ORDER : M.M. Punchhi, CJI. - The appellant filed a declaration under the provisions of the Haryana Celling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 that he had no surplus area in his hands. The Collector had accepted his contention by his order dated 18.6.1982 and declared him to be a small landowner. That order was not challenged by the Government though it was represented before the Collector by an officer. Neither an appeal was filed nor a revision against the said order. 2. However, in 1989, an application was presented before the Financial Commissioner under Section 18(6) of the Act praying for invoking his suo motu powers to look into the legality of the orders after calling for the records of the Collector. The Financial Commissioner, after hearing both parties, passed an order on 17.2.1994 setting aside the order of the Collector on the basis that the same was vitiated by patent illegality. An objection was raised before the Financial Commissioner that he should not exercise the revisional power after a lapse of seven years from the date of the order of the Collector. He over-ruled that objection holding that when an order was vitiated by illegality, he could look into the same under Section 18(6) of the Act. The Financial Commissioner disagreed with the Collector and set aside his order. 3. The order of the Financial Commissioner was challenged before the High Court in a writ petition but the High Court refused to interfere with the same. The present appeal before us is against that order of the High Court. 4. Section 18(6) of the Act reads thus :- "Section 18(6). - Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, the Financial Commissioner may suo motu at any time call for the record of any proceedings or order of any authority subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or order, and may pass such order in relation thereto as he may deem fit." 5. No doubt, the section uses the expression "at any time" but it cannons be indefinite. The power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. While construing the expression "at any time", this court in State of Gujarat v. P. Raghav, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1297. has stated the law thus :- "11. No doubt, the section uses the expression "at any time" but it cannons be indefinite. The power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. While construing the expression "at any time", this court in State of Gujarat v. P. Raghav, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1297. has stated the law thus :- "11. The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under Section 65 at any time. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised." 6. Section 18(2) of the Act prescribed a period of 15 days for filing an appeal and Section 18(4) prescribes a period of 30 days for filing a revision before the Commissioner. When the two Sub-Sections prescribed a very short period of 15 and 30 days respectively, it will be unreasonable to hold that the Financial Commissioner has unlimited power to entertain a revision after a lapse of several years. 7. The test prescribed by this Court in Raghav's case has been ignored by the Financial Commissioner in the present case. His order does not disclose any reason to hold that a period of nearly seven years is reasonable on the facts of the case. Nor has the High Court gone into the question and decided whether the power has been exercised on the facts and circumstances within a reasonable period. Hence we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. The order of the Financial Commissioner is also set aside. The order of the Collector dated 18.6.1982 is restored. No costs. C.A. No. 7052/95 and C.A. No. 4111/98 (Arising out of S.L.P. 247 of 1995) Leave granted in S.L.P. The contention raised in these two appeals by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Financial Commissioner had not exercised his power of revision under Section 18(6) of the Act within a reasonable time. We find that in neither of the cases, the contention was raised before the Financial Commissioner. Hence, it is not open to the appellants to raise it later. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the High Court. We find that in neither of the cases, the contention was raised before the Financial Commissioner. Hence, it is not open to the appellants to raise it later. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the High Court. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. Appeal allowed.