ORDER : This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.2.2013 passed by the respondent No.1Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the land bearing Sy.No.154 measuring 2 acres of Adavi Gollavarahalli Village, Chikkaballapur District was originally granted in favour of one Chikkabiaga @ Chikkabiyappa s/o Kollurappa on 14.5.1941. The said Chikkabiaga sold the said land in favour of A.Muniraju through sale deed dated 27.9.1968. The said Muniraju in turn sold the same in favour of G.Abdul Hakeem through registered sale deed dated 27.4.1970. The said Abdul Hakeem in turn sold the same in favour of Byrappa through sale deed dated 3.11.1979. The Byrappa sold the said property in favour of the petitioner through registered sale deed dated 2.8.2007. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short “the Act”) came into force on 1.1.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee filed an application under Sections 4 & 5 of the said Act before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2008-09 for resumption of the land. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 30.3.2009 dismissed the said application filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the said order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 18.2.2013 allowed the appeal and has restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that originally the land was granted in favour of one Chikkabiaga @ Chikkabiyappa s/o Kollurappa on 14.5.1941. The said Chikkabiaga sold the said land in favour of A.Muniraju through registered sale deed dated 27.9.1968. The said Act came into force on 1.1.1979. The legal representatives of original grantee filed an application under Sections 4 & 5 of the said Act in the year 2008-09 for resumption of the land i.e., 29 years after the Act came into force. There is delay in filing the application before the Assistant Commissioner. In support of his case, he has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi –v State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2018 (1) Kar. LR 5 (SC). There is delay in filing the application before the Assistant Commissioner. In support of his case, he has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi –v State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2018 (1) Kar. LR 5 (SC). Therefore, he sought for allowing the petition. 4. The learned HCGP appearing for the State submits that the land has been granted to the original grantee on 4.5.1941 with a condition not to alienate the property forever. The original grantee has sold the land in favour of Muniyappa on 27.9.1968. There is violation of terms of grant. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed an order for restoring the land. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the State. 6. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Sy.No.154 measuring 2 acres of Adavi Gollavarahalli Village, Chikkaballapur District was originally granted in favour of one Chikkabiaga @ Chikkabiyappa s/o Kollurappa on 14.5.1941. The said Chikkabiaga sold the said land in favour of A.Muniraju through a sale deed dated 27.9.1968. The said Muniraju in turn sold the same in favour of G.Abdul Hakeem through a sale deed dated 27.4.1970. The said Abdul Hakeem in turn sold the same in favour of Byrappa through a sale deed dated 3.11.1979. The said Byrappa sold the said property in favour of the petitioner through registered sale deed dated 2.8.2007. The said Act came into force on 1.1.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee filed an application under Sections 4 & 5 of the said Act in the year 2008-09 before the Assistant Commissioner for resumption of the land. There is delay of 29 years in invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NekkantiRama Lakshmi(supra) has held as follows: “8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., 2017(6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Dy. Commissioner & Ors. (C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act which provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1st January, 1939 to 31st December, 1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent-Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R. Rudrappa vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 (4) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Ors, 2000(2) Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly.” 7. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra, for invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5, an application has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, land was granted on 4.5.1941, the original grantee sold the land on 27.9.1968, the Act came into force with effect from 1.1.1979 and the application for resumption of granted land was filed in the year 2008-09. In the case on hand, land was granted on 4.5.1941, the original grantee sold the land on 27.9.1968, the Act came into force with effect from 1.1.1979 and the application for resumption of granted land was filed in the year 2008-09. There is unreasonable delay of 29 years in invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Hence, the application was liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of the observations made above, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.2.2013 passed by the respondent No.1Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D is hereby quashed.