ORDER : One Mugappa was granted 3 acres of land in Sy.No.10/P60, situated at Balajigapade Village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk on 29.10.1977. Respondent No.3 is the wife of Late Mugappa, while respondent No.4 is the son of Late Mugappa. The Saguvali chit was issued on 18.06.1984, stipulating a non-alienation clause for a period of 15 years in terms of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Violating the said non-alienation clause, the said Mugappa sold the land in favour of T.Nagabhushana on 14.09.1989. The said T.Nagabhushana sold the land in favour of one Sri. Srinivas Murthy, the father of the petitioners herein, on 05.02.1991. 2. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapura Sub-Division, under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, which came into force in 1979, (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act’, for short) for resumption and restitution of the granted land in their favour. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to hold that the first sale has happened in violation of the non-alienation clause and Section 4 (2) of the Act which would stipulate that any land granted to a person belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall not be alienated without prior permission of the State Government. Consequently, the sale transactions were set aside and the land was ordered to be resumed and restored in favour of the grantee or his legal heirs. 3. Sri.Srinivas Murthy, the father of the petitioners herein preferred an appeal under Section 5A of the Act, before the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 23.12.2013, dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. This writ petition was filed on 03.02.2018. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 raises a preliminary objection that the writ petition having been filed after a delay of more than 4 years, the same is required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioners Sri. Srinivas Murthy passed away on 31.12.2013, i.e., a few days after the order was passed by the appellate authority. It is submitted that the petitioners were not aware of the proceedings before the appellate authority. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioners Sri. Srinivas Murthy passed away on 31.12.2013, i.e., a few days after the order was passed by the appellate authority. It is submitted that the petitioners were not aware of the proceedings before the appellate authority. It is further submitted that the appellate authority did not furnish a copy of the order and therefore, the petitioners were not aware of the order passed by the appellate authority. It is submitted that the petitioners filed an application seeking certified copy of the order passed by the appellate authority on 10.07.2017 and a copy of the order was furnished on 26.07.2017. A few months thereafter the writ petition has been filed and therefore the writ petition is filed within reasonable time. Learned Counsel submits that there is no limitation prescribed for filing a writ petition and therefore even if there is delay, the same is required to be considered taking the factual aspects into consideration. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the application under Section 5 of the Act having been filed after a lapse of more than 16 years, the Assistant Commissioner should not have entertained the application itself. Moreover, it is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs State of Karnataka and Another, reported in 2017 SSC Online SC 1862, has held that the application having been made approximately after 25 years of the Act came into force, the Assistant Commissioner was required to reject the application. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4, submits that the question of going into the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner would arise only if the writ petition is admitted after consideration of the question of delay and laches. The learned Counsel submits that if the writ petition itself is not admitted and dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, on the same principles as held in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi which is relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, then the question of going into the merits of the matter does not arise. 7. 7. Having heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners, the learned HCGP for the respondent-authorities and having perused the petition papers, this Court is required to answer the question raised by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 as to whether the writ petition could be admitted for consideration on merits or whether the writ petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 8. No doubt, there is no prescription of limitation for filing the writ petition under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. However, in a catena of decisions, including the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) which was cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and other judgment, such as Vivek M.Hinduja and Others Vs. M.Ashwatha and Others reported in 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1858, the Apex Court has held that where there is no period of limitation prescribed, a petition, be it under a statute or under the writ jurisdiction, the same is required to be invoked within a reasonable time. In this regard, attention of this Court was drawn to the order sheet maintained by the Deputy Commissioner, wherein it was pointed out that in the order dated 18.02.2013, it has been recorded that the appellant’s Counsel and appellant’s son were present before the authority. This, is pointed out to counter the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners who had submitted that the petitioners were unaware of the proceedings initiated by their father. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that his submission was that the petitioners were not aware of the Deputy Commissioner passing the order. It is submitted that since the order was not communicated to the petitioners, they were not aware of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner had passed an order on the appeal filed by the petitioners father. This submission too, is not appealing to the Court. When the learned Counsel for the petitioners was called upon to point out to any provision of the Act or the Rules, which would require the authorities to communicate their orders to the parties, the learned Counsel was not able to point out to any such provision. 9. This submission too, is not appealing to the Court. When the learned Counsel for the petitioners was called upon to point out to any provision of the Act or the Rules, which would require the authorities to communicate their orders to the parties, the learned Counsel was not able to point out to any such provision. 9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that this writ petition was filed consequent to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi. It is submitted that the decision in the case of Nekkanti Rama Laxmi was passed on 26.10.2017 and the writ petition is filed in the month of February 2018, trying to take advantage of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 10. Be that as it may, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4, the question as to whether the decisions in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and other cases where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that an application filed under Section 5 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner after a prolonged delay should not be entertained, is required to be gone into only if this writ petition is admitted. At this juncture, since the learned Counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 has convinced this Court that there is absolutely no reason to accept the cause shown for the delay in filing the writ petition, the question of going into the merits of the matter would not arise. It is evident from the material available on record that the petitioners were aware of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and having suffered adverse orders at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, they have slept over the matter for more than four years. The PTCL Act being a beneficial legislation and the provisions of the Act having been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, right from the case of Manchegowda and Others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1984(3) SCC 301 , coupled with the fact that the sale transactions were in violation of Section 4(2) of the Act, there being no prior permission taken by the grantee from the State Government, the writ petition cannot be entertained. 11. Consequently, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.