JUDGMENT\ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 28.6.1997 passed by the Additional District Collector, Pali (for short 'the revisional court') in revision petition No.130/95 whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 11.9.95 passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Sojat in an appeal preferred on behalf of the respondent Chandu son of Rawat Ram whereby, while accepting the appeal, the Panchayat Samiti, Sojat has cancelled the Patta issued in favour of the petitioner on 10.2.1968 by the Gram Panchayat Chandawal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Chandu has filed an appeal before the Standing Committee, Sojat challenging the Patta issued in favour of the petitioner on 10.2.1968 by the Gram Panchayat Chandawal on the ground that the said Patta has been issued for the land, for which, Patta has already been issued in his favour in the year 1965. The Standing Committee of the Gram Panchayat after taking into consideration the record of the Gram Panchayat and after inspecting the site has given a specific finding that the Patta was issued in favour of respondent Chandu in the year 1965 for the land adjoining to the road and there is no space in between the road and the land, for which, the Patta has been issued in favour of respondent Chandu, therefore, the action of the Gram Panchayat, Chandawal of issuing Patta dated 10.2.1968 in favour of the petitioner is illegal. The Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti has also observed that the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat has illegally issued Patta dated 10.2.1968 in favour of the petitioner, who happened to be his daughter, without ascertaining the fact that whether any land is lying as 'padat' in between the road and the land of the respondent Chandu. 4. Being aggrieved with the order of the Standing Committee of Panchayat Samiti of cancellation of Patta of the petitioner, she has preferred a revision petition before the revisional court under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act of 1994'), however, the revisional court has dismissed the said revision petition vide impugned order dated 28.6.97. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti has illegally entertained the revision petition filed by the petitioner after a delay of about 29 years. It is submitted that the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti has illegally condoned the delay in filing the appeal though no sufficient cause was shown by respondent Chandu to file the appeal after a great delay. 6. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1415/97 - Sita Ram v. The Additional Collector, Nohar & Ors. decided on 22.5.2009 and a Division Bench decision of this Court at Jaipur rendered in the case of Anandi Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in RLW 1996(1) Raj. 396. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samit as well as the revisional court have not taken into consideration the argument of the petitioner that she has purchased the land by way of auction and thereafter the Gram Panchayat has issued the Patta in her favour. It is also contended that the order dated 11.9.95 has not been passed by the Standing Committee of Panchayat Samiti but was only passed by the Chairman i.e. the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti and, thus, the said order is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel Mr. Manish Patel appearing for the State has opposed the writ petition and argued that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti as well as the revisional court, hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders as well as the material available on record. The Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti in its order dated 11.9.95 has specifically observed that during the course of inspection of site, it was revealed that there is no land available in between the road and the land of respondent Chandu, for which, the Patta has been issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 1968. The Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti in its order dated 11.9.95 has specifically observed that during the course of inspection of site, it was revealed that there is no land available in between the road and the land of respondent Chandu, for which, the Patta has been issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 1968. Though, a specific contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner that she had purchased the land, for which, the patta in question was issued by the Gram Panchayat through auction, but no auction proceedings were ever produced before the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti or before the revisional court. 10. The Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti has also taken into consideration the application preferred on behalf of the respondent Chandu under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condonation of delay and has held that the reasons given by respondent Chandu for filing the revision petition with delay are satisfactory. The respondent Chandu in his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has given reason for filing the revision petition with delay that he came to know about the issuance of Patta in favour of the petitioner only when the brother of the petitioner started raising construction over the land, for which, Patta has been issued by the Gram Panchayat in his favour way back in the year 1965. It is noticed that as a matter of fact, the Patta in question was issued in the year 1968, but for the first time, the brother of the petitioner Sampat Ram has applied for raising construction over the land in the year 1989 and looking to this fact, this Court does not find any illegality in the action of the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti in condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the respondent Chandu. 11. As observed earlier, the petitioner has come out with a specific contention that he had purchased the land, for which, Patta in question was issued by the Gram Panchayat in the year 1968 through auction, but no auction proceedings have been produced for perusal before the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, the revisional court or even before this Court. 12. 12. It appears that the petitioner is the daughter of the then Sarpanch Chandmal and Chandmal has issued Patta in favour of her without following the due procedure of law. 13. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Chiman Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2000 (2) WLC (Raj.) 1 has held that a Patta can be challenged at any point of time, if the same has not been issued after following due procedure of law. 14. So far as the judgments, on which, learned counsel for the petitioner is placing reliance are concerned, the facts of those cases are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 15. In Sita Ram's case (supra), the Gram Panchayat has set apart the land for public purposes after issuance of the Patta in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, this Court has observed that after issuance of Patta in favour of a person, the gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to set apart the land already allotted. 16. In Anandi Lal's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur has observed that if the person who has challenged the mutation proceedings was aware about sanctioning of mutation since beginning, however, despite knowing this fact he has challenged the said proceedings after a long delay, therefore, the Division Bench has held that the delay in challenging the mutation proceedings is fatal. 17. As observed earlier, in the present case, respondent Chandu has come out with a specific plea that he came to know about issuance of Patta only when brother of the petitioner started raising construction over the land allotted to him and there is no rebuttal of this plea on behalf of the petitioner. 18. The other contention of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 11.9.95 has not been passed by the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti is also not acceptable as the order dated 11.9.95 has been passed under the signatures of the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti and it is not revealed that the same has been passed by the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti. Moreover, no such objection has been raised by the petitioner either before the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti or before the revisional authority and, therefore, it appears that the said contention of the petitioner is an after thought. 19. Moreover, no such objection has been raised by the petitioner either before the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti or before the revisional authority and, therefore, it appears that the said contention of the petitioner is an after thought. 19. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.