JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.6.2010 passed by the respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A whereby the Deputy Commissioner has restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the land bearing Sy.No.87/7B of Thotadaguddadahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measuring 1 acre was granted in favour of Lingaiah s/o Maraiah under Grow More Food Scheme on 1.12.1961. The original grantee has sold the land in favour of the husband of the petitioner by sale deed dated 17.6.1972. 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 original grantee filed an application under Sections 4 & 5 of the said Act on 9.10.2001 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 9.10.2002 dismissed the said application on the ground that the Act is not applicable since the land has been granted under Grow More Food Scheme. The legal representatives of original grantee has filed an appeal under Section 5A of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has given a finding that earlier the land was leased under Grow More Food Scheme and subsequently, it was confirmed by granting the land in favour of Lingaiah on 1.12.1961 with a condition not to alienate for a period of 15 years. Since the original grantee has alienated the land in favour of the husband of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that originally the land was granted in favour of Lingaiah on 1.12.1961 with a condition not to alienate the property for a period of 15 years. The original grantee violating the condition has sold the land in favour of the husband of the petitioner on 17.6.1972. The legal representatives of the original grantee has filed the application before the Assistant Commissioner on 9.10.2001 after lapse of 21 years from the date of Act came into force. There is inordinate delay of 21 years in filing the application before the Assistant Commissioner. The legal representatives of the original grantee has filed the application before the Assistant Commissioner on 9.10.2001 after lapse of 21 years from the date of Act came into force. There is inordinate delay of 21 years in filing the application before the Assistant Commissioner. In support of his case, he has relied upon the law laid down by the Honble 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 and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 contended that the land was originally granted to Lingaiah on 1.12.1961 with a condition not to alienate for 15 years. But the original grantee has sold the land in favour of the husband of the petitioner and he has violated the conditions under Section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 6. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Sy.No.87/7B of Thotadaguddadahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measuring 1 acre was granted in favour of Lingaiah s/o Maraiah on 1.12.1961 with a condition not to alienate the said land for a period of 15 years. By violating the condition, the original grantee has sold the land in favour of the husband of the petitioner by sale deed dated 17.6.1972. The 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 on 9.10.2001 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. There is delay of 21 years in invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama 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. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama 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. v. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., 2017(6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa v. 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 v. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa v. State of Karnataka, 2006 (4) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda v. 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. 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 Honble Supreme Court stated supra, for invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5, an application has to be filed within a reasonable time. 8. In the case on hand, land was originally granted on 1.12.1961, subsequently, the land was sold in favour of the husband of the petitioner on 17.6.1972, the Act came into force with effect from 1.1.1979 and the application for restoration of granted land is filed on 9.10.2001. There is unexplained delay of 21 years in invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Hence, the application filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee before the Assistant Commissioner is not maintainable. 9. In view of the observations made above, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A is unsustainable. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.6.2010 passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed.