JUDGMENT 1. :- Both these petitions are disposed of by this common order as the common question of law is involved in both these petitions. 2. Notice was issued in 1990 for sale of 5 residential plots by auction by the respondent no.3-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Nimbahera and the auction took place on 5.1.91 for Rs. 2,181/- for plots ad measuring 25 feet x 60 feet. Accordingly, 5 persons including the present petitioners got the plots. Proceedings were sent to the respondent no.2 Block Development Officer for his approval on 8.1.91 and the sale was confirmed by him on 26.3.91. accordingly, all the persons including the present petitioners paid up the price of their plots and the registered sale-deeds were executed in June, 1991 and pittas were also issued to all the five persons. However, after a lapse of almost 3 years, 4 revision petitions were filed by the respondent no.2-Block Development Officer himself before the Collector-respondent no.1 for setting aside the sale on the ground that some irregularities were committed at the time of auction. On issuing notice, on behalf of the present petitioners, objection was raised about the maintainability of the revision petition filed at the instance of the respondent no.2-Block Development Officer because he himself being the allotting authority could not even file the revision petitions. However, the learned Collector by his common judgment and order dated 31.7.96 (Annex.8) allowed all 4 revision petitions and quashed and set aside the auction proceedings and also allotment of pittas as he was of the opinion that certain irregularities were committed at the time of auction by the Gram Panchayat. Regarding the objection raised by the present petitioners that the Block Development Officer could not have filed the revision petitions himself, the Collector held that he otherwise also had jurisdiction and accordingly, he exercised his suo motu jurisdiction and allowed the revision petitions in 1996 i.e. after 6 years of allotment of plots and auction proceedings. Out of 4 persons, 3 filed revision petitions including the present petitioners before the Collector for reviewing his order but the same were also rejected by the common judgment and order dated 2.6.97 (Annex.9). Aggrieved by these orders at Annex.8 and 9, only the present petitioners have filed these 2 petitions before this Court. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Out of 4 persons, 3 filed revision petitions including the present petitioners before the Collector for reviewing his order but the same were also rejected by the common judgment and order dated 2.6.97 (Annex.9). Aggrieved by these orders at Annex.8 and 9, only the present petitioners have filed these 2 petitions before this Court. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Rastogi for the petitioners submits that the learned Collector accepted the objection raised by the petitioners that the revision petitions filed at the instance of Block Development Officer was not maintainable because he himself approved the proceedings. Therefore, he submitted that it was not open to the Collector to exercise his suo motu revisional jurisdiction after a period of 6 years in 1996 and quash the allotment of plots and auction proceedings. He submitted that the petitioners have already put up some construction like putting up boundary wall on the plots and the plots are only 25 feet x 60 feet. He submitted that there was no period of limitation in exercising the suo motu jurisdiction by the Collector but the suo motu jurisdiction could have been exercised within reasonable period and in support of his submission, Mr. Rastogi has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Brij Lal versus the State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1999 DNJ (Raj.) page 437 and has also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Anandi Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1995(1) RLR 555 =1996 D.N.J. (Raj.) page 100. However, the learned counsel Mr. Dave for the respondents vehemently submitted that when there is a material irregularity committed by the Sarpanch at the time of auction, then the delay of 3 or 6 years should not come in the way of the Collector in exercising his suo motu jurisdiction. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dhanraj and another v. Additional Collector, Ganganagar and others reported in 1994(2) RLR 259=1995 D.N.J. (Raj.) page 458. 4. Dhanraj's case (supra) was considered by me in Brij Lal's case (supra) which is cited by the learned counsel Mr. Rastogi for petitioner before me. 4. Dhanraj's case (supra) was considered by me in Brij Lal's case (supra) which is cited by the learned counsel Mr. Rastogi for petitioner before me. In Dhanraj's case, the undisputed facts were that the sale by Gram Panchayat was in favour of the persons who were close relatives of the then Sarpanch and the land was for public use for long time and it was situated almost in the middle village and the sale was made in most suspicious manner without any public auction. That is not the case here. It is true that there are some irregularities but no malafide intention has been alleged in all these cases when the respondent no.2 filed revision petitions before the Collector. 5. Law on this point is very well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court that when no period of limitation is prescribed, the same should be exercised by the authorities within a reasonable period. Reasonable period depends upon facts of each case. It may be for few months or a year or so. 6. Having gone through the impugned common judgment and order of the Collector in both these cases, I am of the opinion that there was already a gross delay of 3 years on the part of the Block Development Officer in filing the revision petition and in all there was a gross delay of 6 years on the part of the Collector in exercising his suo mote jurisdiction. Thus, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned Collector exercised his suo motu revisional power within reasonable time, therefore, only on this ground both the petitions are required to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, both these petitions are allowed and the impugned judgments and orders dated 31.7.96 and 2.6.97 (Annex.8 and 9 respectively) passed by the Collector are hereby quashed and set aside.Stay petition is also disposed of.Petition Allowed. *******