ORDER : ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J. Learned counsel submits that memo for retirement is filed on behalf of respondents 5, 7, 12 and 19. 2. Memo is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel is permitted to retire. 4. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 18.09.2013 passed by the 1 st respondent - Deputy Commissioner dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the order dated 22.01.2010 passed by the 2 nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner. 5. In terms of the impugned orders, the properties in question were ordered to be resumed in favour of the family members of the original grantee. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property bearing Sy.No.995B(old) and 597B1/B2a/1A (new) measuring 3 acres 90 cents was granted to late V Mareppa and Sy.No.995(old)597B/1/B2/3 measuring 3.9 acres was granted to V Lakshmamma, property bearing Sy.No.995(old) and 597B/1/B2/2 (new) measuring 3.9 acres was granted to V Nagappa and property bearing Sy.No.995(old) and 597B/1/B2/1(new) measuring 2.4 acres was granted to V Parvatamma, and property Sy.No.994(Old) and 597B/1/B2/4 (new) measuring 2.2 acres was granted to V Venkatheshulu. All these grants were made on 20.05.1960. The total extent of the granted land is 16 acres 40 guntas. 7. It is not in dispute that V Mareppa was the propositus, Lakshmamma was his wife, Nagappa, Venkateshulu and Parvatamma are the children. In addition to the aforementioned three children, the couple had three more children viz., Nagamma, Sanjevamma and Thimappa. 8. The dispute is raised in PTCL No.3/07-08 and 4/07-08 in respect of Sy.Nos.995/B and 995/D by Venkateshulu alleging that the provisions of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition Of Transfer Of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act, 1978) have been violated and the lands have to be resumed in favour of the grantee. 9. One more dispute was raised in PTCL No.7/08-09 by two outsiders viz., - respondents No.5 and 6 in respect of entire 16 acres 40 cents of land alleging violation of the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. All the three cases are clubbed together and the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the impugned order has held that these transactions are in violation of the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978 and ordered resumption of land. 10. The Deputy Commissioner has also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 11. All the three cases are clubbed together and the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the impugned order has held that these transactions are in violation of the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978 and ordered resumption of land. 10. The Deputy Commissioner has also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referring to Annexures - A1 and A2 which are the two registered sale deeds dated 24.07.2004 in favour of the petitioner would urge that 2 acres of land in each of the sale deeds are purchased by the petitioner and petitioner's vendor had purchased the properties under registered sale deed dated 09.11.1992. 12. It is urged that the sale transaction dated 09.11.1992 is not disputed by the contesting respondents and thus, would urge that the sale transactions in favour of the petitioner could not have been held to be in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act, 1978 as there is inordinate delay on the part of the grantees to seek resumption of the lands. In support of his contention, learned counsel would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State of Karnataka , (2017) SCC online 1862. 13. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that there were various transactions among the family members starting from 1992 and those transactions are not questioned by anyone. The respondent/State has not objected to the said transactions and later, the properties are purchased by the petitioner in the year 2005-06 and the same principle would apply to the facts of the present case in respect of those sale deeds of the year 2005-06 and the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have erred in holding that the transactions are hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act, 1978. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would urge that the fact that the grantees belonged to Scheduled Caste is not in dispute. The land is granted to them by the Government is not in dispute. All the transactions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner have taken place after the commencement of PTCL Act, 1978. Admittedly, the permission of the Government is not obtained before alienating the properties as such, all transactions are hit by the PTCL Act, 1978. 15. The land is granted to them by the Government is not in dispute. All the transactions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner have taken place after the commencement of PTCL Act, 1978. Admittedly, the permission of the Government is not obtained before alienating the properties as such, all transactions are hit by the PTCL Act, 1978. 15. In addition to that, it is also urged that the partition among the family members cannot be said to be in violation of the PTCL Act, 1978 and what is covered under the PTCL Act, 1978 is only the alienation outside the family. Thus, if there is an internal arrangement among the family members, the said transaction cannot be said to be coming under the purview of the PTCL Act, 1978. Thus, the dispute raised in respect of the transactions which have taken place after 2005 where the properties are alienated to the third parties outside the family are hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act, 1978 and the dispute raised is in time. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply would contend that respondents No.5 and 6, who are the outsiders who raised a dispute in PTCL No.7/04-05 in paragraphs No. 6 and 7 of the application have referred to the family transactions which have taken place in 1992, as such, the subsequent sale transactions would be valid in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi supra. 17. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents do not dispute the averments made in the document at Annexures - A and A1 where it is stated that 4 acres of land referred to above have been sold on 09.11.1992 in favour of the petitioner. 19. It is to be noticed that in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.597B1/b2a/1e and for 2 acres of land in Sy.No.597B1/b2a/1d, the initial transactions were in terms of registered sale deeds at document No.3824/92-93 dated 09.11.1992 and document No.3824/92-93 sale deed dated 09.11.1992. This recital in the sale deed marked at Annexures - A and A1 are not disputed by the contesting respondents. So, the initial transactions took place in the year 1992. This recital in the sale deed marked at Annexures - A and A1 are not disputed by the contesting respondents. So, the initial transactions took place in the year 1992. The dispute raised in the year 2004 cannot be set aside under the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978 as the claim is belated, in view of law in Nekkanti Rama Lakshi supra. 20. As far as the remaining properties are concerned though it is urged that among the family members several transactions have taken place where the properties have been distributed among the family members, the Court is of the view that the said arrangement among the family members dividing the properties would not amount to the transfer or alienation under the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. 21. It is not in dispute that the persons among whom the properties are divided and distributed are the legal representatives of V Mareppa and V. Lakshmama. This being the position, the Court is of the view that the said division or redistribution of the properties among the family members does not amount to alienation. It is a partition or family arrangement and said transaction is not hit by the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. Thus, one cannot contend that the said transactions violated the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. Thus the first violation took place in the year 2005. It is to be noticed that the remaining transactions are of the year 2006 in terms of sale deeds dated 28.01.2006 and 30.01.2006. The dispute is raised in the years 2007 and 2008. The dispute is raised in time and the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were justified in holding that the said transactions of the year 2006 are hit by the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. 22. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the Orders which have held that the transactions dated 28.01.2006 and 31.01.2006 are in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act, 1978. 23. However, the impugned orders to the extent of invalidating the sale transactions dated 24.07.2004 which is subsequent to the original sale transaction dated 09.11.1992 are to be set-aside. 24. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) Impugned Order dated 18.09.2013 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner and order dated 22.01.2010 passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner are set-aside in part. 24. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) Impugned Order dated 18.09.2013 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner and order dated 22.01.2010 passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner are set-aside in part. (iii) Properties covered under the registered sale deed dated 24.07.2004 marked at Annexure - A and the property covered by the registered sale deed dated 24.07.2004 marked at Annexure - A1 in favour of the petitioner are not hit by the provisions of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition Of Transfer Of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. (iv) The petitioner's name if already deleted from the property records, has to be restored in respect of the aforementioned property covered under the aforementioned two sale deeds. (v) In respect of other properties, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner stand confirmed.