Order : This writ petition has been filed by six writ petitions seeking to challenge judgment dated 10.09.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and judgment dated 17.09.1996 passed by the District Collector, Bharatpur. It is also prayed that application submitted by Tehsildar, Kumher, for making reference to the Board of Revenue, be dismissed and it be declared that proceedings initiated on that application are null and void and the same are barred by principle of constructive res-judicata in view of earlier judgment of the Assistant Collector-II, Bharatpur, dated 12.05.1978. The District Collector, vide judgment dated 17.09.1996, made a reference to the Board of Revenue under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, at the instance of the Tehsildar, Kumher, District Bharatpur, which has been accepted by the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 10.09.1999. The Tehsildar, Kumher, filed an application before the District Collector on 07.10.1994, inter-alia, with pleadings that according to Jamabandi of Samvat 1986 the lands of account no.180 and 191 of 16 khasras measuring 19 bigha situated in village Gangarsoli, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur, have been recorded in the name of 'Chhatri Khanderao Holkar', in which Bhondudas (since deceased and now represented by respondents no.6, 7 and 8), Devidas (since deceased and now represented by respondent no.9) and Gopaldas, were entered as 'muafidars'. Respondents no.6 and 7 are grandson and granddaughter of Bhondudas, Respondent no.8 Raman is son of Bhondudas and respondent no.9 Prakashdas is son of Devidas. The said 'muafidars' of Chhatri Khanderao Holkar had irregularly transferred the said land in favour of one Hariram (since deceased and now represented by petitioners no.1 to 5). Vide mutation no.64, Baini and Raman (sons of Bhondudas) were recorded as 'muafidar' of the aforesaid 'muafi' land. Thereafter, Baini, Raman, Gopaldas and Hariram, vide mutation no.223, 225 and 233, by way of irregularity, got themselves recorded as khatedar of the said land. Gopaldas further committed illegally and transferred his share in the aforesaid land in favour of Ghamandi S/o Gopi (petitioner no.6 herein). The settlement department gave new khasra numbers to the land in question and Baini, Raman and Hariram were recorded as khatedars in account no.153 and Ghamandi was recorded as khatedar in account no.157. The allotment of new account numbers was totally illegal. The settlement department gave new khasra numbers to the land in question and Baini, Raman and Hariram were recorded as khatedars in account no.153 and Ghamandi was recorded as khatedar in account no.157. The allotment of new account numbers was totally illegal. It was stated that they may misuse the land in question, therefore, they should be restrained from transferring or alienating the said land, as such transfer of the land in question was in breach of Section 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the same was liable to be annulled by recourse of Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The land in question being the land of 'muafi' in nature, a reference should be made under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, read with Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, for cancellation of entry with regard to the land in question, in the revenue record. The District Collector, vide judgment dated 17.09.1996, accepted the application of the Tehsildar, and referred the matter to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan. The Board of Revenue, vide judgment dated 10.09.1999, accepted the reference. Hence this writ petition. Shri Vaibhav Pareek, brief-holder of Shri Sanjay Mehrishi, learned counsel for petitioners, argued that the Board of Revenue has erred in cancelling Mutations No.223, 225 and 233 of village Gangarsoli, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur and further ordering to enter the lands in dispute in the name of 'Chhatri Khanderao Holkar'. The Board of Revenue has misconstrued and misinterpreted the entries of the Jamabandi of the lands in dispute for Samvat 1986, 1992 and Samvat 2012 to 2070. The Board of Revenue has committed a grave illegality in holding that the disputed land was an ancient historical monument and thus the property of Archives Department. The Board of Revenue has misread and misconstrued the Notification of the State Government dated 27.04.1981. It has erred in holding that the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title were not entitled to claim khatedari rights in the disputed land and that they secured khatedari rights by mutation in collusion with the revenue officers. The Board of Revenue has failed to appreciate that the rights of the parties were adjudged by the Assistant Collector-II, Bharatpur, in the suit for division of holdings, by judgment dated 12.05.1978. The Board of Revenue has failed to appreciate that the rights of the parties were adjudged by the Assistant Collector-II, Bharatpur, in the suit for division of holdings, by judgment dated 12.05.1978. It has no jurisdiction to cancel the khatedari rights of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title in summary proceedings under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. It has completely ignored the fact that according to the Jamabandi of Samvat 2005, 'Chhatri Khanderao Holkar' has been entered as malik (owner) of the disputed land, and the disputed land has been shown to be in 'muafi' of Bhondudas and Hariram, and that 'Chhatri Khanderao Holkar' has no title in the disputed land after enforcement of the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959. Deceased Gopaldas S/o Girvardas was cultivating the disputed land as 'gair morusi' tenant since Samvat 2013 and his name was ordered to be entered in the khasra girdavari as a 'gair morusi' tenant by order of Sub Divisional officer, Bharatpur, dated 31.05.1976. Since Gopaldas S/o Girvardas was cultivating the disputed land as a 'gair morusi' tenant on 15.11.1959, the date of abolition of biswedari, he had acquired khatedari rights in the same and he had full right and authority to sell the disputed land in favour of Ghamandi, petitioner no.6, vide registered sale deed dated 16.05.1974 and there is no reason for doubting his title. Learned counsel for petitioners has argued that the judgment dated 12.05.1978 of the Assistant Collector-II, Bharatpur, operates as res-judicata in the matter as the State of Rajasthan was also a party in the said proceedings but learned Board of Revenue has completely ignored the above aspect of the case. There is no basis for the finding of learned Board of Revenue that deceased Baini, respondent no.8 Raman, deceased Gopaldas S/o Girvardas, respondent no.9 Prakashdas and deceased Hariram, were entered as 'gair khatedar' tenants and subsequently the khatedar tenants of the disputed land, in collusion with the revenue officials. It is argued that the finding of learned Board of Revenue that there were old trees of 'Peeple', 'Jamun', 'Kadam', 'Chonkra' and 'Neem' on the disputed land and that the disputed land consisted of gardens and groves, is against the material available on record. It is argued that the finding of learned Board of Revenue that there were old trees of 'Peeple', 'Jamun', 'Kadam', 'Chonkra' and 'Neem' on the disputed land and that the disputed land consisted of gardens and groves, is against the material available on record. Learned counsel for petitioner lastly submitted that even though there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for making reference/entertaining reference to the Board, yet the said power ought to be exercised within reasonable time and in a reasonable manner. The Board of Revenue has arbitrarily accepted the reference after expiry of a long period of 25 years. Learned counsel for petitioner has, in support of this case, relied on larger bench decision of this court in Chiman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others – 2000 (2) WLC (Rajasthan) 1. Per contra, Shri Dharmendra Pareek, learned Additional Government Counsel for respondents State, opposed the writ petition and submitted that the disputed land was a 'muafi' land and 'Chhatri Khanderao Holkar' was entered as its malik in the revenue record. The predecessors-in-title of petitioners were the 'muafidar' and that could not confer upon them the status of khatedar. Not only that, they got themselves entered as khatedar but also sold the land in dispute by creating third party interest. Such an approach cannot be approved. It is argued that there was no unusual delay in making reference to the Board of Revenue. It is therefore prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the impugned judgments as well as material available on record. As per entries of Jamabandi of Samvat 1992 and Samvat 2012 to 2070 in the name of 'Chhatri Khanderao Holkar', the lands of Khasra Nos.424 to 430, 433, 435, 437 to 439 and 441 to 444 situated in village Gangarsoli, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur, are recorded in the revenue records. Later on, Baini and Raman (both sons of Bhondudas, Gopaldas S/o Girvardas, Prakashdas S/o Devidas and Hariram S/o Nirmal, got recorded their names as 'gair khatedars' and subsequently, their names were recorded as 'khatedar' of the land in dispute. The State Government issued Notification dated 27.04.1981, which was published in official gazette, whereby 'Chhatri Khanderao Holkar' was declared as ancient historical monument being archives property. The State Government issued Notification dated 27.04.1981, which was published in official gazette, whereby 'Chhatri Khanderao Holkar' was declared as ancient historical monument being archives property. It is alleged that those persons were not entitled to be recorded as khatedars, yet in collusion with revenue officials, they got first recorded as 'gair mourusi/gair khatedar' then, got recorded themselves as 'khatedar' and thereafter sold the same to petitioner no.6 Ghamandi S/o Gopi. The District Collector, while accepting the application of the Tehsildar, made reference to the Board of Revenue by judgment dated 17.09.1996 with the observation that entry in the name of respondents as 'khatedar' in the revenue record may be cancelled. Naib Tehsildar awarded 'gair khatedar status to petitioners in land of khasra nos.223, 225 and 233 by order dated. Naib Tehsildar did not examine as to on what basis the petitioners were recorded as 'gair mourusi/gair khatedar'. In notification published on 27.04.1981, name of 'Chhatri Khanderao Holkar' was entered at serial no.57. The Board of Revenue noted that the disputed 'Chhatri Khanderao Holkar' was declared as ancient historical monument by notification dated 27.04.1981. The Board of Revenue rightly held that according to Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, no khatedari rights shall accrue with respect to land acquired or held for a public purpose or a work of public utility. The disputed land having now been entered in the name of 'Chhatri Khanderao Holkar' as malik, judgment of the Board of Revenue to that extent cannot be faulted. Coming now to the question whether any reference should not have been made after such enormous delay, it must be observed that the Board of Revenue has noted that application was made by the Tehsildar, Kumher, before the Collector on 07.10.1994 and the order of reference was passed on 17.09.1996. The petitioners were earlier originally recorded as 'gair khatedar' in the revenue record but the Naib Tehsildar, by order dated 06.04.1973, granted them khatedari rights in favour of Baini and Raman (both sons of Bhondudas), who filed a suit under Section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. There has been delay of 24 years in making reference to the Board of Revenue and it has to be seen whether this delay in the facts of the case would be fatal. There has been delay of 24 years in making reference to the Board of Revenue and it has to be seen whether this delay in the facts of the case would be fatal. A Larger Bench of this Court, while deciding a bunch of writ petitions leading one being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.185/2001 – Tara and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, vide judgment dated 15.07.2015, has in the context of delay, considered the question whether any time limit can be fixed for reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, and/or under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, in respect of the land held by a Hindu Idol (deity) and if so, to what extent? The Larger Bench held that even if no time limit is prescribed as such for reference in respect of the land held by deity, such a reference can be made within reasonable time. What shall be the reasonable period would depend upon nature of the Statute, rights and liabilities and other aspects. The Supreme Court in Brij Lal vs. Board of Revenue & Others - AIR 1994 SC 1128 , although noted that at the time when allotment of land was made in favour of petitioner, he was minor and, therefore, allotment was not proper, but considering that he was cultivating the land for about two decades now, the Supreme Court held that it would be travesty of justice to now dispossess him from the land. The division bench of this court in Pat Ram & Others vs. State & Others - 1995 DNJ (Raj.) 592 has relied on the aforesaid judgment of Brij Lal, supra. The facts in the case of Pat Ram, supra were somewhat similar wherein the allotment was cancelled by the Collector. In that case, the allotment was alleged to have been obtained by fraud, in that the Tehsildar made such allotment without consulting the Advisory Committee. The argument was rejected holding that there is no material on record to show that allotment was made by Tehsildar without consulting the Advisory Committee. Cancellation in that case was made 16 years after the allotment. The division bench has held that as per Rule 15 of the Rules, 1970, the khatedari rights can be conferred upon the allottee fulfilling the terms and conditions of allotment. Cancellation in that case was made 16 years after the allotment. The division bench has held that as per Rule 15 of the Rules, 1970, the khatedari rights can be conferred upon the allottee fulfilling the terms and conditions of allotment. Khatedari rights in that case were conferred upon the petitioner in the year 1974. It was held that after conferring the khatedari rights, the allotment cannot be cancelled on the ground that they violated any condition of allotment. Although it is true that in subsequent division bench judgments of this Court in Sohan Kanwar vs. Board of Revenue & Others - 2002 (1) WLC (Raj.) 415 and Mangla Son of Hema vs. State & Others -2007 (1) WLC (Raj.) 234, held that if any allotment has been secured on the strength of fraud or misrepresentation, notwithstanding conferment of khatedari rights on completion of ten years, the allotment can be cancelled, but here in the present case, it has neither been shown nor alleged as to what fraud was played by the petitioner. The Larger Bench of this Court in a recently delivered judgment in Tara and Others, supra, has expressed a similar opinion. In taking that view, the Larger Bench also relied on number of the Supreme Court judgments, namely, State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and Others - AIR 1969 SC 1297 , Mansa Ram Vs. S.P. Pathak and Others - AIR 1983 SC 1239 , State of Punjab vs. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. - (2007) 11 SCC 363 , wherein one to three years have been held to be reasonable period for taking such steps for exercise of such power. The Larger Bench also relied on recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and Another vs. D. Narsing Rao and Others - (2015) 3 SCC 695 wherein it has been held that when no time limit has been prescribed under the Statute for invocation of certain power, such power must be exercised within a reasonable time. If the power is allowed to be exercised after decades, it would lead to anomalous position leading to uncertainty and complications seriously affecting the rights of the parties over immovable properties. If the power is allowed to be exercised after decades, it would lead to anomalous position leading to uncertainty and complications seriously affecting the rights of the parties over immovable properties. Absence of any period of limitation does not mean that the power can be exercised at any time, which will make the exercise of power arbitrary and opposed to the concept of Rule of Law. What however shall be the reasonable period, would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors. The Larger Bench even went to the extent of holding that “even if the fraud is alleged, the power must not be exercised after unreasonable period, such as, several decades claiming rights over the land.” The Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. - (2007) 11 SCC 363 , dealing with a question of delay held that although no period of limitation has been prescribed by Section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, but the same would not mean that suo motu power can be exercised by the competent authority at any time. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period, would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors. In the facts of the present case, the period of delay of 24 years, after which the application for cancellation of allotment has been filed by the respondent no.2 and has been accepted by Collector, cannot be regarded as reasonable delay. And counting from the date of allotment, the order of cancellation of allotment has been passed after unreasonable delay of 25 years, which period in itself is highly unreasonable. Petitioner was in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute much prior to date of allotment and also during the aforesaid period of 25 years and thereafter continuously for last 15 years including the period of 12 years of pendency of this petition before this Court. In view of all these facts, the present petition deserves to succeed. In view of above, impugned judgments passed by the Board of Revenue dated 10.09.1999 and the District Collector dated 17.09.1996 cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. In view of all these facts, the present petition deserves to succeed. In view of above, impugned judgments passed by the Board of Revenue dated 10.09.1999 and the District Collector dated 17.09.1996 cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. Petitioners are held entitled to retain the land in dispute. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. This also disposes of stay application.