ORDER S. Samvatsar, J. This petition is filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 2-11-2002 passed by the Board of Revenue in Case No. 257/4/00 whereby the Board of Revenue has granted permission to review the order dated 18-9-1989 passed by the Collector, Gwalior in Case No. 75/87-88. Brief facts of the case are that the present Petitioner was owner of the land bearing survey numbers 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 148/2, 149, 158/1 and 156/1 total area 9 bigha 17 biswa situated in village Senkri, Tehsil Gwalior. Petitioner filed an application for exchange of the said lands with Government land bearing survey numbers 459/1, 470, 471 and 478 having total area 21 bigha 17 biswa which was charnoi land. The Collector after hearing the parties allowed the application for exchange. The Collector has also prepared a Nistar Patra u/s 237 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code for conversion of the lands on 5-10-1989. Subsequently, permission was sought by the Collector for review of the earlier order. The Board of Revenue by the impugned order has granted permission to review the permission to the Petitioner for exchange of the lands. This petition is filed against the said order granting permission to review. Contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the power of suo motu revision has to be exercised within a reasonable time and cannot be exercised after lapse of 13 years. For this purpose, he has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The State of Gujarat Vs. Patil Raghav Natha and Others, wherein the Apex Court has held that the power of review cannot be exercised after a lapse of seven years. Other judgments relied by the counsel for the Petitioner are in the cases of Pratap Singh and others vs. State of M.P. 1997 RN 219 and State of M.P. and Another Vs. Board of Revenue and Others, . this Court also in the case of Bhanwar Singh vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P. No. 142/03 decided at Gwalior on 2-8-2006 has also taken a similar view. The ratio laid down by all the judgments is that power of review has to be exercised within a reasonable time and reasonable time depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The ratio laid down by all the judgments is that power of review has to be exercised within a reasonable time and reasonable time depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. From perusal of order Annexure P/1, I find that no explanation whatsoever is offered in the said order for granting permission to review after lapse of nearly 12 years. This ground was raised by the present Petitioner and dealt with by the Board of Revenue at page 5 of the impugned order. Only reason assigned in the impugned order for permission to review is that there is huge difference of prices between the two lands. This cannot be a ground for review. A review is maintainable u/s 51 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and Sub-clause (ii) of the said section provides that no order shall be revived except on the grounds provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thus, review can be made only if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Difference in price or the fact that the proceedings u/s 237 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code were initiated after passing of the order is not a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the Board of Revenue has committed an error in granting permission to review. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/1 passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed