ORDER : 1. Initially the present writ petition was filed for quashing the order dated 30.03.2016 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) whereby the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand (respondent no. 6) in Revision Case No. 14/2016 has stayed the order dated 16.03.1999 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division Ranchi (respondent no. 2) in Misc. Appeal No. 181/1993. Further prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.09.2016/08.11.2016 passed by the respondent no. 6 whereby the petition dated 22.06.2016 filed by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 30.03.2016 has been rejected. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent no. 6 passed the order dated 23.08.2017 whereby the delay of more than 17 years committed by the respondent-State in filing the revision application was condoned. Due to the said subsequent development, the petitioner filed amended writ petition also challenging the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the respondent no. 6. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner purchased the land situated at village Misir Gonda appertaining to Khata No. 362/151, Plot No. 970, 971 and 1143 (hereinafter called “the said land”) from his aunt namely Draupadi Devi Modi vide registered sale deed dated 27.03.1982. The Jamabandi was also opened in the name of the petitioner in the year 1983. Subsequently, the petitioner received notice dated 10.09.1991 issued by the Circle Inspector for filing reply and producing document before the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi informing that the said land is recorded as ‘Gair Mazurwa’ land. The petitioner filed reply to the said notice on 16.09.1991 before the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi, however the Circle Officer on the basis of the report of the Circle Inspector, recommended for cancellation of the Jamabandi of the petitioner over the said land. The Additional Collector, Ranchi passed the order of cancellation of the Jamabandi of the petitioner vide order dated 17.07.1992 in Misc. Case No. 59/8/92-93 on the basis of the recommendation made by the Circle Officer, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi (respondent no. 3) and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi (respondent no. 4). Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent no. 2, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 181/1993. Case No. 59/8/92-93 on the basis of the recommendation made by the Circle Officer, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi (respondent no. 3) and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi (respondent no. 4). Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent no. 2, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 181/1993. The said appeal was allowed on 16.03.1999 and the order passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi was set aside. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (C) No. 799 of 2013 for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to issue rent receipt in his favour. However, in the year 2016 i.e. after about 17 years of the order of the respondent no. 2, the Additional Collector, Ranchi filed revision petition before the respondent no. 6 alongwith an application for condonation of delay challenging the order dated 16.03.1999 passed by the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 6, vide order dated 30.03.2016 stayed the order of the respondent no. 2 and further issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the respondent no. 6 and filed petition for recall of the ex-parte order of stay dated 30.03.2016 and also raised objection to the limitation petition filed alongwith the revision application, however the same was rejected. Hence, this writ petition. 4. This Court vide order dated 14.02.2017 directed the State-respondents to file counter affidavit and in the meantime observed that the Board of Revenue will have the option to take decision on the limitation petition filed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi for condonation of delay after hearing the parties. Thereafter, the respondent no. 6 has passed the order dated 23.08.2017 in Revision Case No. 14/2016 whereby the delay in filing the revision application has been condoned. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that rule 79 under Chapter V of the Bihar Practice & Procedure Manual confers power to the Board to condone the delay only beyond one month as prescribed under the same but it cannot be treated as a power to condone the delay of indefinite or unreasonable period which would wholly be illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted that the Bihar Practice and Procedure Manual which governs the procedure for filing of revision application before the Board of Revenue prescribes the period of limitation as one month from the date of the Commissioner’s order and certain amount of discretion can be exercised by the Board of Revenue in condoning certain period of delay, however the same has to be supported by a reasonable cause for condoning such delay. It is also submitted that one of the reasons assigned by the respondent no. 6 for condonation of delay is the non-submission of registered sale deed by the petitioner, however the respondent no. 6 failed to appreciate that the present writ petition was pending before this Court on the point of maintainability of the said revision case itself. Another reason for condonation of delay recorded by the respondent no. 6 is that after the order passed by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner took more than 14 years in taking legal recourse for issuance of the rent receipt. It is further submitted that the right of filing of revision petition by the State authorities is not dependent upon the action of the petitioner, rather the State has to make out a clear case for condonation of delay in filing of revision petition based upon the reasonable explanation for such delay. The respondent no. 6 arbitrarily delved upon the merits of the case while deciding the limitation petition of the respondent-State and has wrongly held that the respondent no. 2 has exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the appellate order passed by the Additional Collector in the encroachment proceeding by simply relying on false and vexatious submission made by the Special G.P. without any documentary verification while as a matter of fact, no proceeding was ever initiated against the said land of the petitioner under the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (in short the Act 1956). 6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the Board of Revenue is empowered to entertain revision application to correct gross error of law and the mistake committed by the subordinate officer/court/tribunal. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 had passed an illegal order and thus to correct the said gross error of law, the revision application was entertained by the respondent no. 6 even after the delay of 17 years. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 had passed an illegal order and thus to correct the said gross error of law, the revision application was entertained by the respondent no. 6 even after the delay of 17 years. The petitioner himself took 14 years to approach this Court with respect to issuance of rent receipt in pursuance of the order of the respondent no. 2. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The short point involved in the present writ petition is as to whether the revisional court is justified in condoning the delay of about 17 years committed by the State in filing the revision application. 8. The thrust of the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 6 while passing the impugned order has ignored the settled position of law and has also acted beyond the power conferred to it under rule 79 of Bihar Practice & Procedure Manual. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the power to condone the delay is the discretionary power of the Board of Revenue as has been conferred under rule 79 of the Bihar Practice & Procedure Manual which has been exercised by the respondent no. 6 after having gone through the fact of the present case and since the case is still pending for final adjudication before the Board of Revenue, no interference is required at this stage in an extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, it is appropriate to go through the following judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. In the case of Santosh Kumar Shivgonda Patil and Others vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Others, (2009) 9 SCC 352 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “11. It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not prescribe the time-limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent therein. 12. Ordinarily, the reasonable period within which the power of revision may be exercised would be three years under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code subject, of course, to the exceptional circumstances in a given case, but surely exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 17 years is not a reasonable time. Invocation of revisional power by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is plainly an abuse of process in the facts and circumstances of the case assuming that the order of the Tahsildar passed on 30.3.1976 is flawed and legally not correct.” 10. In the case of Collector and Another vs. D. Narsing Rao and Others, (2015) 3 SCC 695 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:- “25. The legal position is fairly well settled by a long line of decisions of this Court which have laid down that 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. We may briefly refer to some of the decisions only to bring home the point that the absence of a stipulated period of limitation makes little or no difference insofar as the exercise of the power is concerned which ought to be permissible only when the power is invoked within a reasonable period. 26. In one of the earlier decisions of this Court in S.B. Gurbaksh Singh vs. Union of India, this Court held that exercise of suo motu power of revision must also be within a reasonable time and that any unreasonable delay in the exercise may affect the validity. But what would constitute reasonable time would depend upon the facts of each case. 31. But what would constitute reasonable time would depend upon the facts of each case. 31. To sum up, 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 it is said 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 statute that vests such power in an authority.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363 , has held as under:- “18. 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. 19. Revisional jurisdiction, in our opinion, should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the said Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five years. The view of the High Court, thus, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Reasonable period, keeping in view the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years.” 12. It has thus been settled that even when there is no time limit prescribed for filing a revision application, the same must be filed within a reasonable period. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years.” 12. It has thus been settled that even when there is no time limit prescribed for filing a revision application, the same must be filed within a reasonable period. In the aforesaid cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the reasonable period must be found from the statutory scheme. It has specifically been held in the case of Santosh Kumar Shivgonda Patil (supra) that a delay of 17 years cannot be said to be reasonable. 13. In the case of Postmaster General and Others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 , while dealing with a case where considerable delay was committed by the government department in preferring appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there has been bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tapism in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with due diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. 14. I have gone through the impugned order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the respondent no. 6, the operative part of which is reproduced herein-below:- “23. Ordinarily such an inordinate delay of 17 long years should not be condoned but there are certain special reasons in this particular case. (a) Prima-facie the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division has far exceeded his jurisdiction and in the name of Misc. Appeal, has actually passed a revisional order rejecting the Appellate order passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi and that too, in a matter under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act in which the Divisional Commissioner has no jurisdiction at all. (b) The effect of the said order dated 16.03.1999 of the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, has been to create a “jamabandi” in favour of OP No. 1, on a land, which the lower revenue functionaries had found to be a public road. (b) The effect of the said order dated 16.03.1999 of the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, has been to create a “jamabandi” in favour of OP No. 1, on a land, which the lower revenue functionaries had found to be a public road. (c) Even up till now, OP No. 1 has not produced copy of the registered sale deed dated 27.03.1982 or any other document showing as to how the jamabandi was opened in the name of OP No. 1. (d) After the order dated 16.03.1999 of the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division in Misc. Appeal No. 181/1993, the OP No. 1 himself took more than 14 years before taking legal recourse for issuance of land revenue receipt. 24. In view of para 18 above, I find that if this revision petition is rejected solely on point of limitation it would lead to injustice to common people if the land in question is indeed a public road, as claimed by the state petitioner. Thereafter, in these exceptional circumstance, the delay is condoned and the case is admitted.” 15. On perusal of the aforesaid order, it appears that the respondent no. 6 was also of the view that the delay caused by the State government in filing revision application was inordinate. Moreover, no reasonable explanation was made on behalf of the Government before the respondent no. 6 for condonation of such a huge delay of 17 years. Thus, the impugned order passed by respondent no. 6 condoning the delay in filing revision application cannot be sustained in law on this score alone. 16. Otherwise also, the delay was condoned by the respondent no. 6 after observing that the respondent no. 2 had exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the revisional order by setting aside the order in appeal passed by the Additional Collector exercising power under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. However, the order of the respondent no. 2 reflects that initially the respondent no. 6 after observing that the respondent no. 2 had exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the revisional order by setting aside the order in appeal passed by the Additional Collector exercising power under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. However, the order of the respondent no. 2 reflects that initially the respondent no. 3 had conducted inquiry and after finding that the land is ‘Gairmajarua’ in nature, the matter was referred to the Additional Collector, Ranchi through Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Ranchi and finally the order of cancellation of Jamabandi was passed and a direction was issued to the Circle Officer, Ranchi to take possession of the land and if there is any construction upon the said land, the action under the provisions of the Act, 1956 be taken. The said order was challenged in appeal preferred before the respondent no. 2 vide Misc. Case No. 59/8/92-92 which was allowed by the respondent no. 2. Thus, I am of the considered view that the respondent no. 6 was under misconception that the order of the Additional Collector was passed under the Act, 1956 in appellate jurisdiction. 17. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the orders dated 30.03.2016 and 23.08.2017 as well as other ancillary orders passed in Revision Case No. 14/2016 by the respondent no. 6 are quashed. The Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand (respondent no. 6) is directed to drop the revision proceeding of Revision Case No. 14/2016 having been filed after inordinate delay without any reasonable explanation.