Honble MUKHERJI, ACTG. C.J. – This appeal is filed by the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Revenue Department impugning a judgment and order dated December 12, 1995 whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application filed by the State of Rajasthan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order of the Board of Revenue dated November 5, 1990 as well as a decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Nawa dated September 21, 1985. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application mainly on the ground of delay and further held that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Assistant Collector as upheld by the Board of Revenue. Hence the special appeal before us. (2). Admittedly, the land as recorded Khasra No. 622 measuring 2836 bighas 9 biswas situated in village Nawa was entered as a government land in the revenue records, out of which a portion of 3 bighas was allotted to one Lalaram in Smt. year 2018 for three years. The settlement was given on account of the said Lalaram being a landless person. On the basis of Jamabandi entries the said Lalaram sold this three bighas of land to respondent No.2 Nena Ram son of Mangilal Jat on October 10, 1984 by a registered sale-deed. On the basis of the sale deed mutation No. 998 was sanctioned in the name of Nena Ram by the Tehsildar, Nawa giving on April 17, 1985. The said respondent Nena Ram however filed a suit for declaration and injunction on September 3, 1985 against Lalaram impleading Tehsildar, Nawa out a contention inter alia that the sale was in respect of 30 bighas of land out of Khasra No. 622 and 622/11. It was further contended that by mistake of revenue officers Lalaram was entered as khatedar of 3 bighas of land instead of 30 bighas and Nena Ram purchased 30 bighas of land even though in the revenue record only 3 bighas was entered. He prayed for a declaration that he was a khatedar in respect of 30 bighas of land out of khasra No. 622. The respondent Satya Narain however made an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. in the self same suit for impleading him as a party on the ground that he was in possession of 10 bighas of land out of 30 bighas claimed by Nena Ram. The respondent Satya Narain however made an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. in the self same suit for impleading him as a party on the ground that he was in possession of 10 bighas of land out of 30 bighas claimed by Nena Ram. Nena Ram however did not object to the said Satya Narain being impleaded. However, the learned Assistant Collector, Nawa without any adequate evidence or proof of the same decreed the suit of Nena Ram vide his judgment and order dated September 21, 1985 almost 18 days after the institution of the suit. The suit was really not contested by Lala Ram and a collusive decree was thus obtained. The Assistant Collector held contrary to law that Lala Ram had adverse possession against the State of Rajasthan. Immediately after the decree Nema Ram and Satya Narain sold this land to respondents Rameshwar Lal and Narsingh by registered sale-deeds. (3). The Tehsildar, Nawa submitted an application under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for making reference to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the illegal and collusive decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Nawa dated September 21, 1985 before the Collector, Nagaur. On this application the Additional Collector registered a case and called for the record of the Assistant Collector, Nawa and after an opportunity of hearing to the respondents and examining the records, found the decree dated September 21, 1985 to be illegal and a collusive one and contrary to the provisions of law and referred the matter to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer vide his order dated July 20, 1990. (4). Peculiarly enough, the Board of Revenue committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not accepting the reference made by the Additional Collector, Nagaur. The Member, Board of Revenue did not consider the revenue records and merits of the case. (4). Peculiarly enough, the Board of Revenue committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not accepting the reference made by the Additional Collector, Nagaur. The Member, Board of Revenue did not consider the revenue records and merits of the case. He did not see for himself that in the revenue record the land in dispute was entered as a government land and in Samat 2018 the respondent Lala Ram was allotted only 3 bighas land only for three years and as such Lala Ram was not entitled to acquire khatedari rights in this land under any provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and as such Lala Ram had no right also to sell this land to any one and the purchaser has also obtained no such seleable right in this land. (5). Unfortunately, the Member, Board of Revenue thought that it was a private dispute and a reference was not maintainable in the circumstances. From the submissions made by the State lawyer it was clear that there was also manipulation which was writ large on the basis of the submissions made by the State lawyer that it was a private dispute between two parties and not a dispute between the State on the one hand and private individuals on the other. The Member, Board of Revenue failed to decide the matter by way of reference on merits and overlooked the fact that Nena Ram, the respondent filed the suit on the basis of his purchase of the land from Lala Ram giving out inter alia that Lala Ram was in posssession of 30 bighas since the time of Jagir. But on the contrary, Nena Ram purchased only 3 bighas of land from Lala Ram which was evident from the deed of purchase itself. Under Section 91 of the Evidence Act, oral evidence was also not admissible contrary to the recitals in the deed which was also overlooked by the Member, Board of Revenue and Nena Ram as a purchaser could not be declared khatedar in respect of 30 bighas of land as alleged or claimed by him. Under Section 91 of the Evidence Act, oral evidence was also not admissible contrary to the recitals in the deed which was also overlooked by the Member, Board of Revenue and Nena Ram as a purchaser could not be declared khatedar in respect of 30 bighas of land as alleged or claimed by him. There was total non-application of mind on the part of the Member, Board of Revenue and it was really a sad state of affairs that the learned Single Judge also dismissed the writ application as filed by the State without apropriate reasons giving out inter alia that it was a belated writ application filed by the State ignoring the submission on behalf of the State that the file was misplaced and the delay was on account of getting copies of the record and relevant documents belatedly. It was not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where manipulations were going on from the very beginning, that precise delay has occurred when the matter was pen- pending at the office of the Collector and Additional Collector, Nagaur as the case may be. The cryptic observations of the learned Single Judge that he has gone through the records of the case and there is no infirmity in the order of the Assistant Collector as upheld by the Board of Revenue does not inspire confidence and on the other hand shows the object failure on the part of the learned Single Judge to have tendered his views properly. (6). We are conscious of the decision as passed by a Division Bench of our court as reported in Anandi Lal vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (1). The same was a dispute in between two private parties and even though no period of limitation was prescribed under the relevant provisions. There was an obiter expression given by the Division Bench that the power vested in the Board of Revenue by way of a reference under Section 232 ought not to have been exercised beyond the period of one year. There was an obiter expression given by the Division Bench that the power vested in the Board of Revenue by way of a reference under Section 232 ought not to have been exercised beyond the period of one year. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the present case where fraud was perpetuated from the very beginning and there was a collusive decree obtained by Nena Ram right from the beginning, the fruits of which were sold out to the other respondents, we are of the considered view that it is in the fitness of things that the powers under Section 232 ought to have been exercised by the Board of Revenue. We set aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue and direct the Board of Revenue to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. (7). The appeal accordingly stands allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Board of Revenue for a fresh hearing of the reference in accordance with law with a direction to treat the reference not as a private dispute but a dispute between the State of Rajasthan on one hand and the private individuals including Nena Ram and his transferees who have obtained the decree collusively as is manifest enough from the records.