ORDER : 1. These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner produced at Annexure-F, whereby the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeals filed by the purchasers. 2. Since the challenge is to the similar order, all the petitions are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Brief facts of the case are that land bearing old Sy. No. 31/18, New Sy. No. 70 measuring 02 acres situated at Sriramanahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was granted in favour of Chikkathippa under Darkasth Rules on 10.09.1949. The said original grantee has sold the property in question to Sri. H.T. Subbarao under a registered Sale-Deed dated 05.07.1967. He inturn, sold the property to one Sri. Baladevkumar Mahendra by a registered Sale-Deed dated 07.07.1967. The said Baladevkumar Mahendra has sold the property in question to C.K. Kariyappa through Sale-Deed dated 31.07.1980. The said C.K. Kariyappainturn has sold the property to Sri. K. Sitharam through registered Sale-Deed dated 22.05.1990. Thereafter, K. Sitharama has obtained the permission from the Deputy Commissioner for conversion of land under Land Revenue Act and sold the property in question in favour of Sri. Yusuf Ali and Smt. Sameena Yusuf Ali by the registered sale-deeds dated 05.01.1994 and 04.01.1994 respectively. The said persons formed the layout and sold the sites in favour of respondents by different sale-deeds. 4. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of original grantee have filed the application before the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act seeking restoration of the land in the year 2006. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 13.02.2008 has allowed the application and restored the land in favour of legal representatives of original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, respondents have filed the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 27.09.2012 has allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representative of the original grantee/ petitioners have filed the present writ petitions. 5. Sri. Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that land was originally granted in favour of one Chikkathippa under Darkasth Rules and Saguvali Chit at Annexure-B was issued by the competent authority on 10.09.1949. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representative of the original grantee/ petitioners have filed the present writ petitions. 5. Sri. Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that land was originally granted in favour of one Chikkathippa under Darkasth Rules and Saguvali Chit at Annexure-B was issued by the competent authority on 10.09.1949. He further contended that it is very clear from the Grant Certificate that the land in dispute was granted in favour of Chikkathippa, who is grand-father of the petitioners and it is not in dispute that the original grantee belongs to Scheduled Caste. He further contended that the appeal filed by one Xaviour Paul in respect of very same land has been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 28.07.2010 produced at Annexure-D and Deputy Commissioner has given finding that the land in dispute is a granted land. Now under the impugned order dated 27.09.2012, the Deputy Commissioner held that the land in dispute is not a granted land and the petitioners have not produced any documents to establish the same, is contrary to the materials available on record. Secondly, he has contended that the land was originally granted in favour of Chikkathippa in the year 1949. As on the date of the grant, the conditions prevailing is “non-alienation forever.” The original grantee by violating the condition, has sold the land by a registered Sale-Deed dated 05.07.1967. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has rightly exercised the power under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and restored the land. Thirdly, in respect of delay in filing the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act is concerned, he submitted that petitioners were not aware of the PTCL Act and when they became aware of the same, they have filed the applications. He further submits that if this Court grants permission to file the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, petitioners will file the same. Hence, he sought for allowing the petitions. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the land in dispute was originally granted in favour of one Chikkathippa, who belongs to Scheduled Caste and grant certificate was issued on 10.09.1949. As on the date of the grant, the conditions prevailing was “non-alienation forever.” By violating the condition, the original grantee has sold the land on 05.07.1967. 1 and 2 contended that the land in dispute was originally granted in favour of one Chikkathippa, who belongs to Scheduled Caste and grant certificate was issued on 10.09.1949. As on the date of the grant, the conditions prevailing was “non-alienation forever.” By violating the condition, the original grantee has sold the land on 05.07.1967. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has rightly allowed the application and restored the land. She further contended that in respect of the very same land, one more proceedings has been initiated by one Xaviour Paul before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 28.07.2010 vide Annexure-D has dismissed the appeal and held that land in dispute is a granted land. There is no dispute with regard to the land granted in favour of Chikkathippa. Since the said land has been alienated by violating the condition, the Assistant Commissioner has rightly restored the land. Hence, she sought for allowing the petitions. 7. Sri. C. Vamshi Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that there is no dispute in respect of land granted in favour of Chikkathippa and Grant Certificate vide Annexure-B. The original grantee has sold the land in favour of one H.T. Subbarao by a registered Sale-Deed dated 05.07.1967. The Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for restoration of land has been filed in the year 2006. There is an inordinate delay of 26 years in filing the application. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and Another, 2018 (1) Kar. L.R. 5 (SC) and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. The case of the petitioners is that land bearing old Sy. No. 31/18, New Sy. No. 70 measuring 02 acres situated at Sriramanahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was granted in favour of Chikkathippa by Darkasth Rules as per Annexure-B. The grant certificate has been issued by the Competent Authority on 10.09.1949. As on the date of the grant, the conditions prevailing was “non-alienation forever.” The original grantee has sold the land to Sri. H.T. Subbarao under a registered Sale-Deed dated 05.07.1967. Subsequently, the said Subbarao sold the property to one Sri. As on the date of the grant, the conditions prevailing was “non-alienation forever.” The original grantee has sold the land to Sri. H.T. Subbarao under a registered Sale-Deed dated 05.07.1967. Subsequently, the said Subbarao sold the property to one Sri. Baladevkumar Mahendra by a registered Sale-Deed dated 07.07.1967. The said Baladevkumar Mahendra sold the property in question to C.K. Kariyappa. The said C.K. Kariyappa inturn sold the property to Sri. K. Sitharam through registered Sale-Deed dated 22.05.1990. Thereafter, K. Sitharama has obtained the permission from the Deputy Commissioner for conversion of land and sold the property in question in favour of Sri. Yusuf Ali and Smt. Sameena Yusuf Ali. They formed the layout and sold the sites to respondents herein by different sale-deeds. 10. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, counsel for the State and in view of Annexure-B Grant Certificate produced by the petitioners and also the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D, the land in dispute is a granted land. Therefore, it is very clear that land in dispute is granted by the Government under Darkasth Rules to one Chikkathippa and grant certificate has been issued as per Annexure-B. The Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for restoration of land in the year 2006. There is a delay of 26 years in filing the application from the date of the Act came into force. The 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 and Others vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) through LRs. and Others, 2017 (6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Dy. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo-motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav and Others vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) through LRs. and Others, 2017 (6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Dy. Commissioner and Others (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) Kar. L.J. 523, Maddurappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 (4) Kar. L.J. 303 and G. Maregouda vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga and Others, 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.” 11. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has opined that application for invoking the Sections 4 and 5 of the Act has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the land was granted in the year 1949. Original grantee has sold the land in favour of H.T. Subbarao by a registered Sale-Deed dated 05.07.1967. The Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application for restoration of the land under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act filed in the year 2006. There is an unexplained delay of 26 years in filing the application. The application itself is not maintainable. The Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application for restoration of the land under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act filed in the year 2006. There is an unexplained delay of 26 years in filing the application. The application itself is not maintainable. In respect of second contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they were not aware of the provisions of the Act and only after they became aware, they filed the application. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 846/2019 disposed of on 19.06.2019 at paragraph No. 5 has held as under: “5. The law on the aspect is very clear. There is no specific limitation prescribed in Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The application has to be filed within a reasonable time. By no stretch of imagination, the application made by the appellants, after a lapse of nearly 32 years from the date on which PTCL Act came into force, can be said to be filed within a reasonable time.” 12. In view of the above, the contention of the petitioners is unsustainable. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed.