JUDGMENT

I. MAHANTY, J. — The petitioner in the present writ applica¬tion seeks to challenge the Order dated 8.12.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Cuttack rejecting Consolidation Revision Case No.159 of 2002 filed under Section 37(1) of the Consolidation Act, 1972, seeking correction of errors in the Hal map, pertaining to Plot No.832, under Hal Khata No.314 corre¬sponding to Sabik Plot No.666, measuring an area of Ac.0.180; on the ground of delay.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the disputed land pertaining to Hal Plot No.832 under Khata No.314, stands recorded in the names of the petitioners who are landless Scheduled Caste persons. The petitioners have constructed their homestead on the said land and the Hal R.O.R. for the aforesaid plot has also been issued in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that although necessary R.O.R. has been issued in the names of the petitioners,later on, while comparing the sabik and Hal map of the suit land, they noticed that the Hal map has not been prepared in conformity with the sabik map.As a consequence of such wrong recording in the Hal map, the petitioners’ varendah, latrine as well as certain valuable trees planted by them have been shown in the Hal map, in an adjoining plot. Therefore, the petitioners filed an amendment petition before the Consolidation authorities to effect necessary correction in the Hal map and, therefore, filed a revision application under Section 37(1) of Consolidation Act.

3. From the impugned order it is noted that the Commissioner, Consolidation, did not condone the delay of more than 19 years in filing of the revision application by holding the said delay to be not reasonable and, therefore, rejected the revision as “it is miserably barred by limitation”.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case laws relied upon by the Commissioner to reject the Revision petition, if read in their proper context, would in fact, on the contrary, support the contention of the petitioners. In the case of Gulzar Khan v. Commissioner of Consolidation and others, 1993 (I) OLR-194 and in the case of Ghasiram Rana v. State of Orissa and others, 81 (1996) C.L.T. 279, this Court has categorically indicated that Section 37 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act, 1972) does not prescribe any period of limitation and, therefore, at the outset, learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the finding of the learned Commissioner of Consolidation that the revision petition was barred by limitation, is wholly unjustified and incorrect.

5. In the case of Ghasiram Rana (supra), this Court came to hold that even though no period of limitation is prescribed, power has to be exercised in a reasonable manner, which inheres the concept that it must be done within a reasonable time and while noting in the said Judgment that the term ‘reasonable time’ cannot be specifically defined and a Division Bench of this Court led by Hon’ble A. Pasayat, J. (as His Lordship then was) has laid down that the principle of “reasonable time” is to be deter¬mined by the following test.

“However, one thing is clear,it applies to sense of right reason, propriety or fairness.”

In the case of Gulzar Khan (supra), the Full Bench of this Court by way of majority decision, rendered by Hon’ble the Chief Justice B.L. Hansaria (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the majority has come to hold as follows :

“The aforesaid being the position, it is apparent that a forum has to be available to a person who was to be aggrieved, after Section 41 notification has been issued, with any order having been passed or anything having been done during the consolidation operations affecting his right, title and interest. As stated in the opening sentence of this judgment, there cannot be a right without any remedy; and, according to us, the remedy can be made available princ