The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the exercise of power under Section 221 of the Act to be within a reasonable time and without unreasonable delay, and the importance of possession and cultivation records in determining tenancy rights and the validity of land transfers.

Rajesh Balia, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 21.04.2006 by which two writ petitions were decided.

2. Predecessors of respondent-petitioner namely Smt. Sunder Devi and her son filed a revenue Suit No. 61/66 in the Court of Assistant Collector, Bhinmal on 16.02.1966 for declaration of their title. Plaintiffs claimed that they were in possession for long and because defendants namely Taria son of Ruga, Bhadaria son of Ruga, Prahalad son of Deepa, Harji son of Loomba and Dharma son of Ghuda Bhambi all legal representatives of deceased Ruga were working as his Halis, therefore, at the time of settlement name of Ruga was entered in the land records as Khatedar, which is incorrect and, therefore, mutation entry has been wrongly made, which need to be corrected. The cause of action stated to be that because name of Ruga has been entered in the land record, defendants-heirs of Ruga are creating obstructions in their possession. Two separate written statements were filed, one by Bhadaria and another by Taria, Prahalad, and Dharma in July 1966.

3. On the aforesaid pleading decree was passed by the Assistant Collector in favour of plaintiffs on 12.07.1968. Apart from referring to the written statements of admission, learned Assistant Collector also referred to Khasra Girdawari from Samvat Year 2012 to 2017 i.e. to say calender year 1955 to 1960 and receipts of bigodi in wich names of plaintiffs were entered as cultivators. Considering these aspects the Assistant Collector held that they are entitled to tenancy rights in terms of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. After the decree was passed in 1968, the plaintiffs transferred the aforesaid land firstly in favour of Yasin Khan and Ayub Khan by registered sale deed dated 16.01.1969 and same was entered in the name of Yasin Khan and Ayub Khan. Said Yasin Khan and Ayub Khan further transferred the said land to Lachha Ram and his sons of Bhinmal vide registered sale deed dated 26.04.1972 and said Lachha Ram transferred the said land in favour of petitioners on 10.07.1972 and same was mutated in the name of Saraswati Devi, since deceased, on 112.1972. After the death of Saraswati Devi, land was mutated in the name of petitioners on 29.01.1979.

4. After all this happened, an application was moved by present appellants, who are sons of Prahalad and Dharma for setting aside the decree passed by SDO Bhinmal on 12.07.1968. On the basis of entries made in Jamabandi of Samvat Year 2016 to 2019, the Board of Revenue assumed that it was transfer of land by the khatedars in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and that the transfer being void ab initio was liable to be set aside. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue rejected all the objections as to the pendency of the application for making reference before the Collector on the ground that pendency of the proceedings under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the Collector or making of an application are irrelevant and does not affect the validity of the proceedings. The fact that the Assistant Collector has relied on the Khasra Girdawari for holding that plaintiffs were in possession of the land since before commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was also of no assistance because of the entry in jamabandi for Samvat Year 2016-2019 of Ruga and others and on these findings the decree passed by SDO On 12.07.1968 was set aside.

5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order passed of Board of Revenue dated 110.1994, a writ petition was preferred before this Court, which has been allowed by the Judgment under appeal.

6. The learned Single Judge opined that though no period of limitation has been prescribed but it is well settled that where no period of limitation has been prescribed for exercise of power, it has to be exercised in a reasonable manner within a reasonable time what in a given case is reasonable within which the power can be exercised depends up