JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge feeling aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue accepting a reference. The petitioners claiming to be the Pujari of a Private temple got their names mutated in revenue records. A resident to the village objected to this and moved an application before the Additional Collector Alwar for making, a reference to the Board of Revenue for restoring the land in the revenue records in the name of Muni Mandir Narsingh ji Maharaj. The Additional Collector accepted the application and made reference to the Board of Revenue. However, on a review application the Additional Collector set aside his own order against which a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue allowed the review petition and accepted the reference. A review petition against this order was also rejected by the Bop of Revenue. 2. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order held that Board of Revenue did not commit any error which needs to be corrected. The findings arrived at by learned Single Judge have been assailed by the appellants in the instant appeal. 3. It appears from the material available on record that the land was mutated on November 2, 1978 in the name of the appellants after the death of Narain Das and Cheta and after a lapse of about 10 years, i.e., on December 17, 1988 one Birdu moved an application before the Tehsildar alleging that the land was wrongly mutated. The Additional Collector thereafter on March 9, 1992 opined that land was wrongly mutated in the name of the appellants. The appellants filed review petition that was however allowed on Feb. 26, 1996. The application seeking reference was dismissed on the ground that civil and revenue suits were pending in the courts and further proceedings would be initiated after the decision of said cases. Birdu challenged the order of Additional Collector by filing revision petition before the Board of Revenue that was allowed as indicated hereinabove. 4. We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 5. Birdu challenged the order of Additional Collector by filing revision petition before the Board of Revenue that was allowed as indicated hereinabove. 4. We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 5. The Division Bench of this Court in Anandi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1996(2) WLC (Raj.) 36 propounded that to permit exercise of revisional powers under section 82 and 232 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 after unreasonable delay would amount to putting imprimature of the courts on the unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of power. In Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1998(1) WLC (Raj.) 625 it was however indicated that where order has been obtained by fraud, the power of reference can be exercised even after the unreasonable delay. 6. Undeniably the Board of Revenue allowed he revision of Birdu on July 11, 2000, i.e., after an unreasonable delay of 22 years. There is nothing on record to suggest that fraud was played in making entries in the name of appellants, therefore, we find merit in the instant special appeal. 7. For these reasons the appeal stands allowed and the impugned 30 orders shall stand set aside. In view of the fact that the suit in regard to the land in question is pending, we direct that the observations made in this order, shall not affect the rights of the parties and the learned court below where the suit is pending shall make endeavour to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as 35 to costs.Appeal Allowed. *******