ORDER : Petitioners in these petitions are claiming themselves to be children of one Malla @ Mallappa said to be original grantee of land bearing Sy.No.139 (old No.100) of Khaji Sonnahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. 2. According to the petitioners, their father Malla was granted an extent of 2 acres 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.139 (old No.100) of Khaji Sonnahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, on 6.11.1937. During his life time, Malla sold entire extent of 2 acres 5 gunta in favour of one Kadirappa under a registered sale deed dated 25.4.1949, who in turn sold the same to one Smt. Chokkamma under registered sale deed dated 18.10.1950. In the meanwhile, it is stated that Malla died. So also the subsequent purchaser Smt. Chokkamma. Thereafter, the children of Smt.Chokkamma namely Sri. Narayanappa and Sri. Thimmaiah sold aforesaid land in favour of Sri. Appanna and Sri. Nanjappa, respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein under registered sale deed dated 31.5.1990, who got themselves registered as khathedars in RTC and continued to be in possession and cultivation thereof. 3. When matter stood thus, according to the petitioner in WP.No.6051/2008, Muniyamma – petitioner in WP.No.1951/2016, who is daughter of alleged original grantee Malla and sister of petitioner in WP.No.6051/2008 filed an application seeking resumption of land in her favour on the premise that sale of land by her father in the year 1949 and subsequent sale deeds are hit by the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act for short). The said application filed by Muniyamma came to be registered with the Assistant Commissioner (Actually it is Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru North), Bengaluru in K.SC.ST.No.16/2003-2004, which came to be allowed by order dated 22.3.2005, wherein it was ordered by the Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) that the land which is in the custody of respondent Nos.3 and 4 should be resumed to the Government and thereafter should be reconveyed to Muniyamma. Being aggrieved by the said order of Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner), respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, in Appeal No.SC.ST(A) 1/2005-2006, wherein the Assistant Commissioner, North Sub Division and Muniyamma were arraigned as parties. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner), respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, in Appeal No.SC.ST(A) 1/2005-2006, wherein the Assistant Commissioner, North Sub Division and Muniyamma were arraigned as parties. 4. The grievance of petitioner in WP.No.6051/2008 is that either at the time of filing of application for resumption of land or at the stage of appeal he was not included as party to the proceedings and it was independently pursued by Muniyamma, (who is his sister) behind his back in depriving his right to be a party to the proceeding initiated to seek resumption of land in question. Therefore, filing of appeal without arraigning him as a party is erroneous for the reason that the revenue entries which are entered subsequent to the order of Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) indicated that Malla’s legal heirs are not only Muniyamma but also Thimmaiah – petitioner in WP.No.6051/2008. 5. It is the further grievance of petitioner in WP.No.6051/2008 that in the appeal filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 before the Special Deputy Commissioner Muniyamma through her son entered into a compromise with appellants in said proceedings, who are respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein and made a submission that land which was sold by Malla in favour of Kadirappa in the year 1949 is not a granted land but it is an ancestral property and therefore, the provisions of PTCL Act does not get attracted. However, the Special Deputy Commissioner has decided the said appeal not only on the basis of submission mad by the GPA holder of Muniyamma but also on the basis of material on record and held that there is no material to show that it was a granted land, as such there is no violation of the condition subsequently stipulated under the provisions of PTCL Act. The said order of Special Deputy Commissioner is under challenge in these two writ petitions. First of them is in WP.No.6051/2008 is by Thimmaiah s/o Malla and another one is in WP.No.1951/2016 by Muniyamma d/o Malla. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, contesting respondents and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-authorities in both the writ petitions. Perused the material on record as well as the impugned order. 7. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, contesting respondents and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-authorities in both the writ petitions. Perused the material on record as well as the impugned order. 7. In the background of aforesaid facts, when the entire material on record is looked in to, it is seen that nowhere in said record it would disclose that Malla was owner of 2 acres 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.139 (Old No.100) of Khaji Sonnahalli village on the basis of grant made in his name. Infact to substantiate that it is a granted land not even a scrap of paper is produced by the applicant – Smt. Muniyamma before the Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) in proceedings No.K.SC.ST.16/2003- 2004. However, based on a mere assertion of applicant – Muniyamma the Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) has jumped into a conclusion that it is a granted land, merely for the reason that Muniyamma belongs to SC/ST community and on that premise he has proceeded and passed an erroneous order. 8. However, when the same was subject matter of an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner though Muniyamma’s son on GPA made a submission that land in question was not a granted land and that the same was ancestral property, the Special Deputy Commissioner did not accept the same. Instead, he has proceeded to analyze the documents which were available on record independently and has come to the conclusion that there is nothing on record to show that land in question is a grant in favour of person belonging to oppressed class. 9. Undoubtedly, the provisions of PTCL Act would apply to grant lands only and not to the lands which are belonging to ancestry of the persons belonging to oppressed class or the property which is acquired independently and held by them in their individual capacity. Therefore, the Special Deputy Commissioner was right in coming to the conclusion that the prayer sought for resumption of land is not established. Accordingly, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner). As against said order, these two writ petitions are filed. 9.1. Therefore, the Special Deputy Commissioner was right in coming to the conclusion that the prayer sought for resumption of land is not established. Accordingly, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner). As against said order, these two writ petitions are filed. 9.1. One is by the son of alleged original grantee contending that though he was shown as owner of the land in question in revenue records, he is excluded both in the proceedings before Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) as well as in appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, hence a serious error is committed and therefore entire matter is required to be reopend and then his right seeking resumption of a portion of land in question in his favour is required to be reconsidered. 9.2. Second one is by Muniyamma d/o Malla who is second respondent before Special Deputy Commissioner and applicant before Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) contending that the reasoning given by the Special Deputy Commissioner in holding that land in question is not granted land is erroneous and the finding given is contrary to the material on record. 10. However, when the material on record is looked into, so far as Muniyamma’s writ petition is concerned – WP.No.1951/2016, it is seen that though she was a party to the proceedings wherein impugned order is passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 7.7.2006, she has chosen to file the writ petition ten years thereafter contending that said order is erroneous and she has not given cogent reasons for the inordinate delay of 10 years in filing the present writ petition. 11. Now coming to Thimmiah’s writ petition – WP.No.6051/2008, the ground urged by him is that he is not a party either before Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) or Special Deputy Commissioner. One more ground is that when admittedly he is son of Malla, he is the person who is having right to seek resumption and further when Muniyamma’s right is accepted, his right also should have been considered along with her. 12. In these proceedings, before considering whether petitioners herein have any right to seek resumption of land in question, this Court will have to look into the material on record. 12. In these proceedings, before considering whether petitioners herein have any right to seek resumption of land in question, this Court will have to look into the material on record. When the same is looked in to, it is seen that right from the time of filing of application before the Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) till filing of these writ petitions, not even a single document is produced to show that the petitioners’ father, Mall was grantee of 2 acres 5 guntas of land in aforesaid survey number either on 6.11.1937 or on some other date except one Kethwar Patrike in Form No.1, wherein though there is reference to some proceedings of 1938 same does not clearly indicate that it is a grant and more particularly to an oppressed class person. 13. Infact, at this juncture this Court would try to rely upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter B.K. Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka & Others, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 451 , which deals with the manner to decide whether a land is a granted land, as seen at paragraph 18, wherein it is held as under: “18. The document in question which is filed as Annexure-P3, has been styled or titled as “certificate of grant”. In order to know the real nature of the document, one has to look into the recitals of the document and not the title of the document. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals in the deed, the conduct of the parties and the evidence on record. It is settled law that the question of construction of a document is to be decided by finding out the intention of the executant, firstly, from a comprehensive reading of the terms of the document itself, and then, by looking into – to the extent permissible – the prevailing circumstances which persuaded the author of the document to execute it. With a view to ascertain the nature of a transaction, the document has to be read as a whole. A sentence or term used may not be determinative of the real nature of transaction. Reference in this regard can be made to the following cases (1) Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao [ (1999) 3 SCC 573 ], (2) Subbegowda vs. Thimmegowda [ (2004) 9 SCC 734 ] and (3) Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs. Rajendra Prasad [(2006) 4 SCC 432].” 14. A sentence or term used may not be determinative of the real nature of transaction. Reference in this regard can be made to the following cases (1) Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao [ (1999) 3 SCC 573 ], (2) Subbegowda vs. Thimmegowda [ (2004) 9 SCC 734 ] and (3) Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs. Rajendra Prasad [(2006) 4 SCC 432].” 14. In the instant case there is no such document. However, learned counsel for the petitioners would try to submit that the Kethwar Patrike in Form No.1 should be taken as contemporaneous document, which is not supported by the judgment of Apex Court in the B.K. Muniraju’s case. In that view of the mater, this Court would find that the finding given by the Special Deputy Commissioner in his order that Muniyamma failed to establish that it is a granted land, appears to be just and proper. 15. Further, even assuming for a moment that it is a granted land, the conduct of the parties in seeking resumption with reference to sequence of events should be seen. When the same is looked into, in the instant case it is stated that the grant is of the year 1937. However, first of the sale has taken place at the instance of original grantee - Malla in the year 1949, to be precise under a registered sale deed dated 25.4.1949 in favour of Kadirappa and subsequently, it has changed hands and came to the hands of respondent Nos.3 and 4 under registered sale deed dated 31.5.1990. 16. It is not in dispute that the application seeking resumption of land is filed by Muniyamma, the daughter of Malla before the Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) some where around in the year 2004. The said application is exactly 55 years after the first sale made by her father Malla in favour of Kadirappa and 26 years after the PTCL Act coming into force on 1.1.1979. The said application is exactly 55 years after the first sale made by her father Malla in favour of Kadirappa and 26 years after the PTCL Act coming into force on 1.1.1979. Therefore, in this background what is to be seen is recent judgments rendered by the Apex Court under similar set of facts which are in the matters of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka & Another, in Civil Appeal No.1390/2009, disposed of on 26.10.2017 and Vivek M. Hinduja & Others vs. M. Ashwatha & Ors., in Civil appeal No.2166/2009, disposed of on 6.12.2017, wherein the very same bench which rendered both judgments has opined that though the persons belonging to oppressed class have a right to seek resumption of land after sale is made in contravention of the provisions of PTCL Act, the same cannot be exercised by them at their whims and fancies and though there is no time stipulated, the said claim shall be within a reasonable time. 17. In first of the aforesaid judgments of Apex Court, the claim was made by grantees after more than 20 years and in second judgment it was about 15 years. In both the matters the Apex Court has held that when parties have not taken appropriate steps for resumption of land within a reasonable time, the benefits which are enured to the purchasers should not be disturbed by filing application seeking resumption belatedly. 18. Hence, by following aforesaid judgments of Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that even if there is any document for the petitioners in both the writ petitions to establish that this is a granted land, then also by virtue of the principles enunciated in the aforesaid two judgments, they are not entitled to seek resumption of land on the ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as the application for resumption is filed 55 years after the first sale and 26 years after the PTCL Act coming into force. 19. In that view of the matter, writ petitions filed by the children of Malla seeking resumption of land which was initially considered by Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner), North Sub Division, Bengaluru, in No.K.SC.ST.16/2003-2004, dated 22.3.2005 and subsequently set aside by the Special deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, in Appeal No.SC.ST(AP).1/2005-2006 on 7.7.2006 cannot be entertained. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.