The first and foremost circumstance, which convinces the court that the revisional authority acted totally in an unjust manner while entertaining the challenge to the subject pattas is that the revisions came to be instituted after nearly 9 to 10 years after the date of issuance of the pattas in question and that too at at the instance of the Vikas Adhikari concerned. No reason or cause was set up in the pleadings of the revisions as to why the pattas issued to the petitioners, who belong to the weaker sections of the society were being challenged after a gross delay of 9 years. The administration being the revisionist did not set up a case that it was not aware of these pattas for all these years. Though it is true that the concept of delay does not apply in strict sense to the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the District Collector by virtue of Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act, but while entertaining a revision filed after significant delay, the court has to remain mindful of the reasons behind the delay. If there is no justification whatsoever for the delay, then the revision should normally should not be entertained. Furthermore, Hon’ble Full Bench of this court in the case of Tara (supra) considered the very issue of delay and held that a period of three years should normally be sufficient to be treated to be the outer limit for entertaining a challenge to a patta or any such allotment. Furthermore, on perusal of the impugned order, this court is duly satisfied that no significant
