https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307749 A suo motu revisional power under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 is not subject to a prescribed limitation period, but it must still be exercised within a reasonable time. The Court held that the authority must weigh the length of delay, intervening circumstances and subsequent events before disturbing an earlier order. As there was an unexplained delay of about eight years and no allegation of fraud or other exceptional circumstances, the belated exercise of power was improper and illegal. The revisional order was therefore not sustainable and was quashed in favour of the petitioner. en-us Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 May 2023 12:57:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307749 A suo motu revisional power under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 is not subject to a prescribed limitation period, but it must still be exercised within a reasonable time. The Court held that the authority must weigh the length of delay, intervening circumstances and subsequent events before disturbing an earlier order. As there was an unexplained delay of about eight years and no allegation of fraud or other exceptional circumstances, the belated exercise of power was improper and illegal. The revisional order was therefore not sustainable and was quashed in favour of the petitioner. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307749