Honble SHARMA, J.–Feeling aggrieved by the act of providing Khatedari rights to the petitioners in year 1962, one Nathu Lal moved an application under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for agriculture purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short `1970 Rules) to the Collector Dholpur who vide order dated March 30, 1992 made a reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short `1956 Act) to the Board of Revenue Ajmer. The Board of Revenue Ajmer vide order dated May 11, 1996 remanded the matter for fresh decision after providing the opportunity to both the parties. The matter was heard by the Additional Collector Dholpur and reference was again made vide order dated July 28, 1997. This time reference was allowed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer vide order dated April 28, 1998 and the order dated June 7, 1962 of the Tehsildar regularising the land and the mutation made in favour of the petitioners were quashed. Against the orders dated April 28, 1998 and July 28, 1997, respectively passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer and the Additional Collector Dholpur, that the present writ petition has been filed. (2). Having given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and on scanning the material on record, I find merit in the writ petition since the impugned orders were rendered after unreasonable delay. (3). 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 Section 82 of the 1956 Act after unreasonable delay would amount putting imprimature of the courts on the unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of powers. (4). Although Section 82 of 1956 Act does 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. (5). Therefore the action of exercise of such power would be illegal and void. (5). Since the Additional Collector Dholpur and Board of Revenue exercised the powers after about 30 years, exercise of such powers is unjust and the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. (6). For these reasons I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated April 28, 1998 and July 28, 1997, respectively passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer and the Additional Collector Dholpur. No costs.