JUDGMENT : NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. 1. The present writ petition is filed seeking quashing of the reference application dated 12.04.2012 under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 as well as impugned notice issued to the petitioner vide Order dated 19.04.2012 by the District Collector, Udaipur in Case No. 02/2012 (Reference) claiming the property in respect of the Khasra No. 371 (2560 min), 372 (2560 min), 373 (2560/1), 375 (2560 min), 376 (2560 min), 377 (2560 min), 378 (2560 min), 380 (2558, 2562 min), 381 (2559) & 382 (2557) to be a reserve forest. 2. The State of Mewar merged into Union of Rajasthan. At the time of merger and in pursuance to the Article 12 of the Covenant, a list of private properties of Erstwhile Ruler of Mewar was approved by the Union of India. In the list of private properties of Erstwhile Ruler of Mewar State, the property in question known as Khas Odhi along with Badi Pal was shown within the southern boundary of the City Palace meaning thereby that both the properties, namely, Khad Odhi and Badi Pal are part and parcel of the City Palace, Udaipur and situated within the southern boundary of the Palace. Subsequently, it was also confirmed by the State of Rajasthan vide its Order dated 20.12.1961 and the copy of the same was also sent to the Revenue Department (Forest) for information and necessary action. In pursuance to the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 04.06.1955, the property in dispute was ordered to be entered in favour of the Palace Household. However, the record of rights were not corrected. Hence, in pursuance to a Letter dated 17.10.1966 addressed by the then Maharaja of Udaipur, the State Government issued the Letter dated 27.10.1966 to the then Collector of Udaipur that land of Khasra Nos. 2563, 2564 & 2565 be allowed to be retained by the Forest Department as offered in donation from Maharaja of Udaipur and the other pieces of land illegally occupied be handed over back by the Government to the Household free of any encumbrances. A Letter dated 17.11.1969 was also issued by the then Collector, Udaipur to the D.F.O. Udaipur and Tehsildar, Girwa to handover the possession of the said land. A Letter dated 17.11.1969 was also issued by the then Collector, Udaipur to the D.F.O. Udaipur and Tehsildar, Girwa to handover the possession of the said land. The various authorities in pursuance to the various proceedings initiated under the Ceiling Act, Compensation as well as under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, held the land in dispute to be private property and Abadi land. After more than 50 years, a notice was issued to the petitioner in pursuance to a reference application under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 qua the same piece of land. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the said notice and reference made under Section 82 of the Act of 1956. 3. Reply has been filed. While opposing the writ petition, Mr. P.R. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the writ petition was premature as the reference application was still pending before the District Collector, Udaipur and even if, the reference is decided against the petitioner, then also, the petitioner is having the alternative statutory remedy available under the Act. Secondly, the preliminary notification under Section 4 declaring the proclamation for reserve forest for this land was published in the Mewar Government Gazette in the year 1945 under the Mewar Forest Act, 1942. Thereafter, after the due proceedings of settling all claims, titles and rights as per law were over, the final decision to declare Forest Block Banki was passed by the F.S.O. on 31.08.1962 and based on this decision, Section 20 notification was notified under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 by the Revenue Secretary, Government of Rajasthan on 13.10.1964, which was published in the Gazette of Rajasthan dated 03.12.1964. Thirdly, as per the Gazette Notification of Forest Block Banki, land area of 05 villages, namely, Balicha, Nai, Sisarama, Goverdhan Vilas and Shahar Udaipur was included and notified as reserve forest which is clear from the Gazette Notification itself, which says "and since all lands acquired if any, for being included in the proposed forest have become vested in the Government under the Compulsory Acquisition Act, the land is hereby declared as reserve forest. A total of 2900.80 acres land was so declared as reserve forest in which Shahar Udaipur's land mass was 83.20 acres. A total of 2900.80 acres land was so declared as reserve forest in which Shahar Udaipur's land mass was 83.20 acres. Based on that Gazette Notification, the final forest settlement map was issued by the Forest Settlement Officer showing impugned land falling within the forest block boundary. 83.20 acres of Shahar Udaipur part of the Forest Block Banki is constituted by the current revenue khasras, namely, Khasra Nos. 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 380, 381, 382, 389, 390, 391 and 1935/390 besides a few other khasras. One of the most significant land record i.e. the current revenue settlement map bears the unambiguous forest boundary demarcation and shows that all these khasras are lying within the Forest Block Banki. The disputed land in the present case bearing Khasra Nos. 371, 372, 373, 380 & 381 are also evidently visible being part of the Forest Block Banki. The disputed land was forest land from the time of Mewar Government as is evident by the land settlement record of Mewar Government of 1932-1939, when disputed land was bearing Khasra Nos. 3506 (74 bighas) and 3507 (12 biswa) and both these khasras were recorded as Bilanam Mahfuz Jungle (Reserve Forest). The Palace Household even after the settlement of the final covenant of properties with none other than the Union of India in 1950, in which they accepted that Banki Ka Jungle and Hill Banki will be State property, still went ahead and wrote to the Revenue Settlement Officer in 1953 that Khas Odhi and Banki Ka Jungle is their property in complete violation and disrespect to the covenant signed by themselves. Even after knowing well that the Khas Odhi and the surrounding land of Shahar Udaipur are falling within the forest land proclamation of 1945, instead of forwarding the claim to the F.S.O., claimed the complete Banki Ka Jungle to be theirs before the Settlement Officer Revenue who had no jurisdiction whatsoever with respect to the Section 4 notified land. Lastly, some of the gazette notified land was erroneously mutated in the name of the Palace Household even while the forest settlement was going on and which should have been rectified as soon as the final notification was declared but it could not be done. Subsequently, in the year 1971, some khasras which were recorded in the name of the Palace Household were recorded as Bilanam in the revenue record. Subsequently, in the year 1971, some khasras which were recorded in the name of the Palace Household were recorded as Bilanam in the revenue record. This Bilanam land again instead of being mutated in the name of forest department, was transferred to the U.I.T. in the year 1989. The Forest Department while doing the exercise to update the record of Forest Block Banki came to know that the land in question is mutated in the name of Hotel Lake Palace and the U.I.T., whereas, the true fact is that the land in question is a forest land for which final notification had already been issued way back in the year 1964 and the demarcation line depicting the forest boundary exists in the current revenue map also. The land in question constitutes the bank of Lake Pichola and presently has dense forest cover, and is extraordinarily significant for the flora and fauna of the area, as also is important from the environment point of view. Further, this land of utmost public interest needs to be taken into custody by the Forest Department immediately before both the parties in the present case i.e. the U.I.T. or the Lake Palace Hotels and Motels could use it for some non-forestry uses of commercial nature and cause an irretrievable loss to the environment. In this manner, the respondent - State tried to justify issuance of the notice under Section 82 ibid to the petitioner. 4. Reliance was placed on the judgments rendered by the Single Bench of this Court in the cases of Shivji Lal & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in 2007 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 898 and Najar Bahal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2000 (1) W.L.C. (Raj.) 610 as well as Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. The Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in 1996 (3) W.L.C. (Raj.) 426 to contend that question of delay is not material in a case of obvious manipulation in the record. 5. Heard. 6. The first question is as to whether this Court can entertain the writ petition being preferred against a notice. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in an identical case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. M/s. Classic Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 5. Heard. 6. The first question is as to whether this Court can entertain the writ petition being preferred against a notice. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in an identical case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. M/s. Classic Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 68/2010] & another connected appeal decided on 06.04.2010 while hearing the appeals preferred against the judgment of the Single Bench passed in a writ petition questioning the show cause notice issued by the Collector in the proceedings for reference initiated under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, dismissed the appeals by holding that the Single Judge committed no mistake in entertaining and dealing with the writ petition on merits and held that:- "True it is that the writ petition was preferred by the respondent (writ petitioner) in challenge to the notices issued by the Collector for the proceedings under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 but then, it is not an absolute proposition of law that every writ petition filed in challenge to a show cause notice is required to be rejected outright. The decisions in M/s. Choksi Platinum and Dr. Shashank Bhalchandra Subhedar, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, essentially proceeding on their own facts relating to the show cause notices issued under the Central Excise Act and the Customs Act, have no application to the fact situation of the present case. The notices as issued in this matter were questioned on the fundamental ground of want of jurisdiction; and the learned Single Judge cannot be said to have erred in entertaining and dealing with the petition on merits." 8. This Court followed the judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Classic Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) in the case of Ashiana Amar Developers vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4402/2013) decided on 02.12.2016 while entertaining the writ petition against the notice of demand being without jurisdiction. The facts of the present case are identical to the case of M/s. Classic Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra). (supra) in the case of Ashiana Amar Developers vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4402/2013) decided on 02.12.2016 while entertaining the writ petition against the notice of demand being without jurisdiction. The facts of the present case are identical to the case of M/s. Classic Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra). The Apex Court in the case of Rufina D'Souza and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others reported in (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 81 went still further and held that disputed question of facts or pendency of unrelated proceedings in civil court would not necessarily preclude High Court from exercising its powers under Section 226 where show cause notice issued by statutory authority is challenged on permissible grounds. 9. In the present case, the notice is challenged both on the ground of being a misuse of the provisions of law as well as being without jurisdiction. Moreover, it is not disputed that the land in dispute was subject matter qua the same property before various authorities as well as High Court and a finding that it is private property stands recorded. Hence, this Court finds no reason to decline the exercise of its powers under writ jurisdiction in the facts of the present case and on the permissible ground raised herein. 10. The second question is as to whether the petitioner has any right in view of the notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Forest Act dated 20.02.1945 and the final notification dated 13.10.1964 issued by the Government under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 which were never challenged by the petitioner. This Court at the first instance was of the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in the absence of challenge to the notification under Section 4 and the final notification dated 13.10.1964 till it was brought to the notice of this Court that the land in dispute was never part of these notifications. There was no such notification qua the land in dispute. From the notifications (Annx. R/1 and R/2), it is clear that the total land acquired of Shahar Udaipur was 83.20 acres and the total land of District Udaipur was 2900.80 acres, which is equal to 5439.4 bighas. There was no such notification qua the land in dispute. From the notifications (Annx. R/1 and R/2), it is clear that the total land acquired of Shahar Udaipur was 83.20 acres and the total land of District Udaipur was 2900.80 acres, which is equal to 5439.4 bighas. While making the inventory of the private properties of Late Maharana of Udaipur, the Khas Odhi was included as part of the City Palace as under:- "1. Palaces and Gardens along with furniture, Electric Fittings with their connected stores engines and Pumps etc. City Palaces, Udaipur (including grass, stores and all the separate buildings and structures situated within its precincts). The boundary of which is as under:- East- Samore Gardens West- Pichhola water upto Maji- ka Mandir Haridaski Magri and Bhim Parmeshwariji Temple Ghats North- Gangore Ghat upto the Northem and of Deosthanki-Kacheri” South- Badi Pal, Khas Odi 11. This was further clarified by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur to the then Collector, Udaipur vide its Letter dated 20.12.1961 with a direction that the necessary entries be made in the revenue record. The said letter reads:- "The question whether the Southern boundary of the City Palace includes Badi Pal and Khasodi or not, has been considered and it has been decided that the Southern boundary of the Palace includes both Khas Odi and Badi Pal. It is therefore requested that necessary entries may kindly be made in the revenue record accordingly under intimation to this Department." 12. The respondent - State placed on record the Site Plan (Annexure-A/17) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10774/2015 which was summoned by this Court during the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Site Plan (Annx. A/17 in Writ Petition No. 10774/2015), a copy of which is also placed on record by the petitioner, was perused. It was evident from the said site plan that Khas Odhi was outside the green area. The green area line includes the land of 6980 bighas i.e. 3718.24 acres, which is more than 2900.80 acres or 5439.4 bighas so notified, which further proves that the Khas Odhi was not a part of the notification under Section 4 and the final notification under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (Annx. R/2). Hence, there was no cause of action or reason for the petitioner to challenge the said notification. 13. R/2). Hence, there was no cause of action or reason for the petitioner to challenge the said notification. 13. Further, the various authorities and courts have already held the land in dispute to be both a private property and abadi land as is evident from the facts narrated below: A. In the ceiling proceedings, a case was registered under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the Late Maharana in which the property in question was included in Girdhanwa Shehar. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Udaipur vide its Order dated 30.06.1999 held that the part of Girdhanwa Shehar in which the disputed property i.e. Khasra Nos. 2559 and 2561 was included, is abadi land. As such, it has been mentioned as abadi, Mahal, house and Odhi etc. and the remaining disputed property i.e. Araji Nos. 2554, 2555, 2556, 2557, 2560 & 2565 were not exempted under the Chapter IIIB of the Act of 1955 and therefore, it was held surplus land in the hand of assessee and the same was ordered to be acquired under the Act of 1955. The State of Rajasthan preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority being No. 144/1999 against the Order dtd. 30.06.1999 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Udaipur in respect of the findings recorded that some land of Girdhanwa Shehar including Khasra No. 2559 & 2561 and the property known as Goverdhan Vilas is abadi land and therefore, was not covered by the provisions of Chapter IIIB of the Act of 1955. Another appeal was preferred by the legal representatives of Late Maharana before the Revenue Appellate Authority being No. 102/1999 against the said Order dated 30.06.1999 in respect of the findings recorded against Late Maharana for remaining land of Girdhanwa Shehar and other properties mentioned therein. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur vide common Judgment dated 02.12.1999 dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and partly allowed the appeal filed by the legal representatives of Late Maharana to the extent of exempting all the lands/properties mentioned in Girdhanwa Shehar from the provisions of Chapter IIIB of the Act of 1955 in which disputed Araji Nos. 2554, 2555, 2556, 2557, 2560 and 2565 were included. 2554, 2555, 2556, 2557, 2560 and 2565 were included. The State Government did not challenge the Judgment dated 02.12.1999 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority upholding the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Girwa and partly allowing the appeal preferred by the legal representatives of Late Maharana in respect of Girdhanwa Shehar, which includes the disputed property. Hence, the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority attained finality. B. The fact that the land in dispute is private property and also 'abadi' land is further settled by the High Court vide its Order and Judgment dated 26.04.1984 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1391/1976 that the property in dispute is abadi. The said writ petition was filed by Late Maharana against the Tehsildar, Girwa and others, against the illegal demand dated 24.02.1975 issued by the Tehsildar Girwa, for Rs. 34,099.89 relating to land revenue and irrigation charges under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estate Act, 1963 and the orders of Tehsildar dated 18.03.1975 as well as Board of Revenue dated 22.06.1976. The properties, for which the demand was raised, included the disputed property. The said writ petition was partly allowed by the High Court in respect of the four properties out of six, while holding that the properties, including the disputed property Khas Odhi, are specified in the inventory of the private properties of the Ruler prepared in pursuance to the Article 12 of the Covenant and therefore, did not fall in the meaning of 'land' as defined and as such, not an 'Estate' and cannot be assessed to land revenue. The State of Rajasthan and the legal representatives of Late Maharana both filed separate appeals being D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos. 328/84 & 329/84, respectively, before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 01.08.1994 dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and allowed the appeal filed by the legal representatives of Late Maharana while holding that properties Nos. 328/84 & 329/84, respectively, before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 01.08.1994 dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and allowed the appeal filed by the legal representatives of Late Maharana while holding that properties Nos. 1 to 4 including the disputed property as property No. 4-Khas Odhi, are specified in the inventory of the private properties of the Ruler prepared in pursuance to the Article 12 of the Covenant and are finally approved by the Government of India and therefore, will not be covered in the definition of 'land' as provided in Section 2(f) of the Act of 1963 and also will not be an 'Estate' under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1963. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: "2. .....................The properties for which the demand has been raised are : (i) Samore Bagh palace and garden, (ii) Champa Bagh Palace and garden, (iii) Sahelion Ki Bari, (iv) Khas Odi, (v) Gordhan Vilas & (vi) Sheel Nikunj. 3. xxx ....................... xxx 4. Property No. 1 Samore Bagh palace and garden and Champa Bagh palace and garden are included in the inventory prepared in pursuance of Article XII of the Covenant and approved by the Government of India. Property No. 3 Sahelion Ki Bari was declared to be the private property and was included in the inventory by the communication dated 28.3.51. By communication dated 20.12.61, the Assistant Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, informed to the Collector that southern boundary of the palace includes both Khas Odi and Badi Pal and was declared to be a part of the city palace and included in the inventory. This position if not challenged by the counsel for the State also. By communication dated 20.12.61, the Assistant Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, informed to the Collector that southern boundary of the palace includes both Khas Odi and Badi Pal and was declared to be a part of the city palace and included in the inventory. This position if not challenged by the counsel for the State also. Therefore, we have to proceed with the premises that the properties No. 1 to 4 are specified in the inventory of the private properties of the Ruler prepared in pursuance of Article XII of the Covenant and are finally approved by the Government of India." C. Another proceeding with respect to the same disputed property along with other properties was taken before the Compensation Commissioner under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Landowners Act, 1964 wherein also, the Compensation Commissioner (Divisional Commissioner), Udaipur vide its Judgment dated 16.05.1995 held that the disputed property was not land as defined in the Act of 1964 and therefore, did not come within the ambit of the Act of 1964 for the purpose of acquisition as they are either not covered by the definition of land or are exempted under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1964. The Compensation Commissioner (Divisional Commissioner), Udaipur while discussing the property in dispute held with respect to the land in question as under:- "Lands : Tehsil Girwa - 118.3 bighas (sr. No. 16(a): This property known as the Khas Odi Palace was vide Govt. of Rajasthan's letter No. F3(8)Pol/49 Pt. II dt. 20.12.61 accepted as being within the southern boundary of the City Palace Udaipur as demarcated in the inventory of private properties of the former ruler of Mewar. The status of this property was settled in favour of the former ruler in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1391/75 dated 26.4.84 and confirmed in D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 328/84 dated 1.8.84 as not coming within the definition of land as given in the Act." The appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the Compensation Commissioner dated 16.05.1995 was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide Judgment dated 15.01.2003, although, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 692/2007 filed by the State against the said judgment is still pending. D. Yet another proceedings with respect to the disputed land were initiated by the Forest Department itself in the year 2003 while issuing notice under Section 91 of the Act of 1956. D. Yet another proceedings with respect to the disputed land were initiated by the Forest Department itself in the year 2003 while issuing notice under Section 91 of the Act of 1956. The Assistant Conservator of Forest vide Judgment dated 21.05.2009 quashed the notice dated 31.03.2003 issued under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 while holding that the applicant-Forest Department has failed to prove that the non-applicant company/petitioner is a trespasser and the non-applicant/petitioner has proved his possession according to the revenue record. The Judgment dated 21.05.2009 passed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Udaipur (South) has not been challenged and therefore, the same too has attained finality. 14. Besides, the Apex Court too in the case of Adhunik Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. etc. vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 867 in an identical case of Jodhpur held that the land falling within the boundaries of Palace which was private property in accordance with the inventory prepared and proved by the Government would not fall within the ambit of land under Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estate Act, 1964. The fact that it is shown within the palace is sufficient to show that it is abadi land. 15. From the above, it is evident that an attempt is being made to reopen the whole case once again. Short of saying that it should be barred by principle of res judicata, it in any case amounts to an abuse of the process of law and the proceedings initiated under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 are wholly unjust and improper and hence, deserve to be quashed. Even otherwise, although, it may not be necessary to go into the question of limitation as no case is made out even on merits, it is otherwise evident that the same is barred by limitation as well. No doubt, there is no limitation prescribed for making reference under Section 82 ibid. However, it is a well settled principle of law that where no limitation period is prescribed, the powers should be exercised within reasonable period. In the present case, the Forest Department in spite of having knowledge since 1961 has filed the reference after almost 50 years. No doubt, there is no limitation prescribed for making reference under Section 82 ibid. However, it is a well settled principle of law that where no limitation period is prescribed, the powers should be exercised within reasonable period. In the present case, the Forest Department in spite of having knowledge since 1961 has filed the reference after almost 50 years. The Apex Court in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and another vs. D. Narsing Rao and others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 695 observed that unexplained and inordinate delay of about 50 years in a case of fraud would itself tantamount to fraud upon statute, even though, limitation period is not prescribed under the statue and held:- "Even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of any power, revisional or otherwise, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period. This is so even in cases where allegations of fraud have necessitated the exercise of any corrective power. Delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third-party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statue that vests such power in an authority." 16. In the present case, the Order dated 20.12.1961 passed by the General Administration Department (A), State of Rajasthan was sent to the Revenue Department (Forest) for information and necessary action whereby it was specified that the southern boundary of Palace includes both Khas Odhi and Badi Pal. The donation made by the Late Maharana with respect to three Khasra Nos. In the present case, the Order dated 20.12.1961 passed by the General Administration Department (A), State of Rajasthan was sent to the Revenue Department (Forest) for information and necessary action whereby it was specified that the southern boundary of Palace includes both Khas Odhi and Badi Pal. The donation made by the Late Maharana with respect to three Khasra Nos. 2563, 2564 and 2565 was also accepted by the State of Rajasthan. The rest of the land was ordered to be handed over back to the Erstwhile Ruler of Mewar vide same letter by getting it cleared from trespasses. The possession of 18 bigha land comprising Khasra No. 2560 was handed over to Tehsildar, Girwa in response to the Letter dated 17.11.1969 issued by the Collector, Udaipur. Thus, the State of Rajasthan and the Forest Department knew that the disputed property was declared as a private property of the Erstwhile Ruler of Mewar. This position was never objected. There is no fraud in the present case. Nothing was concealed or not known to the Forest Department. Various authorities have adjudicated in favour of the petitioner. Still, they choose to file the reference application after 50 years. Thus, it is barred by limitation on the face of it. 17. Even otherwise, the very notice is without jurisdiction. The reference has been made under Section 82 of the Act of 1956. Section 82 of the Act of 1956 reads as under:- "82. Still, they choose to file the reference application after 50 years. Thus, it is barred by limitation on the face of it. 17. Even otherwise, the very notice is without jurisdiction. The reference has been made under Section 82 of the Act of 1956. Section 82 of the Act of 1956 reads as under:- "82. Power to call for records and proceedings and reference to State Government of Board-The Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records or a Collector may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings held by any revenue court or officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings; and, if he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order passed by such subordinate court or officer should be varied, cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board, if the case is of a judicial nature or connected with settlement, or for the orders of the State Government if the case is of a non-judicial nature not connected with Settlement; and the Board or the State Government, as the case may be, shall thereupon pass such order as it thinks fit." 18. Similarly, the Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 too reads thus:- "232. Power to call for record and refer to the Board-The Collector may call for and examine the record of any case or proceedings decided by or pending before and revenue court subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order or decree passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings, and, if he is of opinion that the order or decree passed or the proceeding taken by such court should be varied, cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board shall, thereupon, pass such order as it thinks fit: Provided that the power conferred by this section shall not be exercised in respect of suits or proceedings falling within the purview of Section 239." 19. A bare perusal of the same makes it clear that the Collector can proceed under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and under Section 232 of the Act of 1955 only in case of the order or proceedings initiated by an authority subordinate to him. In the present case, there have been successful adjudication with regard to the same land by various revenue authorities including the Board of Revenue and the High Court. In fact, in an identical case S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5444/2005 titled as M/s. Classic Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. decided on 03.03.2008, the learned Single Bench of this High Court held that even the Revenue Appellate Authority is not subordinate to the Collector and therefore, no reference under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 can be made by the District Collector against the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Collector is competent only to make reference with respect to the order passed by the officers subordinate to him only and accordingly, allowed the writ petition filed by M/s. Classic Merchants Pvt. Limited holding that the initiation of proceedings by registering the case under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and issuance of notice by the District Collector, Udaipur are wholly without jurisdiction. The appeal against the said order filed by the State of Rajasthan being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 68/2010 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 06.04.2010. The S.L.P. against the same filed by the State of Rajasthan being S.L.P. (Civil) No. 33353/2011 (SLP [Civil] CC No. 19172/2011) was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 28.11.2011 including the review petition. In these circumstances, the Collector had no jurisdiction to register a case and issue notice under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 with respect to the same property which has been declared a private property by the Revenue Appellate Authority and has attained finality. 20. Thus, the very notice being a misuse of the process of law, without jurisdiction and the reference itself being much beyond the reasonable period of limitation, the land being already held as private property and abadi by various authorities and courts in pursuance to the various proceedings initiated before them, this Court has no hesitation in allowing the writ petition. 21. 21. The present writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned notice issued to the petitioner vide Order dated 19.04.2012 by the District Collector, Udaipur as well as reference application dated 12.04.2012 under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 filed against the petitioner are hereby set aside.