Honble SHARMA, J.—Gram Panchayat Lavan on February 6, 1977 issued patta in regard to land in question in favour of the petitioners. After a lapse of 14 years a revision petition under Section 27A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 was filed. The Collector Dausa vide order dated June 14, 1994 allowed the revision and set aside the order February 6, 1977 of Gram Panchayat Lavan. It is against this order of Collector Dausa that the instant writ petition has been preferred. (2). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. (3). A look at section 27A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 goes to show that period of limitation for filing the revision has not been prescribed. An attempt, therefore, has been made on behalf of respondents to justify the impugned order on the ground that since the period of limitation was not prescribed, the revision could be entertained even after 14 years. I am not impressed with this submission. (4). 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 court of equity. No relief is ordinarily granted to a person who does not seek his remedy with due diligence. The aggrieved party must be very vigilant and seek relief at the earliest date. If he fails to do so and has no satisfactory explanation for the delay then his petition is liable to be thrown out in limine. Unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weighs with the courts in deciding whether or not to exercise revisional, appellate or writ jurisdiction. The Court is required to take into consideration all the facts of the case in determining whether there has been undue delay in approaching the court or whether the delay is justified or excusable. (5). In the instant matter where the delay of 14 years in filing the revision petition was not explained, there should be satisfactory explanation for the exercise of revisional power after the reasonable length of time. The Collector Dausa, in my opinion, acted arbitrarily in exercising jurisdiction under section 27A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 after a lapse of 14 years. (6). The Collector Dausa, in my opinion, acted arbitrarily in exercising jurisdiction under section 27A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 after a lapse of 14 years. (6). For these reasons, I find it a fit case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed, the order dated June 14, 1994 of Collector Dausa is set aside and order dated February 6, 1977 of Gram Panchayat Lavan is restored. There shall be no order as to costs.