ORDER : This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.8.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A whereby the Deputy Commissioner has resumed 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.77 measuring 2 Acres situated at Kommasandra Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk was granted in favour of Nanjappa in the year 1953 under Darkasth Rules and Saguvali Chit was issued on 10.10.1953 with a condition not to alienate the land forever. The original grantee sold the said land in favour of respondent No.4 Narasimhaiah by sale deed dated 30.6.1960. The respondent No.4 inturn sold the land in favour of respondent No.5 Munishamappa by sale deed dated 14.3.1980. The respondent No.5 in turn sold the land to the father of the petitioner by sale deed dated 15.12.1986. 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 in the year 2006 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 24.4.2014 rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the Act challenging the said order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 16.8.2016 has allowed the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee. 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 Nanjappa in the year 1953 under Darkasth Rules and Saguvali Chit was issued on 10.10.1953 with a condition not to alienate the land forever. The original grantee sold the said land in favour of respondent No.4 Narasimhaiah by sale deed dated 30.6.1960. 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 in the year 2006 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. There is inordinate delay of 27 years in filing the application before the Assistant Commissioner. 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 in the year 2006 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. There is inordinate delay of 27 years in filing the application before the Assistant Commissioner. The application itself is not maintainable. 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 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 respondent No.6 submits that the land was granted in favour of Nanjappa in the year 1953 under Darkasth Rules and Saguvali Chit was issued on 10.10.1953 with a condition not to alienate the land forever. The original grantee sold the said land in favour of respondent No.4 Narasimhaiah by sale deed dated 30.6.1960 by violating the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned order. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ papers. 6. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Sy.No.77 measuring 2 Acres situated at Kommasandra Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk was granted in favour of Nanjappa in the year 1953 under Darkasth Rules and Saguvali Chit was issued on 10.10.1953 with a condition not to alienate the land forever. The original grantee sold the said land in favour of respondent No.4 Narasimhaiah by sale deed dated 30.6.1960. The respondent No.4 in turn sold the land in favour of respondent No.5 Munishamappa by sale deed dated 14.3.1980. The respondent No.5 in turn sold the land to the father of the petitioner by sale deed dated 15.12.1986. 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 in the year 2006 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. There is inordinate delay of 27 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. There is inordinate delay of 27 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 & 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. N.4-B 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.4-B 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra, the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act has to be invoked within a reasonable time. 8. In the case on hand, land was granted to the original grantee in the year 1953 and saguvali chit was issued on 10.10.1953 with a condition not to alienate the land forever. The original grantee sold the said land in favour of respondent No.4 Narasimhaiah by sale deed dated 30.6.1960 by violating the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. The Act came into force on 1.1.1979. The application for restoration of granted land is filed in the year 2006. There is unexplained delay of 27 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 itself is not maintainable. 9. In view of the observations made above, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is unsustainable. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 16.8.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure- A is hereby quashed.