JUDGMENT 1. - This is an intra-court appeal filed by writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 4328/2001 under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against an order dated 9.1.2003 passed by Single Judge in above mentioned writ petition. 2. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by appellant and in consequence upheld the order dated 22.2.2001 passed by District Collector, Rajsamand. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this writ-appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition and in consequence justified in upholding the order of Collector dated 22.2.2001 (Anex.4)? Facts of the case are these: 4. The appellant (writ petitioner) is a small farmer. He is the resident of village Vanai in district Rajsamand. Pursuant to a State policy to allot free of cost small plots to the members of SC/ST, small/marginal farmers for construction of residential house, the Panchayat on 3.12.1975 allotted a small piece of land ad-measuring 10 x 15 (150 Sq. ft.) in village Vanai to appellant (Annex.P/1). The appellant then constructed his small residential house on the plot so allotted to him and since last three decades he is living therein along with his family. 5. On 23.8.1989 i.e., almost after 24 years, a petition was filed by the Sarpanch of the area before Collector, Rajsamand complaining that Patta granted to appellant on 3.12.1975 be cancelled. It was complained that the grant made in favour of appellant is not as per procedure prescribed and hence it is liable to be cancelled. It is this application which was allowed by the Collector by his order dated 22.3.2001 resulting in cancellation of patta executed in favour of appellant. It is against this order of Collector, the appellant filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and in consequence upheld the order of Collector which resulted in upholding of the cancellation of Patta granted to appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued three points. In the first place, he contended that invocation of action for cancellation of Patta after 24 years was bad in law. It was inordinate and being totally unreasonable, the same should not have been entertained for cancellation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued three points. In the first place, he contended that invocation of action for cancellation of Patta after 24 years was bad in law. It was inordinate and being totally unreasonable, the same should not have been entertained for cancellation. Secondly, the appellant having constructed his house on the plot in question, the Panchayat was estopped from seeking its cancellation after 24 years and lastly, the grant was otherwise good and as per Rules. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. 8. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside of the impugned order allow the writ petition filed by appellant and in turn quash the order dated 22.3.2001 passed by Collector (Annex.4). 9. We are impressed by the first submission of learned counsel for appellant. An action initiated after expiry of about 24 years by one Sarpanch after allotment of Patta cannot be held as being legal, reasonable or just in the facts of this case. It was neither a case of encroachment per se by the appellant on the State land nor was it a case of fraudulent acquisition of Patta by resorting to any illegal means by the appellant. The Patta in question was granted to appellant by the Panchayat (Anex.P/1) pursuant to a State policy to which the appellant being a small agriculturist and having no house of his own was eligible. The appellant was therefore, well within his rights to construct his small house on 10 x 15 (150 Sq. ft.) of land for his living and which he rightly did. 10. In our considered opinion, therefore, there was absolutely no justification on the part of Sarpanch of the village to have woken up after 24 years of grant and to start action against the appellant for demolition of his house and cancellation of Patta. An action of this nature in our opinion cannot be upheld. It is found lacking in reasonableness. The appellant who has been living in the house constructed by him on lawful grant made by the Panchayat for last 24 years cannot be evicted in this manner. An action of this nature in our opinion cannot be upheld. It is found lacking in reasonableness. The appellant who has been living in the house constructed by him on lawful grant made by the Panchayat for last 24 years cannot be evicted in this manner. It is more so when Sarpanch who initiated the action did not show any locus in the subject except to say that grant was against certain Rule or/and that it was not as per procedure. 11. In our view, therefore, we are inclined to quash the impugned orders on the aforementioned ground alone without going into any other submissions though pressed in service. It is not necessary. 12. Accordingly and in view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. As a consequence, the writ petition out of which this intra-court appeal arises is allowed and order dated 22.3.2001 (Annex.4) passed by Collector, Rajsamand is quashed by issuance of writ of Certiorari. 13. No cost.Appeal Allowed. *******