitioner filed an application before Tehsildar, Luni on 6.1.98 which was duly accepted by him on the same date and marked to the concerned Tehsil Patwari for further necessary action. Thus,, it is clear that from,the record, the Tehsildar had full knowledge of the decision of R.A.A. on 06.1.98. The District Collector, Jodhpur sent a letter to Tehsildar, Luni. in this regard vide his letter No. Judicial/Suit/98/585 dated 28.3.98 which was duly received by the Tehsildar on 1.4.98 and in that letter, it was inquired by the Tehsildar to file a revision against the order of the R.A.A. which was ordered by the Collector on 16.7.98 for filing g reply and appointing an officer-in-charge in this regard. The present revision petition has been filed on 28.12.98. The Dy. Govt. Advocate argued that on the point of limitation in government cases, these are the kind of time normally taken in due process and therefore the delay in condoning the filing of appeal may be granted. (4). As against this, the advocate of the non-petitioner cited certain judgment of the Revenue Board and the Honble Rajasthan High Court, in which it has been held as under:- 1. Buddha. vs. State of Rajasthan (1) : In this case, Honble Member Shri Rajendra Saxena has held that ``Under the Indian Limitation Act, Section 5- Impugned order pronounced in presence of advocate of the petitioner-Petitioner had constructive knowledge of the same- Any plea to the contrary should have been supported by an affidavit of the advocate- Plea of knowledge from. Patwari cannot be considered in absence of affidavit from Patwari. 2. State of Rajasthan vs. Sukhdev Singh (2) : In this case, Honble Justice Shri P.P. Naolekar has held that `Appeal of the State barred by limitation by 63 days- There must be sufficient cause for not preferring appeal within period of limitation- In that regard, much differentiation would not be made between the Government and a private party- A bald statement that there was delay in granting sanction by concerned Department of Govt., for filing appeal would not constitute a ground for condonation of delay- Application u/S. 5 dismissed. 3. 3. State of Rajasthan vs. Mangi Lal (3) : In this case, it has been held that "limitation Act 1963, Section 5- Appeal of the State, barred by limitation- Application u/S. 5 for condonation of delay- Why the sanction could not be granted by the State within the stipulated period and what efforts were made for getting the sanction for filing appeal and why it was delayed, have not been explained- Held,, lower appellate court rightly rejected application u/S. 5 for condonation of delay. There are following other citations referred to by the counsel for the non-petitioner on the point of limitation, in which similar view has been given 4. Babu Lal vs. Savitri Devi & Ors. (4). 5. Lal Chand vs. Sukha (5). 6. Revenue Courts Manual: Part-1 : Rule 17 (Gh), Rule 20(11), Rule 32. 7. State of Rajasthan vs. Madan Gopal (6) 8. Kalu & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (7) 9. State of Raj. vs. Adan Rani & Ors. (8) 10. C. & A.C.S.C., Sriganganagar & Ors. vs. Darshan Singh & Ors. (9) 11. Smt. Babe Bai vs. State (10) 12. Bhandari Das vs. Smt. Sushila & Ors. (11) 13. State of Raj. vs. M/s. Baijnath Asharfilal (12) 14. Narpatchand & Anr. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (13) 15. Ashis Kumar Hazra vs. Rubi Park Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. (14) 16. State of Raj. vs. Magan Lal (15) 17. Union of India vs. Brij Lal Prabhu Dayal Ors. (16) 18. State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Pushpa (17) The learned Dy. Govt. Advocate could not explain undue delay in filing this revision petition against the order of the Revenue Appellant Authority, Jodhpur dated 29.8.97. (5). Having looked into the point of limitation thoroughly and the citations mentioned above on the point of limitation, the reasons cited cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for explaining the delay. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. Consequently, the revision also fails as barred by limitation. Pronounced in open Court.