Honble SHARMA, J.–The core question spring up for consideration is where no period of limitation is prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Statute, can the power be exercised by the authority at any time ? (2). This question arises in the circumstances set out below:- It is the case of the petitioner that land in question was being cultivated by the ancestors of Achhi Lal as Gair Maurisi Tenant and Khatedari rights were acquired. The name of the petitioners father was entered as Khatedar in Svt. 2020 (Year 1963) in the land records. On December 26, 1990 certain inhabitants of the village having grudge against the petitioner made complaint to Collector Alwar that the agricultural land in question was of Maufi of Moorti Mandi Sita Ram ji under the management of Achhi Lal and it was wrongly entered in the Khatedari of Acchi Lal. The Additional Collector in the order dated July 26, 1994 after observing that the name of Achhi Lal was wrongly entered as khatedar remitted the record to the Director Land Records Revenue Board Ajmer, for making a reference to the Board of Revenue. The Director, in turn, made a reference to the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated August 8, 1997. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference vide judgment dated November 27, 1997 and issued direction to the Tehsildar Ramgarh to correct the entries and to enter the name of deity in the land records after erasing the name of Achhi Lal. Against these judgments that the present writ petition has been preferred. (3). Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced before me and on scanning the material on record, I find merit in the writ petition since the impugned orders were rendered after unreasonable delay. (4). The Division Bench of this Court in Anandi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1996 DNJ (Raj.) 100 = RLW 1996(1) Raj. 396) indicated that to permit exercise of revisional powers under sections 82 and 232 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short `1956 Act) after unreasonable delay would amount putting imprimature of the courts on the unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of powers. In Mangi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1998 (1) WLC (Raj.) 625 = RLW 1997(3) Raj. 2017) it was however observed that where order has been obtained by fraud, the power of reference can be exercised even after the unreasonable delay. In Mangi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1998 (1) WLC (Raj.) 625 = RLW 1997(3) Raj. 2017) it was however observed that where order has been obtained by fraud, the power of reference can be exercised even after the unreasonable delay. (5). Although sections 82 and 232 of 1956 Act do not provide for the period of limitation but concept of exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres with it the concept of exercising the same within a reasonable time and if the power is not exercised within reasonable time, the invocation of the powers after inordinate delay and the exercise of the same after unreasonable length of time would unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore the action of exercise of such power would be illegal and void. In the instant case there is nothing on record to suggest that fraud was played in making entries in the name of Achhi Lal. As the petitioner, after acquiring khatedari rights continued in possession of the land for a number of years, her rights can not be called in question. The Board of Revenue, in my opinion has committed illegality in accepting the reference after an unreasonable delay of 35 years. (6). For these reasons I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders. No costs.