1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) No.428/2008 in S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5652/2003 GIRDHARI SINGH V/s DISTRICT COLLECTOR & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT :: MARCH 11, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARAYAN ROY, C.J. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Anoop Dhand, for appellant. BY THE COURT : (ORAL) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order impugned. 2. According to the case of the appellant, he filed revision petition before the Collector under section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 substantially for cancellation of 'Patta' granted in favour of respondent No.2 (Sajan Kanwar Widow of Kan Singh) dated November 30, 1986. 3. The revision petition, however, was dismissed on the ground of delay. It 2 is not in dispute that the 'Patta' in question was executed in favour of respondent No.2 on November 30, 1986. It is manifest from the material on record that respondent No.2 in whose favour the 'Patta' was executed was none else other than 'Bhabhi' of this appellant. 4. Leaned Single Judge of this court also dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no time limit has been prescribed for filing revision petition under section 97 of the Act and, therefore, the revision petition was maintainable. It is true that no time limit has been prescribed for filing revision petitioned under section 97 of the Act but the revision petition must have been filed within a reasonable period. It appears to be a case where the 'Patta' originated in the house of the appellant itself and it would be too late for this court to accept the excuse of 3 the appellant that he had no knowledge of the 'Patta'. 6. Writ petitions are dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well. It appears to be a case of gross negligence on the part of the appellant inasmuch as the revision petition was filed almost after 18 years of execution of the 'Patta'. 7. The discretion so exercised by the learned Single Judge of this court in this back ground, therefore, cannot be said to be either bad in law or on facts. 8. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),C.J. Chauhan/