JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. These four writ petitions are directed against a common order passed by Additional Collector, Chittorgarh dated 5.1.93 by which the lands alleged to have been sold by private negotiations by erstwhile Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Bassi have been found to be illegal inter alia on the ground that no procedure whatever has been followed for disposing off the lands placed at the disposal of the Gram Panchayat and the land has been allowed to the petitioners by private negotiations for which no resolution of Gram Panchayat existed. The Additional Collector also found that in the to totality of the facts and circumstances, under-hand procedure has been adopted for the purpose of allotting the land to petitioners in violation of the Rules and since the same have also not been confirmed by SDO, therefore, the whole process is inconsequential and held to be void. Consequently, the pattas issued by erstwhile Surpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Bassi have been cancelled. 3. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the aforesaid four writ petitions have been filed by different petitioners inter alia on the ground that an injunction of the Civil Court was operating in their favour and against the Gram Panchayat not to interfere in their possession. Reliance has been placed on the order of Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chittorgarh dated 8.9.92 passed in 9 different suits. The order has been passed on an application for temporary injunction under 0.39 Rr. 1 and 2 CPC. 4. A perusal of the said order clearly goes to show that it was not concerned with the validity of the pattas issued in favour of plaintiff applicants. As a matter of fact, relying on the pattas issued in their favour and alleging their possession on the land in question, a suit for permanent injunction appears to have been filed on behalf of the petitioners restraining the Gram Panchayat permanently from interfering with their possession. The Gram Panchayat has denied existence of valid patta in their favour. It has also denied their possession on the land in question. However, finding a prima facie case made out on the basis of existing pattas in their favour, the interim injunction was issued in favour of the petitioners and against the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat has denied existence of valid patta in their favour. It has also denied their possession on the land in question. However, finding a prima facie case made out on the basis of existing pattas in their favour, the interim injunction was issued in favour of the petitioners and against the Gram Panchayat. However, while issuing the temporary injunction, restraining the Gram Panchayat from interfering with the possession of the petitioners-plaintiffs, it was clearly stated in the order itself that this injunction shall last until the validity of the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners is decided by the concerned court and even thereafter they can be vacated only in accordance with law. Apparently, the question about the validity of the Pattas issued in favour of the petitioners was not in issue in the suit, only question was for granting temporary injunction and temporary injunction was issued subject to determination of the question of validity of the Patta by a competent Court. 5. In view thereof, the petition is cannot derive any assistance from the order of the learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate dated 8.9.92.So far as the question of delay in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by Additional Collector is concerned, it is not in dispute that under the provisions of the then Panchayat Act no limitation was prescribed for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is true that in the absence of any period of limitation prescribed for exercise of power, the authority must act within a reasonable period so as not to fall within the territory of action being arbitrary and unreasonable. However, no hard and fast limit can be placed on the period within which such power should be exercised when a question of such a magnitude is involved about squandering public property by the person in authority contrary to Rules for ulterior motive of conferring largess in favour of persons in whom he is interested. In my opinion, the period of limitation cannot be sole ground for not redressing the grievance ventilating wasteful dealing with public property, for its better use. Therefore, the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 5.1.93 cannot be held to be arbitrary on the ground that power has been exercised after a long period. 6. In my opinion, the period of limitation cannot be sole ground for not redressing the grievance ventilating wasteful dealing with public property, for its better use. Therefore, the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 5.1.93 cannot be held to be arbitrary on the ground that power has been exercised after a long period. 6. So far as the conclusion reached by the Additional Collector about the illegalities committed in allotment of land to different persons and the mala fide attitude of the Surpanch who entered into private negotiations to allot the land to particular persons to the detriment of interest of Gram Panchayat which amounts to fraud on the powers conferred on the Gram Panchayat in the matter of dealing with public property is concerned, is founded on proper appraisal of relevant material before the Collector. Hence, the order impugned cannot be termed illegal. 7. Accordingly, the writ petitions fails and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******