ORDER : 1. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2, and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 claim to have purchased an extent of 2 Acres in Survey No.95 of Kodathi village, Varthur, Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, through Sale Deed dated 05.04.2004., [Corrected vide Court order dated 29.1.2019] 2. The petitioner has stated that the land is said to have been granted in the year 1951-52 to the original grantee. Grant is said to have been made in favour of Buddaga @ Buddappa. The petitioner submits that no originals as regards to the grant were available. It is stated that the grantee executed the first sale deed as regards a portion of land on 15.07.1970 and the other extent of land was sold through sale deed dated 17.03.1971. It is further submitted that there were certain other sale transactions and eventually the petitioners have purchased an extent of 2.00 acres on 05.04.2004 through their vendors, who trace their title eventually to the sale executed by the grantee. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 02.07.2008, while entertaining the application on behalf of the grantees, registered a case bearing No.K.SC.ST.78/2005-06. Having entertained the application filed on behalf of the grantees for declaration that the sale transactions are illegal and have been executed in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and seeking for restoration of the said land, has passed the order on 02.07.2008 recording a finding that the grantees belongs to Adi Karnataka Caste and the land is a granted land. Though the original grant documents were not available, the Assistant Commissioner has looked into the other records and recorded a finding that it is a granted land. The Assistant Commissioner has verified the Saguvali Chit Issue Register for the years 1951-1952 to 1956-1957 and has recorded a finding that the land was granted as per “D.D.No.9:51-52 in Sy.No.95 of Kodathi Village for an extent of 2.00 acres. 4. The said order by the Assistant Commissioner, which is taken up in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner also came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner affirming the findings of the Assistant Commissioner. 5. 4. The said order by the Assistant Commissioner, which is taken up in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner also came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner affirming the findings of the Assistant Commissioner. 5. The petitioner states that in view of the judgments of the Apex Court, the statutory power should be exercised within a reasonable period of time and in view of the fact that the first sale deed came to be executed on 15.07.1970 and the proceedings came to be initiated in the year 2005-2006, the proceedings having been initiated 38 years from the first sale and 30 years from the Act coming into force, the Assistant Commissioner ought not have entertained the application filed on behalf of the grantees at a belated period of time. 6. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of VIVEK M. HINDUJA AND OTHERS v. M. ASHWATHA AND OTHERS reported in 2018 (1) Kar. L.R. 176 (SC) and in the light of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of NARAYANAPPA AND ANOTHER v. THE DEPUTY COMMISISONER AND OTHERS (Writ Appeal Nos.6698-6699/2017 (SCST) disposed of on 09.08.2018), that power should be exercised within a reasonable period of time, in the present case, it is clear that the proceedings for resumption and restoration were initiated in the year 2005-2006 and noticing the date of the first sale i.e., 15.07.1970 and that the Act has come into force in the year 1978, the Assistant Commissioner entertaining the application for restoration after such delay as aforesaid is illegal and exercise of statutory power on the basis of such belated application is not tenable. 7. Accordingly, the order of the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-‘J’ dated 02.07.2008 and the order of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-‘A’ dated 04.02.2012 are set aside and the petitions are hereby allowed.