JUDGMENT : 1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2570/2023, while treating the same as a lead case. 2. The prayer clauses read as under : “It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be ordered to be allowed and a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued in favour of the humble petitioner; and (i) The impugned orders dated 26.02.1993 (Annex.5) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside. (ii) The patta so granted in favour of humble petitioner may kindly be ordered to be restored back or in the alternative respondent-Municipality Board may kindly be directed to regularize the possession of humble petitioner while taking requisite DLC rate charges over the property in question. Any other order of direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that father of the petitioner was having possession over certain land in Rawatbhata which was the holding of the Irrigation Department, and also since the same was being irrigated through Rana Pratap Sagar Dam, the father of the petitioner was paying rent for the land in question. 3.1. For the purpose of construction of Rana Pratap Sagar Dam, certain land was acquired, and out of the said land, almost 100 bighas of land, not utilized for Rana Pratap Sagar Dam Project, was transferred to Gram Panchayat, Rawatbhata for development of Abadi, in the year 1983. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat, Rawatbhata issued a patta in favour of father of the petitioner bearing Misal No.72 dated 19.03.1983 ad-measuring 40 x 30 feet of land. 3.2. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat, Rawatbhata issued a patta in favour of father of the petitioner bearing Misal No.72 dated 19.03.1983 ad-measuring 40 x 30 feet of land. 3.2. The State through Panchayat Prasar Adhikari filed a revision (registered as Case No. 86/1992) under Section 27(A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 read with Rule 272 of the Panchayat General Rules, 1961 before the Court of Additional District Collector, Chittorgarh, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 26.02.1993, while cancelling the patta of the petitioner in relation to the land in question; since the said order was not challenged, the same had attained finality. 3.3. Subsequently, the Municipal Board was constituted at Rawatbhata in the year 1999, and thereupon, the land in question was purchased by the Municipal Board of Rawatbhata from the Ranapratap Sagar and Bhandar Division, Rawatbhata; since then, the land was continuously held by the Municipal Board, Rawatbhata. 3.4. Thereafter, the petitioner has received a show cause notice on 15.06.2011 from the Municipal Board, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had illegally encroached upon the land in question, and thus, was called upon to furnish the relevant documents regarding the land in question to showcase his ownership over the land. The petitioner filed a reply to the said notice on 20.06.2011. The Municipal Board however, through a General Notice (Aam Suchna) dated 12.03.2021, issued a direction that no encroachment over the government land(s) shall be allowed and if any encroachment, over the government land(s), is found, the same shall be removed within 3 days. The respondents thereafter, dismantled the constructed house of the petitioner. 3.5. Thus, being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, and the impugned order of cancellation of the pattas, the present petitions have been preferred for quashing of the same and the proceedings conducted thereafter, including removal of the constructions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no proper notice had been given to the petitioners prior to cancellation of patta, which was clear from the impugned order, and therefore, the impugned order of cancellation of patta is not justified in law. 4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners were not aware about the proceedings pertaining to cancellation of the pattas in question till the reply was filed by the respondents in the earlier writ petition, and therefore, there was no delay in filing the present petitions. 4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners were not aware about the proceedings pertaining to cancellation of the pattas in question till the reply was filed by the respondents in the earlier writ petition, and therefore, there was no delay in filing the present petitions. It was also submitted that the entire impugned action of the respondents was ex parte and was taken without giving any proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the State Government had issued various circulars and orders, whereby encroachers, if any, were also held entitled for regularization owing to their long drawn possession, and thus, the case of the present petitioners is on a better footing than that of the encroachers, as they were holding valid pattas in regard to their possession over the land(s) in question, thereby entitling them for regularization of their possession. It was also submitted that the notice dated 12.03.2021 issued by the respondents to the petitioners was not been served upon them in any manner, and therefore, the entire action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. 4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents, on one hand, had regularized the possession of one Lal Chand Jaiswal, in relation to a land, just adjacent to the petitioners’ land(s), while on the other, cancelled the patta of the petitioner, followed by an action for demolition of the constructions of the petitioner over the land(s) in question. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the same clearly shows mala fide intention of the respondents. It was also submitted that the proceedings of cancellation of the pattas and removal of constructions in question was done in a pick and choose manner, and therefore, such action was not justified in law. 4.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the patta of the land(s) in question was issued in favour of the petitioner, in one case, in the year 1983; the petitioners constructed the shops as well as residential accommodations over the land in question, and thus, the impugned action of the respondents is not justified in law. 4.5. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner, in the lead case, did not engage any counsel in the aforementioned revision petition and no one appeared on his behalf, and therefore, the entire action was taken ex parte against the petitioner. 4.6. 4.5. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner, in the lead case, did not engage any counsel in the aforementioned revision petition and no one appeared on his behalf, and therefore, the entire action was taken ex parte against the petitioner. 4.6. Learned counsel further submitted that even now in case the respondents are inclined to regularize the possession of the petitioners over the land(s) in question, they are ready to bear the requisite and the necessary charges therefor. It was also submitted that the Director, Local Self had issued a letter to the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, whereby it was directed that upto 300 sq. yard land, which is under encroachment should be regularized. 4.7. Learned counsel further submitted that in identical matters bearing Pushpa Malik Vs. State (S.B.C.W.P. No. 4503/2020) and Manoj Malik Vs. State (S.B.C.W.P. No. 7792/2021), wherein the respondents herein were also parties, the Hon’ble Court passed the interim order in the year 2013, and therefore, the impugned action of the respondents was not justified in law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the present petitions, including, the lead case, are not maintainable because the impugned order in all these cases was passed in the year 1993 and after almost 20 years, the present petition (lead case ) was filed and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 5.1. It was further submitted that the petitioner was represented through his counsel in the revision petition and thereafter, the impugned order was passed, therefore, proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice on the part of the respondents. 5.2. It was also submitted that on 14.09.2012, a notice was published in the newspaper at the instance of the office of Executive Engineer Rana Pratapsagar and Bhandar Division, Rawatbhata to the effect that all pattas issued by the Gram Panchayat had been annulled by the Collector and no construction shall be raised on such lands, or no one shall be allowed to indulge in purchase or in sale of such land(s). 5.3. 5.3. It was further submitted that the illegal encroachment(s) of the petitioners had already been removed and that the land(s) had already been taken into possession by the respondents, and thus, no question of regularization, as prayed hereinbefore, in regard to the illegal possession of the petitioner shall arise. It was further submitted that the patta issued to the petitioner in the year 1983 had been cancelled by the competent authority in the year 1993, and the same had already attained finality. 5.4. It was also submitted that in the year 2006, the Municipal Board, Rawatbhata purchased the land in question from the Ranapratap Sagar and Bhandar Division, Rawatbhata. It was further submitted that the land in question claimed by the petitioner was entered in the revenue records in the name of the Municipal Board, which is reflected in the Jamabandi of Khasra no.17. 5.5. It was also submitted that prior to demolishing the illegal constructions of the petitioners, the respondents issued a public notice on 12.03.2021 in the newspapers and also a similar kind of notice was issued and published in the newspapers on 11.06.2021. It was further submitted that the respondents also issued notice under Sections 194 and 245 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, which was sent to the petitioner on 12.01.2023. Therefore, the entire action of the respondents was in accordance with law. 5.6. It was also submitted that the service of notice upon the petitioner was proper and that such encroachments and illegal constructions have been removed by the Municipal Authorities to a large extent, as they are duty bound to do so, as envisaged under Sections 194 and 245 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. 5.7. It was further emphasized by Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Rajesh Parihar, learned Additional Government Counsel that all the encroachers are to be treated equally and all the illegal constructions deserve removal; while, most of the illegal constructions have been removed, the rest are under process, and therefore, the impugned action of the respondents shall never be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5.8. In support of the above submissions, reliance was placed upon the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Hon’ble Court in the cases of Madan Lal Gaur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No.716/2023 order dated 17.01.2023) and Dasrath Sharma Vs. 5.8. In support of the above submissions, reliance was placed upon the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Hon’ble Court in the cases of Madan Lal Gaur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No.716/2023 order dated 17.01.2023) and Dasrath Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No.848/2023 order dated 18.01.2023) 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith orders referred at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that the father of the petitioner was having possession over certain land in Rawatbhata, which was holding of the Irrigation Department, and that, he was paying rent for the same. Thereafter, the land in question was transferred over to the Gram Panchayat whereas they had no authority to transfer the same, subsequently, the Gram Panchayat, Rawatbhata issued a patta in favour of the father of petitioner in the year 1983. However, the aforementioned revision petition was filed before the Additional Collector (Administrative), Chittorgarh, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 26.02.1993, while cancelling the patta in question. Subsequently, the Municipal Board was constituted at Rawatbhata in the year 1999, whereupon the land in question was purchased by the Municipal Board from the Ranapratap Sagar and Bhandar Division, Rawatbhata, and since then the land was held by the said Municipal Board. 8. This Court further observes that the Municipal Board had purchased the land in question in the year 2006, and the letter dated 04.04.2007 stated that as per the decision of the State Government and Naya Bazzar Yojana Samiti, the land in question was sold to the Municipal Board for a consideration amount as mentioned in the said letter. 9. This Court further observes that the respondents published various notices in the newspaper regarding the encroachment in question and the respondents also published the general notice (Aam Suchana) dated 12.03.2021 regarding the illegal encroachment and also directed for removal/demolition thereof within 3 days. 10. This Court also observes that the patta issued in favour of the petitioner was already cancelled vide order dated 26.02.1993 passed by the Additional Collector (Administration), Chittorgarh, and thereafter, the Municipal Board, purchased the land in question, and subsequently, after giving several opportunities to the petitioner, exercised its powers under Sections 194 & 245 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 and has removed illegal encroachments and constructions. Therefore, the respondents have not acted in violation, amongst others, of the principles of natural justice. 11. This Court further observes that the patta in question (in lead case) was cancelled in the year 1993, and the challenge against the same has been laid in the year 2023, i.e. after a huge delay on the part of the petitioner. This Court also observes that apart from the lead case, the rest of the above-numbered petitions are also suffering from a same kind of inordinate and unexplained delay in challenging the order of cancellation of the pattas and demolition of the illegal constructions. 12. This Court also observes that the possession on a government land without any lawful approval and without issuance of valid pattas, is an encroachment, which is the case herein, and therefore, the impugned actions of the respondents do not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the present petitions. 13. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petitions. 14. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed while directing the Municipal Board, Rawatbhata that it shall not treat any person unequally and in case any person, similarly situated to the present petitioners, has been given undue benefit of regularization of its possession over the government land, then appropriate steps shall be taken to ensure cancellation/revocation of such regularization and removal of encroachments. 14.1. In furtherance, this Court holds that as the land(s) was acquired by the Municipal Board by use of funds of public exchequer, thus, it shall be the sole prerogative of the Municipal Board, in what manner, it utilizes the land(s) in question for the benefit of public, and for the same, assurance has been given on behalf of the respondents before this Court. 15. All pending applications stand disposed of.