ORDER : In these petitions, petitioners are challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 20.06.2012. Hence, it has been clubbed together and common order has been passed. 2. These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 20.06.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), whereby the Deputy Commissioner resumed the land in favour of legal representatives of original grantee. 3. Brief facts of the case are that land bearing Sy. No.251/1a and 1b measuring 5 acres situated at Nagarangere Village, Challakere Taluk was originally granted in favour of one Kariyappa on temporary lease basis under Grow More Food Scheme in the year 1943. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 25.11.1955 has confirmed the said lease in favour of original grantee. Subsequently, Saguvali Chit has been issued on 11.12.1955, with a condition not to alienate the property for a period of 15 years. The original grantee has sold the land in dispute in favour of petitioners in W.P. No.26005/2012 by a registered Sale Deed dated 30.10.1967. Thereafter, petitioners obtained permission from the various authorities for conversion of land under the Land Revenue Act. By order dated 08.12.1986, the Tahsildar has granted permission for conversion of land from agricultural to nonagricultural purpose. The petitioners formed the sites and sold the same in favour of petitioners in W.P. No.1081/2015 under different Sale Deeds in the year 1998-1999. The petitioners retained some land to an extent of 01 acre 20 guntas. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Thereafter, the authority initiated suomoto proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act in the year 1996 for resumption of land. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 23.04.1999, has dismissed the application on the ground that the Act is not applicable to the disputed land. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an appeal under Section 5A of the Act in Appeal No.13/08-09. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 20.06.2012, has allowed the appeal and resumed the land in favour of legal representatives of original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. 4. Sri. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 20.06.2012, has allowed the appeal and resumed the land in favour of legal representatives of original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. 4. Sri. Prakash M.H. and R. Shashidhara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the land was originally leased in favour of one Kariyappa under Grow More Food Scheme in the year 1943. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 25.11.1955 confirmed the said lease in favour of Kariyappa and Saguvali Chit has been issued on 11.12.1955 with a condition not to alienate the property for a period of 15 years. The original grantee has sold the land in favour of petitioners in W.P. No.26005/2012 by a registered Sale Deed dated 30.10.1967. Thereafter, petitioners obtained permission for conversion of land from agricultural to nonagricultural purpose on 08.12.1986. They formed sites and sold some extent of land to the petitioners in W.P. No.1081/2015. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The suomoto proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act has been initiated in the year 1996 i.e., after lapse of 16 years from the date of Act came into force. The initiation of proceedings itself is not maintainable. In support of their contention, they relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi –v State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2018 (1) Kar. LR 5 (SC) and relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ningappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner in Civil Appeal No.3131/2007 disposed of on 14.07.2011. Hence, they pray for allowing the appeal. 5. Per contra, Sri. B.M. Siddappa, learned counsel for the respondents and Smt. Savithramma, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that land was originally leased in favour of one Kariyappa under Grow More Food Scheme in the year 1943. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner under Darkasth Rules has confirmed the said lease by granting the land in favour of Kariyappa on 25.11.1955. Saguvali Chit was issued on 11.12.1955, with a condition that not to alienate the property for a period of 15 years. By violating the conditions, the original grantee has sold the land in favour of petitioners in W.P.No.26005/2012 by a registered Sale Deed dated 30.10.1967. The sale is void and contrary to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. Saguvali Chit was issued on 11.12.1955, with a condition that not to alienate the property for a period of 15 years. By violating the conditions, the original grantee has sold the land in favour of petitioners in W.P.No.26005/2012 by a registered Sale Deed dated 30.10.1967. The sale is void and contrary to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. The Authority has rightly allowed the appeal and restored the land in favour of legal representatives of the original grantee. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is not in dispute that land bearing Sy. No.251/1a and 1b measuring 5 acres situated at Nagarangere Village, Challakere Taluk was originally granted to one Kariyappa on temporary lease basis under Grow More Food Scheme in the year 1943. Thereafter, by order dated 25.11.1955 the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the said lease and Saguvali Chit was issued on 11.12.1955. The condition prevailing as on the date of the grant is nonalienation for a period of 15 years. By violating the condition, the original grantee has sold the land in favour of petitioners in W.P. No.26005/2012 by a registered Sale Deed dated 30.10.1967. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Thereafter, the purchasers obtained the permission for conversion of land for the purpose of nonagricultural use on 08.12.1986. In the year 1996, the authority has initiated suomoto proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for resumption of the land. The initiation of the proceedings is after lapse of 16 years from the date of the Act came into force. Hence, initiation of the proceedings itself is not maintainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) at paragraph No.8 has held as under: “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. 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.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.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ningappa (supra) at paragraph No.4 has held as under: “4. Admittedly, respondent Nos.3 to 7 had sold the land in question to the appellant in the year 1972. This was done by respondent Nos.3 to 7 voluntarily and of their own free volition. Order accordingly.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ningappa (supra) at paragraph No.4 has held as under: “4. Admittedly, respondent Nos.3 to 7 had sold the land in question to the appellant in the year 1972. This was done by respondent Nos.3 to 7 voluntarily and of their own free volition. It is only in the year 1988 that they filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 inter alia praying for cancellation of the sale transaction and also restoration of the land in question.” 8. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has opined that application for restoration of land and suomoto proceedings has to be initiated within a reasonable time. The case on hand, land was granted in favour of original grantee on 25.11.1955. Saguvali Chit was issued on 11.12.1955. The original grantee has sold the land in favour of petitioners in W.P. No.26005/2012 on 30.10.1967. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The suomoto proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act initiated in the year 1996. There is an inordinate delay of 16 years in invoking Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore said judgments, the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner itself is not maintainable. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure E is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 20.06.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No.13/0809 is quashed. In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2014 does not survive for consideration and same is rejected.