ORDER : 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-F and order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-H whereby the authority has restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the land bearing Sy. No. 42 (New No. 66) measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Tavarekere Village, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District was originally granted in favour of Thimmaiah on 6.6.1964 under Darkasth Rules. 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 sold the land in favour of the father of the petitioner by sale-deed dated 23.8.1989. The legal representatives of original grantee filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act in the year 2006 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 23.12.2011 has allowed the said application and restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the Act challenging the said order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 11.3.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and has confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 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 Thimmaiah on 6.6.1964 under Darkasth Rules. The said Act came into force on 1.1.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee has sold the land in favour of the father of the petitioner by registered sale-deed dated 23.8.1989. The legal representatives of original grantee filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act in the year 2006 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner after 17 years. There is inordinate delay in filing the application before the Assistant Commissioner. The legal representatives of original grantee filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act in the year 2006 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner after 17 years. There is inordinate 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 vs. State of Karnataka and Another, 2018 (1) Kar. L.R. 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. 5 submits that the land has been granted to the original grantee on 6.6.1964. The legal representatives of the original grantee have sold the land in favour of the father of the petitioner through registered sale-deed dated 23.8.1989. As per the provision of Section 4(2) of the Act, grantee has to obtain permission for alienation of land. Since the property has been sold contrary to the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act, the authority has rightly restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Hence, they sought 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. 5. 6. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Sy. No. 42 (New No. 66) measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Tavarekere Village, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District was originally granted in favour of Thimmaiah on 6.6.1964 under Darkasth Rules. The came into force on 1.1.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee sold the land in favour of the father of the petitioner by sale-deed dated 23.8.1989. 7. Section 4(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 reads thus: “4(2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government.” 8. As per the provision of Section 4(2) of the Act, any transaction without the previous permission of the Government is null and void. 9. As per the provision of Section 4(2) of the Act, any transaction without the previous permission of the Government is null and void. 9. The legal representatives of original grantee have filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act in the year 2006 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. There is delay of 17 years in invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The Hon’ble 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 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. 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 District 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.” 10. 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. 11. In the case on hand, land was granted on 6.6.1964. The Act came into force with effect from 1.1.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee has sold the land in favour of the father of the petitioner on 23.8.1989. The application for restoration of granted land is filed in the year 2006. There is unexplained delay of 17 years in invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Hence, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the application filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee before the Assistant Commissioner itself is not maintainable. 12. In view of the observations made above, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-F and H respectively are unsustainable. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-F and order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-H are hereby quashed.