**"Where No Limitation Is Prescribed, Claims Must Be Made Within Reasonable Time"**

There are number of issues raised before us calling for the inter se play of the Inams Abolition Act and the SC & ST Act. We, however, do not see the need to examine them as, according to us, the appellant is disentitled to any relief on the short ground of having knocked the doors of the concerned authorities three decades after the SC & ST Act came into force. It is this very aspect which forms subject matter of debate in a number of judgments and finally in Satyan’s case (supra), (they have been discussed Para 12 extracted hereinabove). It was recognized that there was no limitation of time prescribed but it should be exercised within a reasonable period of time. It is in that context that period of 20 years have been said to be too long a period for calling for interference by the concerned authorities. Leave the said period, in the present case, we are confronted with the factual situation of 30 years period between the rights accruing and the exercise of rights. In the meantime, the lands have been developed by the private respondents who, according to us, is bona fide purchaser of the land and created infrastructure on the same. It does seem now an endeavour of the appellant to only extract some amount knowing fully well the kind of establishment which has come up on the land in question. We cannot be a part to such endeavour. We are, thus, of the view that in the conspectuous of the legal position discussed aforesaid and the facts referred to by us, the appellant is disentitled to any relief on this short ground of an inordinate delay in seeking to avail of their remedy in limine.