MITHTHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE learned in question, shown as `gair Mumkin Rasta' was converted into the category `barani' and allotted to the petitioner by the Allotment Committee on May 31, 1971. THE petitioner thereafter was recorded as Khatedar of the said land in revenue records, and started cultivating the same. THE respondents No. 2 to 8 on August 6, 1996 i. e. after 25 years and 6 months filed application for quashing the allotment. THE Additional District Collector Bharatpur vide order dated May 16, 1997 allowed the application and made reference under Section 82 read with section 9 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short `1956 Act') to the Board of Revenue (for short `board' ). THE reference was allowed by the Board vide order dated September 8, 1997 and quashed the allotment made in favour of petitioner on May 31, 1971. Against this order of the Board that the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) HAVING closely analysed the material on record. I do not find it a case where manipulation has been perpetrated in the record. It also appears that arguments in regard to manipulation and collusion was not advanced before the Board. The order of allotment does not appear to be obtained by fraud and thus act of exercising revisional power after unreasonable delay was unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable. Although Sections 82 and 232 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 do not provide for the period of limitation, but concept of exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres with it the concept of exercising the same within a reasonable time and if the power is not exercised within reasonable time, the invocation of the power after inordinate delay and the exercise of the same after unreasonable length of time would be illegal and void.