Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the Board of Revenue dt. 13.02.2003 in a reference under Sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 whereby the Board of Revenue has set aside the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner declaring their Gair Khatedari right over the land in dispute situated in village Charanwala bearing Khasra No. 251 in District Jaisalmer. 3. The said decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 16.04.1992 in suit No. 77/1992. The aforesaid reference was filed under Sec. 232 of the Act somewhere in the year 1998 as it appear from reference No. TA/101/1998/Bikaner-State of Rajasthan vs. Shankar Lal & Ors. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gaur relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Teja and Ors., reported in 2005(4) RDD 921 (Raj.), Hari Ram and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in 1996 DNJ (Raj.) 397 and Mammi Khan vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in 2005(7) RDD 2418 (Raj.) submitted that reference filed after a gape of 9 years and 13 years in these cases was held to be barred by limitation. He submitted that though no limitation is prescribed under Sec. 232 of the Act, if such reference is filed after such a huge period of over 6 years, the Board of Revenue cannot be justified in entertaining such reference under Sec. 232 of the Act and the decree passed by the Revenue Court cannot be set-aside. 5. He further submitted that in the present case, these petitioners were in possession of suit property way back even prior to settlement in Samwat Year 2012 and their names were duly recorded in the Revenue Record even at the time of settlement and their old possession was proved by producing witnesses before trial Court. He further submitted that reference was unjustified, highly belated and barred by limitation. Therefore, the Board of Revenue could not set aside the said decree under Section 232 of the Act. 6. The learned counsel for the State Ms. He further submitted that reference was unjustified, highly belated and barred by limitation. Therefore, the Board of Revenue could not set aside the said decree under Section 232 of the Act. 6. The learned counsel for the State Ms. Pratishtha Dave on the side opposite submits that said decree under Sec. 88 of the Act could not granted in favour of the petitioner, but the petitioner could apply only for allotment under Sec. 15 AAA of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 if conditions of such allotments were fulfilled by the petitioner. 7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record. Since admittedly possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute even period to settlement has not been rebutted by the State before the trial Court, the decree of the trial Court holding that the petitioners were in possession even prior to settlement in Samwat Year 2012 and their names having been duly recorded in the Revenue Record at that time, could not be validly assailed on the ground of availability of remedy to the petitioners under Sec. 15AAA of the Act. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioners seems to be justified in relying upon the decisions of this Court cited supra wherein after a delay of so many years, if reference is made under Sec. 232 of the Act to the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue cannot entertain such reference under Sec. 232 of the act even if no limitation is prescribed under Sec. 232 of the Act. It is well settled that such reference has to be filed within a reasonable period. Since this Court has consistently held that delay of 6 to 9 years or more is fatal. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments, this Court holds that reference under Sec. 23 of the Act in the present case was highly belated and was barred by limitation. 8. In view of this, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Board of Revenue dt. 13.02.2003 is quashed and set-aside. No. order as to costs. * * * * *