ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against order dated 13.5.15 passed by the District Collector, Dungarpur, determining the dispute between the parties under Section 323 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short "the Act of 2009") pursuant to the order dated 1.2.10 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.475/06. 2. The facts relevant are that the petitioner Panchayat Samiti, Dungarpur, while claiming title over the disputed land, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent Municipal Board, Dungarpur. The injunction was sought in terms that the respondent Municipal Board may not interfere with use and occupation of the petitioner over the disputed land and the tenants occupying the premises constructed thereon may not be evicted. After the trial on the basis of evidence on record, the trial court arrived at the finding that the petitioner has no title over the land in question and accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial court, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which stood dismissed by the District Judge, Dungarpur vide judgment and decree dated 13.9.06. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred second appeal before this court. This court arrived at the conclusion that keeping in view the provisions of Section 323 of the Act of 2009, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Consequently, the second appeal preferred by the petitioner-Panchayat Samiti was allowed and the decree passed by the First Appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside. The matter was remitted to the District Collector, Dungarpur under Section 323 of the Act of 2009 with the directions in the following terms: "Consequently, the civil second appeal is allowed and judgments and decree passed by trial court as well as first appellate court are set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Collector, Dungarpur under the provision of Section 323 of the Act of 2009. The District Collector, Dungarpur shall take the cognisance of dispute involved in this case and proceed in accordance with law by affording the opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The parties to appear before the District Collector, Dungarpur on 8.3.2010. Since the matter has been remitted to the District Collector, Dungarpur, therefore, the application being IA No.16636 filed by the applicant-Surendra Kumar seeking impleadment stands dismissed." 3. The parties to appear before the District Collector, Dungarpur on 8.3.2010. Since the matter has been remitted to the District Collector, Dungarpur, therefore, the application being IA No.16636 filed by the applicant-Surendra Kumar seeking impleadment stands dismissed." 3. Pursuant to the directions issued as aforesaid by this court, the matter was taken up for consideration by the District Collector, Dungarpur under the provisions of Section 323 of the Act of 2009. After due consideration of the relevant land record and the submissions of the parties, the District Collector arrived at the finding that the lands in question recorded in the revenue record as pasture, bilanam and padat are vested in the Municipal Board and the petitioner Panchayat Samiti has no title whatsoever over the same. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner Panchayat Samiti has already constructed its building, excluding the land covered by the permanent residential buildings of Panchayat Samiti, the Municipal Board, Dungarpur, has been declared owner of the remaining lands. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in view of the long possession, the Panchayat Samiti has acquired title over the land in question and thus, the District Collector has seriously erred in arriving at the finding that the lands in question are vested in the Municipal Board. Learned counsel submitted that the land in question is source of income of Panchayat Samiti which is being used for the general welfare of the public. Learned counsel submitted that all of a sudden, the claim of ownership raised by the Municipal Board over the land, which is in peaceful use of the petitioner-Panchayat Samiti, is not substantiated by any documentary evidence on record. However, learned counsel fairly submitted that the Panchayat Samiti does not possess any title document in respect of the lands in question. 5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that it cannot be disputed that the Government land falling within the municipal limit stands vested in the Municipal Board, Dungarpur and thus, apparently, the petitioner Panchayati Samiti is in unauthorised occupation of the land. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of the order impugned reveals that the findings arrived at by the District Collector are based on the documentary evidence on record and cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court. 6. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of the order impugned reveals that the findings arrived at by the District Collector are based on the documentary evidence on record and cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, the lands in question occupied by the petitioner Panchayat Samiti were never allotted in its favour by the State Government. It is not disputed before this court that the Government land within the municipal limit stands vested in the Municipal Board, Dungarpur and thus, the petitioner, a statutory body, cannot be permitted to claim title over the land owned by the local authority on the basis of alleged long possession. Moreover, keeping in view the factum of the construction of the building already raised by the Panchayat Samiti, the District Collector while declaring the ownership of the Municipal Board over the lands in question, taking a reasonable view, has specifically excluded the land covered by the permanent residential buildings of the petitioner Panchayat Samiti. 8. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the District Collector, after objective consideration of all the relevant aspects in their entirety, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.