ORDER : (Kuldeep Mathur, J.) : 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 18.03.2005 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the Writ Petition filed by the respondent No.1 against the order dated 23.12.1991 passed by Collector, Jalore making reference to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’) and the order dated 10.08.1992 passed by Board of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer accepting the same has been allowed and the order dated 23.12.1991 passed by Collector Jalore and order dated 10.08.1992 passed by the Board of Revenue have been quashed and set aside. 2. The facts relevant for adjudication of the present appeal are that the Assistant Collector, Jalore passed a compromise degree dated 31.12.1973 in a suit under Section 88 of the Act of 1955 declaring the land in question which was in the khatedari of Jiwala and Chhoga, both sons of Khuma, belonging to Scheduled Tribe in the name of Phuse Khan (father of respondent No.1). The Collector, Jalore almost after 18 years, of the passing of the compromise decree vide order dated 23.12.1991 made a reference under Section 232 of the Act of 1955 to the Board of Revenue for cancellation of khatedari rights conferred in favour of private respondents. The Board of Revenue thereupon after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties accepted the reference vide order dated 10.08.1992 and held that as per the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1955, the compromise between Jiwala and Chhoga both belonging to Schedule Tribe Community and Phuse Khan who is Non-Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, was not permissible. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 31.12.1973 passed by Assistant Collector, Jalore, on the basis of compromise between the parties was set aside. 3. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 31.12.1973 passed by Assistant Collector, Jalore, on the basis of compromise between the parties was set aside. 3. The learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 18.03.2005 while dismissing the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant-Respondent No.2 was pleased to observe that the reference made by Collector under Section 232 of the Act of 1955 after lapse of a period of 18 years from the date mutation was made in favour of Phuse Khan should not have been entertained by the Board of Revenue particularly when there was no allegation with regard to commission of fraud or forgery in getting the compromise decree dated 31.12.1973 passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. the Court of Assistant Collector, Jalore. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State vehemently and fervently submitted that as per Section 42 of the Act of 1955, the sale, gift or bequest by a khatedar tenant of his interest in the whole or part of his holding shall be void if such sale, gift or bequest is by a member of Scheduled Caste or by a Member of Scheduled Tribe made in favour of Non-Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe person. It was urged that admittedly, in the present case the land was transferred by person belonging to Scheduled Tribe in favour of Non-Scheduled Caste/Non-Scheduled. Therefore, the compromise decree dated 31.12.1973 passed by Assistant Collector, Jalore in a suit under Section 88 of the Act of 1955 was a void decree. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that Section 232 of the Act of 1955 does not prescribe any limitation for reference and therefore, Board of Revenue has rightly entertained the reference after 18 years and set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.12.1973 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jalore being void and not enforceable in law. In support of his aforementioned contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2014) 11 SCC 238 . 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the order passed by learned Single Judge and submitted that khatedari rights pursuant to the compromise decree dated 31.12.1973 were created in favour of Phuse Khan and thereupon, mutation in his name was made. The mutation was within the knowledge of the Revenue Authorities. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the order passed by learned Single Judge and submitted that khatedari rights pursuant to the compromise decree dated 31.12.1973 were created in favour of Phuse Khan and thereupon, mutation in his name was made. The mutation was within the knowledge of the Revenue Authorities. Learned counsel submitted that no explanation whatsoever is available in the records to indicate as to why the reference was made after a delay of about 18 years, despite Revenue Authorities having full knowledge about compromise decree dated 31.12.1973 and mutation made in favour of Phuse Khan. Learned counsel further submitted that the reference order dated 23.12.1991 passed by District Collector, Jalore and the order of Board of Revenue dated 10.08.1992 have rightly been set aside by learned Single Judge on noticing that the judgment and decree passed by Assistant Collector, Jalore dated 31.12.1973 has not been passed based on fraud, collusion or misrepresentation. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the controversy involved in the matter has already been set to rest by a larger Bench of this Court vide its judgment/order dated 15.07.2015 passed in a batch of Writ Petitions led by Tara and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.: D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.185/2001 wherein the question as to whether any time limit can be fixed for reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and under Section 232 of the Act of 1955 in respect of the land held by a Hindu Idol (Deity) has been answered in the following manner:- “42. On the aforesaid discussion and in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above, we decide the question no.(v) in the manner that even if no time limit has been fixed for reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and under section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in respect of the land held by a Hindu Idol (deity), a reference can be made within a reasonable time, which will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Even if the fraud is alleged, the power must not be exercised after unreasonable period, such as, after several decades claiming rights over the land.” (emphasis supplied) 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 8. Even if the fraud is alleged, the power must not be exercised after unreasonable period, such as, after several decades claiming rights over the land.” (emphasis supplied) 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 8. Indisputably, the District Collector almost after 18 years has exercised the power of making reference to the Board of Revenue in relation to judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Jalore dated 31.12.1973. Though it has been argued before us that the khatedari rights created in favour of Phuse Khan i.e. father of respondent No.1 over a land belonging to members of Scheduled Tribe Community is prohibited by law. However, no material has been placed on record before this Court to establish that compromise decree dated 31.12.1973 was obtained by either fraud or misrepresentation. It has not been disputed that in the revenue records, the land in question was mutated in favour of Phuse Khan long back and the same was within the knowledge of the Revenue Authorities. 9. The reference order dated 23.12.1991 passed by Collector, Jalore records the following reasons for reopening of the compromise order by making the reference under Section 232 of the Act of 1955: 10. The relevant portion of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge is reproduced below for ready reference:- “In the instant case a compromise decree was passed under Section 88 of the Act of 1955 by the Assistant Collector, Jalore declaring the petitioner as khatedar of the impugned land. A reference under Section 232 of the Act of 1955 was made by the Collector, Jalore on 23.12.1991 i.e. about the lapse of a period of 18 years from the date the mutation was made in favour of Phuse Khan. It is true that there is no limitation prescribed under Section 232 to exercise the powers, however, at the same time it is well settled that these powers are required to be exercised within a reasonable time. The provisions of Section 42 are not attracted in the present case as the name of the petitioner was entered as khatedar in execution of a compromise decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction and there is no allegation with regard to commission of fraud or forgery by the petitioner by getting his name entered as khatedar. The provisions of Section 42 are not attracted in the present case as the name of the petitioner was entered as khatedar in execution of a compromise decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction and there is no allegation with regard to commission of fraud or forgery by the petitioner by getting his name entered as khatedar. In my considered opinion the Collector, Jalore was not right while making a reference under Section 232 of the Act of 1955 to the Board of Revenue after a lapse of about 18 years. Board of Revenue also erred while accepting the reference after a lapse of such an inordinate delay. In view of it, this petition for writ is allowed. The order Anx.4 dated 23.12.1991 passed by Collector, Jalore and the order Anx.5 dated 10.8.1992 passed by Board of Revenue are hereby quashed. No order as to costs.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Gujrat v. Patil Raghav Natha and Ors. ( AIR 1969 SC 1297 ), Mansaram v. S.P. Pathak and Ors. ( AIR 1983 SC 1239 ), Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy and Ors. ( 2003 7 SCC 667 ), State of Punjab and Ors. v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited (2007) 11 SCC 363 ; and Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and Anr. v. D. Narsing Rao and Ors. (2015) 3 SCC 695 has held that where the period of limitation is not prescribed in the statute for exercising the power, the power must be exercised within a reasonable period, except in case of fraud. The reasonable time has been held to be one to three years. The absence of any period of limitation in the statute does not mean that the power can be exercised at any time, which will make the exercise of power arbitrary and oppose to the concept of law. 12. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anandilal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 1995 (1) RLR 555 , wherein the Court has held that the powers under Section 232 of the Act of 1955 cannot be exercised after an unreasonable delay, unless satisfactory explanation for exercise of revisional powers has been given. This is for the reason that a tenant/khatedar acquires tenancy/khatedari rights and continues to be in possession of the land. This is for the reason that a tenant/khatedar acquires tenancy/khatedari rights and continues to be in possession of the land. Such tenants/khatedars are required to be treated at par, for all purposes, with all other tenants/khatedars who acquired tenancy/khatedari rights over the land. The reasonable time and length of reasonable time for suo motu exercise of revisional powers must be determined by: (i) facts of the case, and (ii) the nature of order sought to be revised. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions and keeping in view the precedent law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that power vested with District Collector Jalore under Section 232 of the Act of 1955 was not exercised in a reasonable manner. The order of reference dated 23.12.1991 was passed by the District Collector, Jalore in a mechanical manner without recording any satisfaction on issue that whether the order and decree dated 31.12.1973 was passed by Assistant Collector, Jalore on the basis of the fraud being played by the parties or the said decree being obtained by collusion. In the absence of discovery of any fraud, the suo motu power should not have been exercised after lapse of about 18 years. Therefore, the order of learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. 14. Consequently, the present special appeal being D.B. Special Appeal Writ Petition No.12/2008 (State of Rajasthan v. Subhan Khan and Ors.) is dismissed. 15. No order as to costs.