ORDER : 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.9.2014 passed by the respondent No.3Assistant Commissioner vide AnnexureD and order dated 22.3.2016 passed by the respondent No.2Deputy Commissioner vide AnnexureE whereby the authority 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.156, measuring 2 acres, situated at Vijayapura Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District was originally granted to one Thotikempa on 12.9.1959 and saguvali Chit was issued on 2.6.1961. Out of the said extent of land, the legal representatives of original grantee sold 1 acre 10 gunats of land in favour of the petitioner by sale deed dated 25.11.1969 and remaining 30 guntas of land was sold in favour of Smt. Gowramma by sale deed dated 25.1.1971. 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 2012 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 11.9.2014 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 5A of the Act challenging the said order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 22.3.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and has confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, 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 Thotikempa on 12.9.1959. The legal representatives of original grantee sold 1 acre 10 gunats of land in favour of the petitioner by sale deed dated 25.11.1969 and remaining 30 guntas of land was sold in favour of Smt. Gowramma by sale deed dated 25.1.1971. The said Gowramma inturn sold the same in favour of the petitioner by sale deed dated 25.9.1974. 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 2012 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. The said Gowramma inturn sold the same in favour of the petitioner by sale deed dated 25.9.1974. 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 2012 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. There is inordinate delay of 33 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 Nos.4 to 8 submits that the land was granted in favour of Thotikempa on 12.9.1959. The legal representatives of original grantee sold 1 acre 10 gunats of land in favour of the petitioner by sale deed dated 25.11.1969 and remaining 30 guntas of land was sold in favour of Smt. Gowramma by sale deed dated 25.1.1971 by violating the Land Grant Rules. 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 2012 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. Since, there is violation of Section 4(1) of the Act, the authority has rightly passed the impugned order. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 8 further submits that in addition to 2 acres of land, at the time of phodi 21 gutnas of land was identified. What is sold by the grantee is only 2 acres and the impugned order is also only in respect of the 2 acres and remaining 21 guntas of land is in the possession of the respondent Nos.4 to 8. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ papers. 7. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Sy.No.156, measuring 2 acres, situated at Vijayapura Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District was originally granted to one Thotikempa on 12.9.1959 and saguvali Chit was issued on 2.6.1961. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ papers. 7. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Sy.No.156, measuring 2 acres, situated at Vijayapura Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District was originally granted to one Thotikempa on 12.9.1959 and saguvali Chit was issued on 2.6.1961. Out of the said extent of land, the legal representatives of original grantee sold 1 acre 10 gunats of land in favour of the petitioner by sale deed dated 25.11.1969 and remaining 30 guntas of land was sold in favour of Smt. Gowramma by sale deed dated 25.1.1971. 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 2012 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. There is inordinate delay of 33 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. 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.” 8. 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. 9. In the case on hand, the land was granted to the original grantee on 12.5.1959 and saguvali chit was issued on 2.6.1961. The legal representatives of original grantee sold 1 acre 10 gunats of land in favour of the petitioner by sale deed dated 25.11.1969 and remaining 30 guntas of land was sold in favour of Smt. Gowramma by sale deed dated 25.1.1971. The Act came into force with effect from 1.1.1979. The application for restoration of granted land is filed in the year 2012. There is unexplained delay of 33 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. 10. In view of the observations made above, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are unsustainable. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 11.9.2014 passed by the respondent No.3Assistant Commissioner vide AnnexureD and order dated 22.3.2016 passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-E are hereby quashed.