ORDER : R. DEVDAS, J. The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the orders dated 10.12.2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the appellate authority-Deputy Commissioner who dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by order dated 20.05.2017. 2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the private respondents submits that the writ petition deserves to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner filed the application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the PTCL Act, 1978) after an enormous delay of more than 17 years after the Act came into force. The learned Counsel submits that in terms of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs State of Karnataka and Another, reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 and Vivek M. Hinduja and others Vs. M. Ashwatha and others, reported in 2018 (1) Kar. L.R. 176 (SC), the writ petition may be dismissed by holding that the application filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner is hit by the principles of delay and laches as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute that the lands in question were temporarily granted in favour of the original grantee Sri Narasimaiah S/o Nagappa in the year 1959-60. It is also an admitted fact that the first sale transaction of the property was on 15.02.1966, while the second sale transaction was on 24.06.1969. The learned Counsel submits that since the khata was not transferred in favour of the purchasers and the revenue records continued to stand in the name of Sri Narasimaiah, the original grantee filed an application before the Tahsildar in the year 1995 and a mutation entry bearing M.R.No.6/1995-96 was made by the Tahsildar showing the name of Sri Narasimhaiah S/o Nagappa. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner on 25.04.1997, after the death of his father on 30.08.1996. The learned Counsel would therefore submit that from the date of the knowledge of the sale transaction to the petitioner, the application has been filed within time. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner on 25.04.1997, after the death of his father on 30.08.1996. The learned Counsel would therefore submit that from the date of the knowledge of the sale transaction to the petitioner, the application has been filed within time. 4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that from the date of the knowledge of the petitioner that the sale transactions have been executed in contravention to the terms of the grant, cannot be accepted. The ratio of the decisions in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M.Hinduja is that an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, is required to be made before the Assistant Commissioner within a reasonable time. In the case of Satyan Vs. Deputy Commissioner and Others reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 710, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a period of 8 years delay could be considered as reasonable. 5. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that delay of 17 years cannot be considered as reasonable for filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. It requires to be noticed that the original grantee was alive till 30.08.1996 and during his lifetime he did not file any application seeking restoration of the lands. The petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that he had no knowledge of the sale of the properties at the hands of his father. Even otherwise, it is admitted that during the lifetime of the original grantee, he did not file any application seeking restoration of land, the application filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner which was later on forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner and a notice was issued on 10.02.1998 to the private respondents herein. Therefore, even if it is taken that the representation given to the Deputy Commissioner as the starting point of the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, even then, the delay would be more than 17 years. This Court is of the opinion that delay of 17 years cannot be construed as reasonable time and therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the private respondents is accepted. 6. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed for the reasons stated above. This Court is of the opinion that delay of 17 years cannot be construed as reasonable time and therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the private respondents is accepted. 6. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed for the reasons stated above. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration and accordingly the same stands disposed of.