JUDGMENT : S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, J. The petitioners are the purchasers of the land bearing Sy.No.84/P to an extent of 3 acres 1 gunta situated at Hampanuru Village, Chitradurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, by virtue of a sale deed dated 25.04.1967 by the grantee. 2. It is stated that the grant was made in favour of Jogappa S/o. Hanumappa in the year 1953-1954 and the proceedings came to be initiated in the year 1996-1997 for the first time before the Assistant Commissioner by the legal representatives of the grantee seeking for resumption, declaration of invalidity of the sale deed and restoration of the land to the grantee. At the first instance, the Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 26.04.1999, had allowed the application filed and declared that the sale transaction was illegal. The Assistant Commissioner though noted that the original records relating to the grant were not forth coming and it was not possible to record the finding as to whether the grant was made free of cost or for reduced upset price, had presumed the grant to be one so as to be attracted by the provisions of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and Rules 1979 and recording the finding that the sale transaction having been made within the non-alienation period of 20 years and that the grantee belong to Scheduled Caste, had allowed the application. 3. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 27.11.2000, had set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and had remanded the matter for reconsideration. On remand the Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 09.08.2002, had rejected the application filed by the grantee and had observed that there were no original records as regards the grant. It was specifically observed by the Assistant Commissioner that no finding could be recorded as regards the nature of grant in the absence of original records. Matter was taken up before the Deputy Commissioner in appeal, who by order dated 14.09.2016, who has allowed the appeal and set aside the sale deeds as being in violation of Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, 1978) and directed resumption and restoration of the land to the Legal Representatives of the grantee. 4. 4. The Deputy Commissioner in his order, has noticed that the original records with respect to the grant are not forth coming and takes note of the report of the Tahasildhar. However, the Deputy Commissioner by relying on certain entries relating to the land states that there is a reference of the DCF i.e Depressed Class File and hence, draws the conclusion that the land was granted under the Depressed Class Concession Rules. The Deputy Commissioner takes the grant to be in the year 1953-1954 and taking note of the notification bearing No.7594-604-LR.266-53-2 dated 05.08.1953 as being the appreciable rule, has recorded a finding that the sale deed having been executed within the prohibited period of 20 years, action would lie for violation of Section 4(1) of the Act and consequently, declares the sale to be illegal. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner has been assailed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of original grant records, proceedings ought not to have been taken note of at the first instance by the Assistant Commissioner. He further contends that the Deputy Commissioner's finding is clearly based on conjectures and surmises in so far as there is no record to demonstrate the nature of grant as to whether it was a free grant or land was granted on upset price or reduced upset price and hence, in the absence of material sufficient to record the finding as regards to the nature of grant, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is erroneous and legally untenable. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner states in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vivek M.Hinduja and others Vs. M.Ashwatha and others in Civil Appeal No.2166/2009 (Dated 06.12.2017) and also the judgment in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and another in Civil Appeal No.1390/2009 (Dated 26.10.2017), the proceedings ought not to have been entertained by the Assistant Commissioner after lapse of about 29 years from the date of the first sale. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate seeks to support the orders, but is unable to defend the order passed in the absence of original records. 8. The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner is sustainable in law. 9. It is admitted that there are no original records relating to the grant. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate seeks to support the orders, but is unable to defend the order passed in the absence of original records. 8. The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner is sustainable in law. 9. It is admitted that there are no original records relating to the grant. Infact the report of the Tahasildhar has been referred to by the Deputy Commissioner that original records evidencing the grant are not forth coming. The Deputy Commissioner merely relies on certain other documents where entries are made. However, the question as to whether it is a granted land needs to be looked into from the context of whether the land was granted at less than the market price, so as to bring it within the purview of the Act. The Rule prevailing i.e., notification dated 04.08.1953 bearing No. 7594-604-LR.266-53-2 is to be taken to be the applicable Rule, the land would be a granted land if it was granted at upset price or reduced upset price. The corollary would be if the land has been granted by collecting market price, it cannot be stated that the land would still be a granted land within the definition of the applicable Rule. In the absence of any records as regards the consideration that had passed from the grantee while making the grant, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that it was a granted land. On this ground itself, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside and is not sustainable in law. 10. It is also to be noted that as regards the aspect of delay, the Hon'ble Aplex Court has held in the case of Vivek M.Hinduja and others Vs. M.Ashwatha and others in Civil Appeal No.2166/2009 (Dated 06.12.2017) that invoking of the statutory remedy must be met within a reasonable period of time. In the facts of the present case, the sale deed having been executed on 25.04.1967, proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner only in the year 1996-1997 that is, about 29 years after the sale deed. M.Ashwatha and others in Civil Appeal No.2166/2009 (Dated 06.12.2017) that invoking of the statutory remedy must be met within a reasonable period of time. In the facts of the present case, the sale deed having been executed on 25.04.1967, proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner only in the year 1996-1997 that is, about 29 years after the sale deed. If it is that the violation of the condition of non-alienation (nonalienation for a period of 20 years as per the applicable rule) had occurred by virtue of the sale deed being executed on 25.04.1967, action ought to have been initiated immediately thereafter as a period of 20 years would start from 1953 and the sale deed in 1967, has been executed within the said period. The violation ought to have been redressed legally by approaching the concerned Authority immediately thereafter. The grantees have approached the Assistant Commissioner only in the year 1996-1997 by applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Assistant Commissioner ought not to have entertained the proceedings itself. In fact, the Assistant Commissioner in the proceedings has taken note of the fact that the sale having been executed in 1967 as on date of the Act has come into force about 12 years had already lapsed, which would confer a right on the petitioner. In the light of absence of original records or any other legally acceptable evidence noting that the jurisdictional finding that the land is a granted land cannot be made and also taking note of delayed invoking of the statutory remedies by the beneficiaries of the grant the order of the Deputy Commissioner is set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed.