#.�Having regard to the rival side contentions, the
petition deserves to be allowed on the ground of delayed
action, and in fact that is the main ground on which the
petition is filed and argued. It is true that no period
of limitation is prescribed for exercise of powers by the
Collector in the instant case. But, when such limitation
is not prescribed, the authority is expected to exercise
the powers within reasonable time. If the powers are not
exercised within reasonable time, what may happen is
evident in the instant case. New equities have taken
place which would lead to multiple litigations if the
impugned order is allowed to stand. The Apex Court, in
various decisions has consistently observed that, such
powers are required to be exercised within reasonable
time. Whether time is reasonable or not, is to be
determined in facts of each case. In the instant case,
the respondents have not filed any affidavit in reply,
nor any attempt is made to explain the delay. Even in
the impugned order, there is no reference whatsoever to
the time gap, and therefore the delay cannot be said to
have been explained as reasonable. With this background,
if the period of 10 years is seen, there is no scope for
considering it as reasonable or ordinate. Under the
circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed.
