JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J. - The petitioners had initially filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). This petition was dismissed on 29.7.1988 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Thereafter, the petitioners waited for 12 years and filed another petition on 8.12.2000. This petition has also been dismissed by order dated 8.2.2002 on the ground of res judicata. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that in case a scheme of consolidation is challenged, the ground of limitation is not relevant. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The Gram Panchayat village Kanoda v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings and Others, 1990 Punjab Law Journal 213. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court has been considered subsequently in the case of Gram Panchayat Karkran v. Addl. Director of Consolidation and another, 1972(2) Punjab Law Journal 375. In this judgment, the Supreme Court has held that provision of "no limitation" cannot be understood as enabling the party which is aggrieved by the scheme or by repartition to make an application under Section 42 after an unreasonably long lapse of time. Even where no period of limitation is prescribed, the party aggrieved is required to move the appropriate authority for relief within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court even in the case of Gram Panchayat, Village Kanonda (Supra), while dealing with Rule 18 itself held that when no limitation is prescribed for an application under Section 42 dealing with confirmation of the scheme, the application should be made within a reasonable time and this question will have to be decided on the facts of each case. In that case, the delay of about 3 years and 8 months in filing an application under Section 42 of the Act was held to be not unreasonable. In the present case, the scheme was confirmed in the year 1954. The first application under Section 42 of the Act was filed on 11.9.1987 and the same was dismissed on 29.7.1988. Thereafter, the petitioners remained silent for more than 12 years and filed another petition on 8.12.2000. This petition was decided on 8.2.2002. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the orders passed the authorities below. The first application under Section 42 of the Act was filed on 11.9.1987 and the same was dismissed on 29.7.1988. Thereafter, the petitioners remained silent for more than 12 years and filed another petition on 8.12.2000. This petition was decided on 8.2.2002. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the orders passed the authorities below. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.