ORDER : 1. These Civil Writ Petitions have been preferred claiming for the following reliefs:- In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5965/2021:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and:- I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 20.12.2017 (Annex.4) passed by the Board of Revenue and judgment dated 07.10.2013 (Annex.2) passed by Revenue Appellate Authority Chittorgarh (Camp Udaipur) may kindly be quashed and set aside. II. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 28.06.2013 (Annex.1) be restored. III. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. IV. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2087/2021:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and:- I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 11.10.2017 (Annex.4) passed by the Board of Revenue and judgment dated 07.10.2013 (Annex.2) passed by Revenue Appellate Authority Chittorgarh (Camp Udaipur) may kindly be quashed and set aside. II. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 28.06.2013 (Annex.1) be restored. III. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. IV. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents preferred an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Conversion Rules, 2007 for the conversion of the lands situated at Khasra no. 3757, 3758, 3759 and 3761, admeasuring a total of 2.66 hectares. Thereafter, the petitioner-State sought a report from the concerned Patwari and Tehsildar. That report dated 08.11.2012 was submitted by the concerned Patwari and reprot dated 16.11.2012 was submitted by the concerned Tehsildar. 2.1 That the aforesaid application was rejected by the District Collector-Udaipur vide order dated 28.06.2013 on the ground that the land in question was falling in the periphery belt and that therefore the conversion application was bad. That report dated 08.11.2012 was submitted by the concerned Patwari and reprot dated 16.11.2012 was submitted by the concerned Tehsildar. 2.1 That the aforesaid application was rejected by the District Collector-Udaipur vide order dated 28.06.2013 on the ground that the land in question was falling in the periphery belt and that therefore the conversion application was bad. 2.2 Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the private respondents before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Chittorgarh (Camp Udaipur) which was allowed vide judgment dated 07.10.2013. 2.3 Against the said judgment, the petitioner-State preferred an appeal before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer which was dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State assails the impugned orders on the grounds that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that the lands in question was falling within the periphery belt and therefore the same could not have been converted. And that the District Collector, Udaipur vide impugned order dated 28.06.2013 upon finding certain irregularities with respect to the lands in question rightly cancelled the earlier order dated 23.01.2013. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-State and submits that the present petition was preferred in the year 2021 against the order passed by the learned Board of Revenue in the year 2017, and that there is an inordinate delay of about three-four years, for which no justification has been advanced by the petitioner-State. And that although no limitation period is prescribed for filing of a writ petition, a lack of explanation/justification thereof ought to be viewed adversely against the petitioner-State, and their petition ought to dismissed at threshold. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bherulal (Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 9217/2020) decided on 15.10.2020. Relevant portion of the said judgment as relied upon by learned counsel is reproduced hereunder:- “7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible. 8. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible. 8. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner-State of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand) to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited in four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the special leave petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time. 9. The special leave petition is dismissed as time barred in terms aforesaid.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that a perusal of the reports prepared by the concerned Patwari and the Tehsildar, dated 08.11.2012 and 16.11.2012 respectively, (at Annex. R/1 and R/2 respectively) clearly state that the lands is free from charge, no suit is pending with respect to such lands and that the lands in question do not come under the master plan for the periphery area, and that the same is not reserved for acquisition purposes either. Furthermore, that the said reports were verified and upheld by the S.D.O. Girva. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the aforementioned reports were duly placed before the District Collector, Udaipur and that the application preferred on behalf of the respondents was considered and allowed vide order dated 23.01.2013. However, that the District Collector-Udaipur going beyond his jurisdiction crossed his own signatures on the order dated 23.01.2013 and vide order dated 28.06.2013 and mentioned that the earlier order dated 23.01.2013 stood cancelled. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the District Collector is not empowered to review his own order as there is no provision of law available which permits him to do so. Furthermore, that the same was done without affording the respondents an opportunity of hearing. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the District Collector is not empowered to review his own order as there is no provision of law available which permits him to do so. Furthermore, that the same was done without affording the respondents an opportunity of hearing. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the State cannot give retrospective effect to the Notification published for the implementation of Master Plan as it is evident by perusal of office note-sheet that till the process for conversion of the lands in question was going on, the Notification for the Master Plan was not published and it was only the draft plan that was in existence. 9. Learned counsel further submits that aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred an appeal against the order dated 28.06.2013 before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Chittorgarh (Camp Udaipur) which was allowed vide order dated 07.10.2013 observing that no reasons were attributed to the cancellation of the order dated 23.01.2013 by the District Collector-Udaipur, and that the same was done without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondents. 10. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner-State preferred an appeal against the aforementioned order, before the learned Board of Revenue, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2017, while observing that the lands in question are not situated within the periphery area and that the Site Inspection Report, prepared by the concerned Patwari reflected the same. And that, there was no provision of law whereby the District Collector could have reviewed his own order. 11. Heard. Perused the record of the case as well as the judgment cited at the Bar. 12. At the outset, this Court finds that the petitioner-State has not provided any reason or justification for the inordinate delay in preferring the present petition. The petitioner-State presented the present petition on 26.03.2021 while the impugned order was passed by the learned Board of Revenue on 11.10.2017. There is a delay of 1262 days for which no explanation has been proffered on behalf of the petitioner-State. 13. The petitioner-State presented the present petition on 26.03.2021 while the impugned order was passed by the learned Board of Revenue on 11.10.2017. There is a delay of 1262 days for which no explanation has been proffered on behalf of the petitioner-State. 13. This Court observes that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Chittorgarh vide impugned order dated 07.10.2013 while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents against order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the District Collector-Udaipur, is a non speaking order, whereby the District Collector merely struck his signatures on the previous order, dated 23.01.2023, passed by him, and wrote “cancelled”, without attributing any reasons for the same. Furthermore, that the private respondents were not afforded opportunity of hearing by the District Collector-Udaipur in passing the order dated 28.06.2013. 14. This Court further observes that the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer has recorded the finding that the lands in question were clearly not within the periphery area, as reflected from the reports of the concerned Patwari and concerned Tehsildar, and therefore could be converted as under the Rajasthan Land Conversion Rules, 2007. Furthermore, that the respondents were not afforded opportunity of hearing by the District Collector-Udaipur in passing the impugned order dated 28.06.2013 whereby the order dated 23.01.2013 allowing the Section 9 conversion application of the respondents was allowed. 15. This Court also observes, as the office note-sheet dated 17.09.2013, reveals that the Notification with respect to the Master Plan of the lands in question was in a draft stage, and the final Master Plan was not published while the application under Section 9 of the Rules of 2007 was preferred. And therefore, any subsequent development in finalization of the Master Plan cannot be said to have retrospective effect. 16. As an upshot of the above discussion, looking into the impugned orders and the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner-State, this Court finds that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity, and therefore do not warrant the interference of this Court in the concurrent and consecutive orders of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and the learned Board of Revenue, dated 07.10.2013 and 20.12.2017 respectively. 17. Resultantly, the present petitions are without merit and both are dismissed. Accordingly, all pending applications, also stand dismissed. 18. No order as to costs.