JUDGMENT : There is a delay of 147 days. However, we have heard learned counsels on merit. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.06.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.35155 of 2018, by the learned Single Judge, in dismissing the writ petition, the writ petitioner is in appeal. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, he is the legal heir of the original grantee of the land measuring 2 acres 4 guntas which was granted in favour of his grandfather. The Saguvali chit was also issued to his grandfather. The first sale was executed on 30.03.1954. Thereafter, two sales took place on 25.07.1960 and 11.04.1973. The present respondent No.3 claims to be a purchaser under the sale deed dated 11.04.1973. 4. The writ petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner on 01.04.2005 seeking resumption and restoration of the land under The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘Act’). By the order dated 26.11.2007, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the application and declared the sale transactions as void and ordered for resumption and restoration. The purchaser challenged the same by way of an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 12.10.2009 set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Questioning the same, instant writ petition was filed. 5. The plea of the petitioner is that, the limitation has to be accounted from the date of the Amendment Act and not from the date of the original sale. That the learned Single Judge committed an error in relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2018 Kar 1352. 6. On hearing the learned counsels, we do not find any merit. Even if the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted then from the date of the amendment act in the year 1978, the proceedings have been initiated on 01.04.2005 namely, 26 years after the Act came into force. Therefore, the principles laid down in the above referred citation is directly applicable to the case on hand. There has been an unexplained substantial delay in initiating the proceedings. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the petition on merits. Hence, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order. Therefore, the principles laid down in the above referred citation is directly applicable to the case on hand. There has been an unexplained substantial delay in initiating the proceedings. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the petition on merits. Hence, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1 of 2019 filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is also dismissed.