ORDER : The petitioner herein is impugning the order of the Assistant Commissioner in S.C:S.T:3:2004-05 dated 19.05.2005 which is under Sections 4 and 5 of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘PTCL Act’, for brevity) ordering restoration of land bearing Sy.No.147 of Nagenahalli Village, Amruthapura Hobli, Tarekere Taluk, Chikamagalur District measuring to an extent of 4 acres which is confirmed by the 1st respondent – Deputy Commissioner in appeal filed by the petitioner herein in PTL.08/2005/06 which is dismissed by order dated 15.12.2009. 2. The brief facts leading to this Writ Petition is as under : - The material on record would indicate that the 3rd respondent - P. Ganga Naik’s father Kolacha Naik was grantee of 4 acres of land in aforesaid Sy.No and the said grant is somewhere in the year 1954. It is seen that the original grant certificate is not produced before any of the authorities from the beginning till this date. However, the application which is filed by the 3rd respondent seeking restoration is accepted by both respondents 1 and 2. According to them, the original grantee – Kolcha Naik has sold the land which was granted in his favour under registered sale deed dated 29.11.1968 to petitioner’s paternal uncle Shivanna. Thereafter, petitioner’s uncle was in possession and enjoyment of the same along with the petitioner up to December 1986. In the month of December 1986 i.e. on 23.12.1986 there was a partition in the family of the petitioner and his uncle wherein the aforesaid 4 acres of land in Sy.No.147 of Nagenahalli Village was allotted to his share. Since then, he has been in cultivation, possession and enjoyment of the said land. 3. When the matter stood thus, the records would indicate that an application was filed by the 3rd respondent – P. Ganga Naik seeking resumption of the said land on the premise that the sale deed executed by his father on 29.11.1968 is in contravention of the provisions of PTCL Act and as such, he is entitled to be put in possession of the land. Accordingly, he sought for resumption of the land by filing an application before the 2nd respondent – Assistant Commissioner which is registered in S.C:S.T:3:2004-05 and the same came to be allowed by order dated 19.05.2005. Accordingly, he sought for resumption of the land by filing an application before the 2nd respondent – Assistant Commissioner which is registered in S.C:S.T:3:2004-05 and the same came to be allowed by order dated 19.05.2005. The said order was the subject matter of an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagalur in PTL:08/2005-06 which is subsequently dismissed by order dated 15.12.2009, which is the subject matter of this writ petition. 4. During pendency of this petition, the Hon’ble Apex Court under similar fact situation decided the right of grantees seeking resumption of land on the premise that there is contravention of the provisions of the PTCL Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court in an unreported judgment rendered on 26.10.2017 in Civil Appeal No.1390/2009 in the matter of Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another has observed that in view of the inordinate delay in approaching the authorities seeking restoration, the same shall not be entertained unless protection provided to grantee is exercised within a reasonable time. Though the Hon’ble Apex Court accepted the contention of the grantees seeking resumption, has observed that it is not open for the parties to seek resumption of land at their whims and fancies when certain rights are already created in favour of the purchasers. The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed in the said proceeding that the application filed by the grantee seeking restoration is after unreasonable long period i.e., nearly after 25 years from the date of Act coming into force. In the subsequent judgment, the very same Bench by following the same analogy disposed off another case in VIVEK M. HINDUJA & ORS. vs M. ASHWATHA AND ORS. (C.A.No.2166/2009) by judgment dated 06.12.2017, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that unreasonable delay in seeking restoration, should not be entertained and accordingly, the appeal was disposed of holding that the sale in favour of the purchasers does not call for challenge in the said proceedings. 5. If the aforesaid two judgments are looked into and the facts in the instant case are compared with that, inasmuch as the grantee during his life time has sold the property to the uncle of the petitioner and thereafter, it is not the grantee who is seeking resumption, but his son, that too, nearly after 27 years, he has filed the application before the Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption of the land. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that in the light of the aforesaid Judgments, the order of resumption passed by the Assistant Commissioner in S.C:S.T:3:2004-05 vide Annexure E dated 19.05.2005 which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in proceedings No.S.C:S.T:3:2004-05 vide Annexure F dated 19.05.2005 calls for interference. Accordingly, they are set-aside. In the result, the writ petition filed by the purchaser opposing resumption of land is allowed.