ORDER : B.S. Patil, J. 1. These writ petitions arise between the same parties. The land involved in these writ petitions is the same. Writ Petition No. 42727/2013 arises out of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru, under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Land) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') whereas, Writ Petition Nos. 19997-98/2013 arises out of the proceedings initiated under Section 79-A and Section 80 of the Land Reforms Act, culminating in the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'KAT'). 2. W.P. No. 42727/2013 is filed by one Mr. Shivapal challenging the order dated 06.08.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru, thereby allowing the separate appeals filed by Sri V. Ramaprasad and Sri Kishore Nagarwal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act thereby setting aside the order dated 11.07.2015 of the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru. 3. The Assistant Commissioner had ordered for resumption and restoration of 2 acres of land comprised in Sy. No. 30 situated in Kadiganahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk on the ground that the land was a granted land and was sold without prior permission on 20.07.1976 in favour of one Sri Jadhavji Nagarwal and therefore, there was violation of provisions of the PTCL Act. The said order was passed on an application filed by one Smt. Gowramma against Sri Prakash Babu as respondent. 4. Against this order of the Assistant Commissioner, S.C.S.T. (A) No. 13/2011-12 was filed by Sri V. Ramaprasad alleging that the land in Sy. No. 30 was an Inam land granted in favour of Kinchana Bhovi @ Vaddara Channa vide order dated 10.05.1958; after his death, his sons Narayanappa, Gurappa and Papanna sold the land measuring 1,01,917 sq. ft. out of the total extent of 3 acres 10 guntas in favour of Jadhavji Nagarwal vide Sale Deed dated 20.07.1976 who in turn sold the land in his favour (Sri V. Ramaprasad) vide Sale Deed dated 04.09.1978. He urged that the land was not a granted land. 5. He also urged that order passed by the Assistant Commissioner had been challenged by another purchaser by name Ramu and the Deputy Commissioner found that provisions of the PTCL Act were not applicable and hence, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner on 18.10.2006. He urged that the land was not a granted land. 5. He also urged that order passed by the Assistant Commissioner had been challenged by another purchaser by name Ramu and the Deputy Commissioner found that provisions of the PTCL Act were not applicable and hence, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner on 18.10.2006. The said order was challenged in W.P. No. 9888/2007 by the legal representatives of the grantee and persons claiming under them. This Court by order dated 09.06.2008 held that the Deputy Commissioner was not right in deciding the matter as the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner had sought to withdraw the appeal and hence, the writ petition was allowed and the order of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside. 6. Sri V. Ramaprasad sought review of the said order dated 09.06.2008 passed in W.P. No. 9888/2007 by filing R.P. No. 93/2010. The said review petition was disposed of on 10.03.2010 holding that the order of the Assistant Commissioner was not binding on the appellant as he was not a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner. Liberty was reserved to him to challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 7. Sri V. Ramaprasad contended before the Deputy Commissioner that he was in two minds whether to challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner or not; however, after securing opinion, as he was advised to seek a formal declaration that the order of the Assistant Commissioner was a nullity, he filed SC. ST. (A) 13/2011-12 before the Deputy Commissioner. Sri V. Ramaprasad urged that the alleged sale in favour of Shivpal, writ petitioner, by the legal representative of original grantee on 16.11.2006, was a nullity in the eye of law. 8. Similarly, Kishore Nagarwal filed SC. ST. (A) 40/2011-12 challenging the very same order of the Assistant Commissioner urging similar grounds. 9. After hearing both parties, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order holding that as the land was an Inam land in respect whereof occupancy right was conferred in favour of Kitchana Bovi @ Narayana Bovi and was registered as an occupant and khatedar, it could not be construed as a granted land under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act, as provisions of the PTCL Act were not applicable. The Deputy Commissioner has further found that the land was alienated for the first time vide Sale Deed dated 20.07.1976 in favour of Jadhavji Nagarwal after 15 years from the date of grant made on 15.09.1958. The Deputy Commissioner found that under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 there was no non-alienation condition in respect of the lands for which occupancy right had been confirmed. However, under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, once occupancy right was confirmed in favour of a tenant, such land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. The Deputy Commissioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of M. MUNIKENCHAPPA v. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE & OTHERS - 2004 (3) KAR.L.J. 579 to hold that provisions of PTCL Act were inapplicable to cases where occupancy right had been granted in recognition of preexisting right and such lands could not be treated as granted lands in terms of the provisions contained under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner found that first alienation of the land made in favour of Jadhavji Nagarwal under Sale Deed dated 20.07.1976 could not be held null and void. 10. It is relevant to notice here that in the meanwhile in respect of the very land, there was a dispute with regard to violation of provisions of Section 79-A and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The said proceedings were initiated against Jadhavji Nagarwal alleging that he had purchased the land in question in violation of Section 79-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Assistant Commissioner had passed an order dated 24.05.1996 holding that there was such violation and ordered for forfeiture of the land to the Government. This order was challenged before KAT in Appeal No. 980/2009 by Sri Ramaprasad. The said appeal was allowed on 26.04.2013 by the KAT by condoning the delay and setting aside the order dated 24.05.1996 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 11. Aggrieved by the said order, the connected W.P. Nos. 19997-19998/2013 has been filed by Gowramma, legal representative of the grantee. Sri Shivpal has subsequently filed an application and has come on record as petitioner No. 2 to prosecute the said writ petition. 11. Aggrieved by the said order, the connected W.P. Nos. 19997-19998/2013 has been filed by Gowramma, legal representative of the grantee. Sri Shivpal has subsequently filed an application and has come on record as petitioner No. 2 to prosecute the said writ petition. Therefore, both these writ petitions have been heard together as they pertain to the same subject matter and arise between the same parties. Hence, they are disposed of by this common order. 12. I have heard Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Sri S.M. Chandrashekar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent - Sri V. Ramaprasad in both the cases. 13. In W.P. No. 42727/2013, the following contentions are urged by Sri Nanjunda Reddy: (1) As on the date of filing the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, neither V. Ramaprasad, nor Kishore Nagarwal had any locus standi to prefer an appeal, as by that time, the land had been ordered to be forfeited to the Government for violation of provisions contained in Section 79-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act; (2) The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner referring to the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of MOHAMMED JAFFAR & ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT & OTHERS - ILR 2002 KAR 4693 [2003 (1) K.L.J. 337] is illegal because Mohammed Jaffafs case dealt with Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, whereas in the instant case, after the lands were forfeited to the Government, the land was granted in favour of Gowramma; though Gowramma had made an application allegedly under the provisions of the PTCL Act, it has to be considered that the land was granted by the Government to Gowramma under the provisions of the Land Grant Rules and not by way of restoration of the granted land under the provisions of the PTCL Act. In support of this contention, Sri Nanjunda Reddy points out that if it was a case of restoration, then the entire extent of 3 acres which was granted in favour of Kinchana Bhovi should have been restored and not just 2 acres of land. 14. Insofar as challenge made to the order passed by the KAT in W.P. Nos. 19997-98/2013, Sri Nanjunda Reddy has contended as follows: (1) Sri V. Ramaprasad has played fraud on the KAT by producing fabricated documents. 14. Insofar as challenge made to the order passed by the KAT in W.P. Nos. 19997-98/2013, Sri Nanjunda Reddy has contended as follows: (1) Sri V. Ramaprasad has played fraud on the KAT by producing fabricated documents. In this regard, it is urged that Kishore Nagarwal had himself filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, sale made in favour of V. Ramaprasad was void, inasmuch as Jadhavji Nagarwal had no saleable interest in the property; (2) Sri V. Ramaprasad could not have preferred an appeal independently before the KAT in view of dismissal of appeal filed by Kishore Nagarwal; (3) that in the appeal filed by Kishore Nagarwal, Jadhavji Nagarwal was shown to have died during the year 2005, but in the appeal filed by Sri V. Ramaprasad in 2009, Sri Jadhavji Nagarwal was made a party and indeed, one counsel appeared and filed vakalath for Jadhavji Nagarwal. Therefore, a dead person has been represented before the KAT. Thus, by impleading a dead person and without arraying the writ petitioners as parties before the KAT, an order was obtained by Sri Ramaprasad; (4) that the KAT grossly erred in not going into the merits of the matter, but allowing the appeal solely on the ground that there was inordinate delay on the part of the Assistant Commissioner in initiating the proceedings under Section 79-A & 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. He points that at best the KAT ought to have remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration; (5) that the KAT failed to appreciate that the appeal filed by Sri V. Ramaprasad was itself highly belated and deserved to be dismissed solely on that ground, particularly when the entries in the revenue records were effected pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 24.05.1996, followed by disposal of the land by way of grant in favour of Gowramma during the year 2005; (6) that the order passed by the KAT rejecting the two applications filed by the petitioners to come on record was erroneous and untenable. 15. 15. Sri S.M. Chandrashekar, learned Senior Counsel representing the contesting respondent Sri V. Ramaprasad contends that the entire controversy boils down to the legality and correctness of the order passed under the provisions of the PTCL Act by the competent authorities namely the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. If the land is held to be a granted land, then the legal representative of the grantee i.e., Gowramma would have any right and consequently, the person claiming under her i.e., Shivapal as purchaser during the year 2006 could have any locus standi to make any grievance in these two writ petitions. 16. It is in that background, he has first addressed his arguments in W.P. No. 42727/2013. He points out that admittedly Gowramma had filed application invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act seeking restoration of land. She did not make the purchaser from her i.e., either Jadhavji Nagarwal as per Sale Deed dated 20.07.1976 or Sri V. Ramaprasad, who in turn purchased from him as per Sale Deed dated 04.09.1978 as party respondents; she chose to make one Prakash Babu as respondent though he was totally unconnected. He also invites the attention of the Court to the Sale Deed dated 16.11.2006 executed in favour of Shivapal wherein it is recited that the land was granted as per the provisions of Inams Abolition Act recognizing the grantee as a 'kadim tenant' and hence, it was a grant in recognition of the pre-existing right and not a grant made as per the Land Revenue Act or Rules framed thereunder. It is, therefore, contended by Sri S.M. Chandrashekar that the provisions of the PTCL Act had no application as the land was not a granted land. 17. It is his next contention that Shivapal and Gowramma had filed W.P. No. 8579/2013 and W.P. No.40394/2013 respectively challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner. On 23.09.2013, in W.P. No. 40394/2013, this Court passed the following order: ".....Whether the lands in question have been granted to the predecessor in title of the petitioner under the Land Grant Rules? No material has been produced by the petitioner in this regard, nor is there a plea to that effect in the writ petition......." 18. Thereafter, the said writ petition was withdrawn on 07.10.2013. No material has been produced by the petitioner in this regard, nor is there a plea to that effect in the writ petition......." 18. Thereafter, the said writ petition was withdrawn on 07.10.2013. The effect of dismissal of this writ petition as withdrawn as contended by Sri S.M. Chandrashekar is that neither Gowramma nor Shivapal could assail the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the PTCL Act and Shivapal could not independently maintain the writ petition when Gowramma had abandoned her right. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of SRI JAGADISH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY & OTHERS - ILR 2013 KAR 4091 in this regard. Sri S.M. Chandrashekar has also placed reliance on the Full Bench decision in the case of Mohammed Jafar referred to supra. He further points out that during 1958 when the land was granted, non-alienation period was 15 years and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that there was no violation of non-alienation condition even assuming that it was to be treated as a granted land. 19. Sri S.M. Chandrashekar is critical of the conduct of Gowramma in not making Sri Ramaprasad as a party or his vendor Sri Jadhavji Nagarwal and thereafter, in withdrawing the writ petition filed although the Court had prima facie expressed its view and adjourned the case at the request of Gowramma. 20. As regards the other writ petition in W.P. Nos. 19997-19998/2013, Sri S.M. Chandrashekar contends that though Shivapal's application seeking his impleadment before the KAT had been dismissed, he came on record as a second petitioner in these writ petitions, although the order passed by the KAT had attained finality. He submits that as Gowramma has been held not entitled for restoration of land as per the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, she had no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the KAT. It is his submission that the land in question was used for non-agricultural purpose for stone crushing and Ramaprasad was carrying on stone-crushing business, therefore, it was not an agricultural land and hence, the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, particularly Section 79-A were not applicable. 21. Sri S.M. Chandrashekar urges that whether Jadhavji Nagarwal had died if so when was not material. It is submitted that death certificate produced in that regard was a false document. 21. Sri S.M. Chandrashekar urges that whether Jadhavji Nagarwal had died if so when was not material. It is submitted that death certificate produced in that regard was a false document. He further points out that the Assistant Commissioner who passed an order in a proceeding initiated under Section 79-A of the Land Reforms Act did not issue any notice to either Jadhavji Nagarwal or Ramaprasad, therefore, there was violation of principles of natural justice. He also points out that the order was passed after 17 years from the date of purchase. Sri Chandrashekhar relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN v. FATMABAI IBRAHIM - (1997) 6 SCC 71 and the judgment of this Court in the case of J. RAMA v. M. VITTAL BHAT - ILR 2011 KAR 5637 to contend that after such long lapse of time, the sale could not have been set aside. 22. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the entire materials on record. Though the facts narrated by the parties in these two sets of writ petitions are complex covering several incidents and happenings, the fact remains that there are two sets of orders passed by the quasi judicial authorities that have led to filing of these two sets of writ petitions. One set of proceeding is initiated under the provisions of PTCL Act and another set of proceeding has been initiated under the provisions of Sections 79 & 80 of the Land Reforms Act. 23. So far as the proceeding initiated under the PTCL Act is concerned, the same is initiated at the instance of Gowramma the legal representative of the grantee, who has sought for restoration of the granted land in her favour. The Deputy Commissioner has passed the order holding that the land was not a granted land as defined under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act inasmuch as the grant in favour of the original grantee was in recognition of his pre-existing right under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act. 24. So far as the legality or correctness of this order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is concerned, the legal question is no longer res integra. 24. So far as the legality or correctness of this order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is concerned, the legal question is no longer res integra. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Jafar referred to supra has held that if occupancy rights had been conferred as per the provisions of the Land Reforms Act in favour of the tenant in recognition of pre-existing right of the tenant, then such grant cannot at all fall within the ambit of 'granted' land as defined in Section 3(1)(b) of PTCL Act. By following the said decision, in the case of SRI JAGADISH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY & OTHERS -ILR 2013 KAR 4091, a Division Bench of this Court has held that where a person is enjoying the land by virtue of a grant made in terms of the provisions of Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 in recognition of his pre-existing right over the land, such a land cannot be treated as a granted land for the purpose of PTCL Act. 25. Indeed, in the instant case, as adverted to above, in the Sale Deed executed by Gowramma in favour of Shivapal, it is stated that the land was granted recognizing the rights of the original grantee as a 'kadim tenant' under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act. In fact, the Deputy Commissioner has also recorded independent findings in this regard holding that the grant was under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Full Bench and the Division Bench referred to supra, the contention urged by Sri S.M. Chandrashekar that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner holding that the land was not a granted land and the provisions of the PTCL Act had no application deserves to be accepted. Indeed, as rightly held by the Deputy Commissioner even if it was a granted land, as the land was sold after the expiry of non-alienation period of 15 years, there was no violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act. 26. Indeed, as rightly held by the Deputy Commissioner even if it was a granted land, as the land was sold after the expiry of non-alienation period of 15 years, there was no violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act. 26. It is not open for Gowramma or for that matter Shivapal, purchaser from her to contend that the grant in favour of Gowramma was under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and the same could not be considered as a grant under the provisions of the PTCL Act. This is contrary to the application filed by Gowramma herself before the Assistant Commissioner wherein she has sought relief under the provisions of the PTCL Act. There is no other order of grant. Therefore, such a contention advanced on behalf of Gowramma and Shivapal cannot be accepted. Hence, it has to be held that the sale made by the original grantee in favour of Jadhavji Nagarwal in the year 1976 was not hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act. As the Assistant Commissioner had passed the order behind the back of the purchasers from the original grantee, the Deputy Commissioner was right and justified in entertaining the appeals filed by Sri Ramaprasad and in passing the order under challenge. Hence, W.P. No. 42727/2013 filed by Shivapal deserves to be dismissed. 27. As regards W.P. Nos. 19997-98/2013, wherein order passed by the KAT has been called in question, it has to be stated that once it is held that the land was not a granted land and the sale made by the grantee/legal representative of the grantee was not bad in law, even Gowramma will not have any right to make any grievance regarding the proceedings initiated under Section 79-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act against the purchaser from her which has culminated in the K.A.T. order. Whether there is violation of any of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act is a matter between the State and the purchaser of the land. Neither Gowramma, nor Shivapal-purchaser of the very land in the year 2006 from her will have any locus standi to make any grievance. 28. As rightly held by the KAT, proceedings under Section 79-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act had been initiated after 17 years from the date of purchase by Jadhavji Nagarwal. The Assistant Commissioner passed the order against Jadhavji Nagarwal on 24.05.1996. 28. As rightly held by the KAT, proceedings under Section 79-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act had been initiated after 17 years from the date of purchase by Jadhavji Nagarwal. The Assistant Commissioner passed the order against Jadhavji Nagarwal on 24.05.1996. Although the property had been purchased by Ramaprasad in the year 1978, Ramaprasad was not made a party. Therefore, the order insofar as Ramaprasad was concerned has to be treated as one passed without following the principles of natural justice. 29. Even as regards Jadhavji Nagarwal who was arrayed as a party before the Assistant Commissioner, there is nothing to show that notice was served on him. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded on the basis that though notice was issued, he did not appear, hence, notice was affixed on a conspicuous place. Whether the notice issued to him was served on him and which was the conspicuous place where notice was affixed is not mentioned in the order. Thus, an ex-parte order was passed holding that no material had been produced by Jadhavji Nagarwal to show that his annual income from non-agricultural sources was less than Rs. 12,000/- and therefore, it had to be held that he had violated the provisions of Section 79-A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act while purchasing the property and hence the land was liable to be forfeited to the State. This order cannot be regarded as legally sustainable. The KAT has rightly set aside the same. 30. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 778/2011 and connected cases disposed of on 24.06.2011 in some what similar circumstances at paragraph 23, it was too late in the day for the concerned authority namely the Assistant Commissioner to allege that the purchase made by Jadhavji Nagarwal in the year 1976 was unauthorized, by initiating proceedings during the year 1995-96 after a lapse of 17 years, that too when Jadhavji Nagarwal himself had parted with the land in favour of Ramaprasad in the year 1978. The authorities cannot prejudice the rights of the subsequent purchaser namely Ramaprasad who has enjoyed the land for nearly 15 years after purchasing the same. The authorities cannot prejudice the rights of the subsequent purchaser namely Ramaprasad who has enjoyed the land for nearly 15 years after purchasing the same. If the authorities did not discharge their obligation sincerely within the time, they had no legal basis to examine the validity of purchase made by Jadhavji Nagarwal way back in the year 1976, that too when valid and legal rights came to be vested in a third party V. Ramaprasad. 31. Even though limitation is not provided for initiating action under Section 79-A of the Land Reforms Act, the general rule is that proceedings have to be initiated within a reasonable period and reasonable period could be a period of one or two years and not 17 years. This Court in the case of J. RAMA v. M. VITTAL BHAT - ILR 2011 KAR 5637 has held so by referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN v. FATMABAI IBRAHIM - (1997) 6 SCC 71 . In the said case, the Apex Court has observed as under: Where no time-limit is prescribed for exercise of power under a Statute, it does not mean that it could be exercised at any time.' 32. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioners in both the cases stating that a dead person was impleaded before the KAT has no relevance to the controversy, as the lis was between Ramaprasad and the State. The presence of Jadhavji Nagarwal in the proceedings initiated before the KAT was of no consequences. 33. In the result and for the foregoing, both the writ petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed.