JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition, petitioner has questioned the legality and propriety of impugned order dated 16.09.2015 (Annex.5) passed by Additional District Collector Nagaur. By the aforesaid order, learned Additional District Collector has rejected revision petition of the petitioner under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'Act'). 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, averred that allotment of land by the Gram Panchayat was dehors the rules. That apart, it is also averred that Gram Panchayat Merta Road has no right to issue patta of a public way and this serious defect is overlooked by the learned Additional District Collector. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 4. There remains no quarrel that Gram Panchayat allotted Aabadi land to private respondent on 31.03.1988 vide Annex.3 and since then private respondent is in possession over the land in dispute. In totality, the learned Additional Collector was impressed by the fact that revision petition is filed after 24 years for which no plausible explanation is tendered by the petitioner. While construing period of limitation, the learned Additional Collector has also observed that even if no period of limitation is prescribed, a party cannot be permitted to avail the remedy after such an inordinate delay. 5. In my opinion, reasons given by learned Additional Collector for non-suiting the petitioner in the revision petition are just and proper and same cannot be categorised as infirm or perverse. 6. It is now well-settled law that while no period of limitation is fixed but in normal course of events the period the party is required for filing a civil proceedings ought to be the guiding factor. It goes without saying that a revisional jurisdiction conferred by virtue of Section 97 of the Act is discretionary in nature, and therefore, revisional authority while exercising its jurisdiction can very well invoke equitable doctrine namely 'delay defeat equity'. Equity favours a vigilant rather than indolent litigant and this being the basic tenet of law, the learned Additional Collector has not committed any jurisdictional error in declining to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. 7. Full Bench of this Court in a recent verdict in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.185/2001 - Tara & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Equity favours a vigilant rather than indolent litigant and this being the basic tenet of law, the learned Additional Collector has not committed any jurisdictional error in declining to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. 7. Full Bench of this Court in a recent verdict in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.185/2001 - Tara & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. , along with 35 connected matters while adjudicating a reference answered five questions including question No.5, which reads as under:- (v) Whether any time limit can be fixed for reference u/s 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and under section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in respect of the land held by a Hindu Idol (deity). If so, to what extent?" 8. Before the Full Bench, the question referred was time limit for making reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Both these provisions are akin to Section 97 of the Act prescribing no period of limitation. While answering the reference, Full Bench has considered many authoritative pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, including the recent verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & Anr. v. D. Narsing Rao and Ors. [ (2015) 3 SCC 695 ] , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held: "25. The legal position is fairly well settled by a long line of decisions of this Court which have laid down that even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of any power, revisional or otherwise, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period. This is so even in cases where allegations of fraud have necessitated the exercise of any corrective power. We may briefly refer to some of the decisions only to bring home the point that the absence of a stipulated period of limitation makes little or no difference insofar as the exercise of the power is concerned which ought to be permissible only when the power is invoked within a reasonable period." Finally Full Bench answered the reference to the aforesaid question as follows: 42. On the aforesaid discussion and in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above, we decide the question no. On the aforesaid discussion and in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above, we decide the question no. (v) in the manner that even if no time limit has been fixed for reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and under section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in respect of the land held by a Hindu Idol (deity), a reference can be made within a reasonable time, which will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Even if the fraud is alleged, the power must not be exercised after unreasonable period, such as, after several decades claiming rights over the land. 9. In view of authoritative pronouncement of Full Bench of this Court, revision petition preferred by the petitioner for cancellation of patta issued in the name of second respondent has been rightly rejected by learned Additional Collector and the said order warrants no interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.Resultantly, writ petition fails and the same is, hereby, dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. *******