ORDER : 1. Petitioner claims to be owner of land bearing Sy.No.162 (part of old Sy.No.115) measuring 3 acres 34 guntas situated at Ramasandra Village of Narasapur Hobli in Kolar Taluk. In this writ petition, he is aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar, thereby directing the land to be resumed to the Government and to effect entries in the revenue records as gomal land. 2. Facts, relevant for the case, stated in nutshell are that the land in question was earlier granted on temporary basis in the year 1945-46 to one Sreeramaiah S/o. Doddamuniyappa. The said grant was confirmed on 29.03.1956. While issuing the permanent grant certificate, a condition regarding nonalienation for a period of ten years from the date of confirmation of grant was imposed. However, before the expiry of the said period of ten years Sreeramaiah sold the land to Chikka Mandappa on 01.10.1960. Thereafter, the said Chikka Mandappa sold back the land to Sreeramaiah on 26.03.1963 along with other lands. Subsequently, on 16.09.1963, Sreeramaiah sold the land to one Ramakka and Ramakka in turn sold it to Reve Gowda, father of petitioner on 24.12.1965. Pursuant to the sale, name of father of petitioner was mutated in the revenue records. Upon his death, name of petitioner came to be mutated vide M.R.No.16/99-2000. 3. Respondents 4 and 5 claim to be grand sons of original grantee – Sreeramaiah. Respondent No.5 filed R.A.No.417/2011-12 challenging the mutation entry No.16/99- 2000. The same was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.05.2012. Subsequently, he filed one more appeal in L.N.D.R.U.O.(A)7/2010-11 before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the sale deeds executed in favour of father of present petitioner and his vendors. The said appeal was dismissed on 30.05.2013. It is also necessary to notice that respondent No.4 had also challenged the mutation entry in M.R.No.16/99-2000 by filing R.A.No.417/2010-11. The same was dismissed on 20.12.2013. The said dismissal order was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner by filing R.A.No.57/2013-14. It is in this proceeding, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order setting aside the sale made by the original grantee on 01.10.1960 holding that the said sale was in violation of the non-alienation clause imposed while granting the land prohibiting the grantee from alienating the property for a period of ten years. It is in this proceeding, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order setting aside the sale made by the original grantee on 01.10.1960 holding that the said sale was in violation of the non-alienation clause imposed while granting the land prohibiting the grantee from alienating the property for a period of ten years. The Deputy Commissioner has also issued a direction to the Tahsildar to take over the land to the Government and continue entries in the revenue records showing it as gomal. 4. The main contention urged by learned counsel for petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner has committed serious illegality in entertaining the appeal filed invoking the provisions of Sections 49 and 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) unmindful of the fact that the grant was of the year 1955-56 and the first sale had been effected way back in the year 1960. Learned counsel further points out that subsequently, the land changed several hands and the father of petitioner purchased the land as a bona fide purchaser during the year 1965 and thereafter, petitioner and his father have cultivated the land in question and have altered their position by dealing with the land. Learned counsel for petitioner relies on the judgment in the case of JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AND ANOTHER VS. D. NARSING RAO AND OTHERS – (2015) 3 SCC 695 to contend that even where no limitation period is prescribed under the statute, the power should be exercised by the quasi judicial authority within a reasonable period and despite unexplained and inordinate delay in invoking the jurisdiction if the authority exercises power it would tantamount to fraud upon statute apart from being arbitrary and opposed to rule of law. He urges that in the present proceeding the Deputy Commissioner has virtually exercised his revisional power under Section 136(3) of the Act to set aside the sale deed executed in the year 1960 on the ground that there was violation of condition of non-alienation while effecting the said sale. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 supports the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. So also the learned Government Advocate. 6. At the outset, it has to be stated that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to go into the legality or correctness of the validity of the sale deed executed way back in the year 1960. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 supports the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. So also the learned Government Advocate. 6. At the outset, it has to be stated that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to go into the legality or correctness of the validity of the sale deed executed way back in the year 1960. If there was any irregularity in execution of the sale deed by violating conditions of grant, aggrieved person or for that matter, the competent authority on his own could have invoked the jurisdiction within a reasonable period to interfere in the matter. After lapse of 55 years, the Deputy Commissioner cannot assume power to find out whether there was any violation of the terms of grant while executing the sale deed in the year 1960 and on the ground that there was such violation, could not have declared the sale as illegal or null or void. As held by the Apex Court in the case of JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AND ANOTHER VS. D. NARSING RAO AND OTHERS – (2015) 3 SCC 695 , such power cannot be exercised after decades even where the authority was empowered to exercise suo motu power for which no limitation under law is prescribed. Even assuming that the Deputy Commissioner, in the instant case, has exercised his power under Section 136(3) of the Act at the instance of 4th respondent, such power cannot be exercised after lapse of 5 decades and more. There was no justification for the 4th respondent to challenge the revenue entries effected in the name of petitioner in the year 1999-2000. He had kept quiet for nearly a decade from the date the mutation entry was effected in the name of petitioner. His ancestors did not challenge the entries effected after the sale deed was executed in 1960. 7. It is necessary to notice that name of petitioner was mutated upon the death of his father in whose favour the entries stood pursuant to the sale deed dated 24.12.1965 as per M.R.No.17/1965-66. Unmindful of the all these developments, the Deputy Commissioner has arbitrarily exercised power under Section 136(3) and has declared the sale deed of the year 1960 as illegal. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. Hence, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Unmindful of the all these developments, the Deputy Commissioner has arbitrarily exercised power under Section 136(3) and has declared the sale deed of the year 1960 as illegal. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. Hence, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. R.A.No.57/2013-14 filed before the Deputy Commissioner is dismissed.