ORDER : 1. These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 18.02.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner produced as Annexure H, whereby the Deputy Commissioner has exercised the power 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 Act’ for short) and restored the land in favour of legal representative of original grantee i.e., respondent No.4. 2. Brief facts of the case are that land bearing Sy. No.22/10 measuring 2.00 acres situated at Sulikunte Village, Bangalore East Taluk was granted in favour of Nanjappa at free of cost as per D.D. No.10/5455. The said Nanjappa in turn sold the land measuring 1.00 acre in favour of husband of petitioner No.1 by a registered Sale Deed dated 17.07.1967 and remaining land measuring 1.00 acre sold in favour of petitioner No.2 by a registered Sale Deed dated 01.05.1972. The Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Respondent No.4 has filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for restoration of land. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 05.07.2008, has dismissed the application on the ground that the original records pertaining to the grant was not available and parties have not produced any documents. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A(1A) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner after verifying the original records has given finding that the land was originally granted in favour of Nanjappa, who is father of respondent No.4 under Land Grant Rules in the year 195455 at free of cost with a condition that not to alienate the property for a period of 20 years. Since the said land has been alienated in favour of petitioners by violating the condition, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and restored the land in favour of respondent No.4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. 3. Sri. Anand B. Muddappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that even as per the finding of the Deputy Commissioner, the land was originally granted in favour of Nanjappa under the Land Grant Rules in the year 195455. The said Nanjappa inturn sold the land in favour of petitioners by registered Sale Deeds dated 17.07.1967 and 01.05.1972. The Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The said Nanjappa inturn sold the land in favour of petitioners by registered Sale Deeds dated 17.07.1967 and 01.05.1972. The Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Respondent No.4 has filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for restoration of land in the year 2006 and there is a delay of 26 years in filing the application from the date of Act came into force. Hence, the application filed by respondent No.4 itself is not maintainable. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi –vState of Karnataka and Another reported in 2018 (1) Kar. LR 5 (SC) and sought for allowing the appeal. 4. In reply, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and learned Government pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended that the Deputy Commissioner has given clear finding on the basis of the records that land was originally granted in favour of Nanjappa, who is father of respondent No.4 at free of cost under Land Grant Rules in the year 195455. As per the Land Grant Rules, the conditions prevailing on the day of granting the land is 20 years for nonalienation. Land has been alienated by violating the Land Grant Rules. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly restored the land in favour of legal representative of the original grantee. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The land bearing Sy. No.22/10 measuring 2.00 acres situated at Sulikunte Village, Bangalore East Taluk was originally granted in favour of Nanjappa at free of cost under Land Grant Rules in the year 195455. The said Nanjappa sold the land measuring 1.00 acre in favour of husband of petitioner No.1 by a registered Sale Deed dated 17.07.1967 and remaining land measuring 1.00 acre sold in favour of petitioner No.2 by a registered Sale Deed dated 01.05.1972. The Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Respondent No.4 has filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for restoration of land in the year 2006. The application for restoration of land has been filed after 26 years from the date of Act came into force. There is inordinate delay in filing the application. Hence application filed by respondent No.4 is not maintainable. The application for restoration of land has been filed after 26 years from the date of Act came into force. There is inordinate delay in filing the application. Hence application filed by respondent No.4 is not maintainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) at paragraph No.8 has held as under: “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. & 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. 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. It is very clear from the above judgment that the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for restoration of land has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the land has been granted in the year 195455. Out of 2.00 acres, 1.00 acre has been sold in favour of husband of petitioner No.1 and remaining land has been sold in favour of petitioner No.2 by registered Sale Deeds dated 17.07.1967 and 01.05.1972, respectively. The said Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Respondent No.4 filed the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for restoration of land in the year 2006. There is unexplained inordinate delay of 26 years from the date of Act came into force in filing the application. 8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), the application filed by respondent No4. itself is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 18.02.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure H is hereby quashed.