SHARMA, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 4 slept over his right for a period of more than thirty nine years and thereafter suddenly awoke and assailed the order dated 20. 11. 1957 of Gram Panchayat Hingoniyan granting Patta of land in question in favour of the petitioner, by filing revision u/sec. 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short `1994 Act' ). Learned Additional Collector III Jaipur vide order dated 2. 5. 2001 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 20. 11. 1957 of Gram Panchayat Hingoniyan. Against this order of Additional Collector III Jaipur that the present action for filing the writ petition has been resorted to by the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the record. Under Sec. 97 of 1994 Act, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order of a Panchayati Raj Institution or of a Standing Committee or sub-committee can be adjudged by the State Government suo moto or on application from interested persons, and such decision or order may be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected party. Significantly no period of limitation is provided for exercising such power of revision. Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 applies to those applications for which no period of limitation has been provided elsewhere. The period prescribed is three years, which is to commence when the right to apply accrues. In Kerala State Electricity Board vs. T. P. Kunhaliumma (1) it was indicated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that Art. 137 would apply to any petition or application filed under any Special Act to a Civil Court. Ratio of Kerala State Electricity Board's case (supra) is not applicable in the instant case as the Court of Additional Collector III Jaipur is not a civil Court. The question therefore arises at this juncture is as to whether the State Government has unlimited powers u/s. 97 of 1994 Act? Article 226 of the Constitution also prescribes no period of limitation but ordinarily no petition under it is entertained unless it is made soon after the right sought to be protected is infringed. No relief is ordinarily granted to a person who does not seek his remedy under the said Article with due diligence. A time lag that can be explained does not spell laches. `laches' is such negligence or omission to assert a right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time, more or less great and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, operates as a bar in a Court of Equity. In my considered opinion when the revisional jurisdiction of the State Government u/s. 97 of 1994 Act is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weighs with the revisional authority in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. Thus when there was considerable delay of more than 39 years coupled with the creation of the petitioner's rights over the land in question, in filing the revision petition challenging the order of issuance of Patta by Gram Panchayat, this circumstance would be sufficient to disentitled the respondent No. 4 to relief u/s. 97 of 1994 Act.
(3.) THE discretion exercised by the Additional Collector III Jaipur after a period of more than 39 years in cancelling the patta issued in favour of the petitioner by Gram Panchayat Hingoniyan, is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed, the impugned order dated 2. 5. 2001 stands set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. .;