ORDER Smt. Nagashree, learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents 1 and 2 and file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks. 2. Considering the nature of disposal, notice to respondent 3 is unnecessary. 3. The petitioner is calling in question, the order dated 23-4-1981, which is impugned at Annexure-B and also the endorsement dated 12-82009, which is impugned at Annexure-G to the petition. 4. The petitioner contends that an extent of two acres of land in Sy. No. 14 at Annehalu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk was granted to the father of the petitioner by name Gidda Bovi. The case of the petitioner is that the said land which was acquired by the third respondent herein is contrary to the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. Though it is presently contended that the order dated 23-4-1981 is not sustainable and in that context the endorsement issued at Annexure-G is also liable to be quashed, what is to be noticed is the earlier proceedings which has taken place in this matter. 5. The third respondent herein was before this Court in Writ Petition No. 24847 of 1994. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14-11-1996. In the said writ petition, the subsequent order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 12-7-1994 was called in question. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner had set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the purchase of the land by the third respondent was held to be bad in law and the restoration had been ordered. 6. This Court while disposing of the writ petition has quashed the order of the Deputy Commissioner by holding that the petitioner’s father had suffered an order dated 23-4-1981 and the same having not been called in question, a subsequent proceeding before the Assistant Commissioner which thereafter resulted in the passing of the order by the Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable. This Court while disposing of the writ petition has quashed the order of the Deputy Commissioner by holding that the petitioner’s father had suffered an order dated 23-4-1981 and the same having not been called in question, a subsequent proceeding before the Assistant Commissioner which thereafter resulted in the passing of the order by the Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would however strenuously contend that in view of the fact that this Court had only pointed out that the subsequent proceedings are not maintainable, it was still open to the petitioner to question the order dated 23-4-1981, since in any event the said order was not passed either at the instance of the petitioner herein or at the instance of his father and therefore on having knowledge of the said order, it was possible for him to question the same. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, a perusal of the papers would indicate that in fact the petitioner had approached this Court in the subsequent Writ Petition No. 7664 of 2006 assailing the order dated 23-4-1981. The said writ petition was disposed of 20-6-2008 noticing the earlier proceedings in Writ Petition No. 24874 of 1994 and therefore was of the opinion that in view of the said position, the petitioner cannot succeed. It is thereafter the petitioner has once again approached the Deputy Commissioner with the present appeal, questioning the order dated 23-4-1981. 8. Firstly what is to be noticed is that a period of 29 years has elapsed from the date of the order, which is questioned. Therefore there is not only inordinate delay but there is laches. Even if it is to be assumed that as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the proceedings Writ Petition No. 24847 of 1994, the delay should not be held against him, since this Court only noticed that a subsequent proceedings was not maintainable, what cannot be lost sight of is that the said writ petition was disposed of on 14-11-1996 and even thereafter the subsequent Writ Petition No. 7664 of 2006 was filed in the year 2006 i.e., after 10 years from the said date. Further, after failing in the said writ petition, the present appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner. 9. Further, after failing in the said writ petition, the present appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner. 9. Hence, keeping all these aspects in view, even though the endorsement dated 12-8-2009 is issued without conducting a detailed hearing of the proceedings in the appeal, I am of the opinion that in view of the delay and laches alone the endorsement is liable to be upheld. Even otherwise, in my view, this petition lacks merit for the reasons stated above and also is hopelessly barred by laches. Accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.