ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 02.12.2014 passed by the Additional Collector, Sirohi (for short 'the Additional Collector' hereinafter), whereby the revision petition filed by them under section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act of 1994' hereinafter) has been dismissed. 2. By way of the above mentioned revision petition, the petitioners prayed for cancellation of Patta No.34 dated 22.03.2003 (for short 'the patta in question' hereinafter) issued in favour of respondent No.5 Netiram by the Gram Panchayat, Sirodi, Tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi. 3. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the patta in question mainly on the grounds that the plot, for which the patta in question was issued, is in their possession from the time of their ancestors as the same belongs to their forefathers. The petitioners have also alleged that before issuance of the patta in question in favour of respondent No.5 Netiram, the Gram Panchayat did not follow the procedure laid down under the Act of 1994 and the Rules made thereunder. 4. Learned Additional Collector after taking into consideration the material produced before it by the parties concerned has recorded a categorical finding that before issuance of the patta in question, the Gram Panchayat had followed the procedure laid down under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996' hereinafter). The Additional Collector has also observed that earlier the plot, for which patta in question has been issued, was in the possession of Smt. Tulsi wife of Hidaram and the respondent No.5 has purchased the same from her vide agreement to sell dated 22.05.2002 after paying consideration. 5. The Additional Collector has further observed that the challenge laid by the petitioner to the patta in question is suffering from delay because the petitioners have approached for cancellation of patta in question after 10 years. 6. The Additional Collector has also observed that the petitioners have claimed that they are in possession of the plot for which the patta in question was issued since long time, however, no documentary evidence is produced on their behalf to prove their possession over the land for which the patta in question has been issued. 7. 6. The Additional Collector has also observed that the petitioners have claimed that they are in possession of the plot for which the patta in question was issued since long time, however, no documentary evidence is produced on their behalf to prove their possession over the land for which the patta in question has been issued. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to satisfy this Court that before issuance of the patta in question the respondent-Gram Panchayat did not follow the procedure laid down under the Rules of 1996 for issuance of patta. 8. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that though the Gram Panchayat has decided to issue patta in question in favour of the respondent No.5 under Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 but the same has been issued under Rule 167(1) of the Rules of 1996. This Court does not find any merit in the above argument of the counsel for the petitioner because even if the patta in question in favour of the respondent No.5 is issued in a wrong format, the same cannot be said to be illegal once the Gram Panchayat has followed the procedure laid down under the law while issuing the patta in question. 9. Apart from that, the petitioners have failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of 10 years in challenging the patta in question before the Additional Collector and looking to inordinate delay, it cannot be said that the Additional Collector has committed any illegality in rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioners on the ground of delay also. 10. It is also noticed that this writ petition was presented by the petitioners before this Court on 12.06.2017, whereas the impugned order was passed on 02.12.2014 i.e. after a delay of three and a half years. The only explanation given by the petitioners regarding the delay in filing this writ petition is that they came to know about the judgment on 25.04.2017 when they contacted their counsel, however, the said explanation is not satisfactory because it is not believable that the petitioners did not contact their counsel for such a long time. 11. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 12. Stay petition also stands dismissed.