ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 11.

2. The brief facts are that the land bearing Survey No. 149 and 149/3 of Yannanguru Village, Jangamakote Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk was granted in favour of Mallaga S/o Donnenu vide proceedings dated 03.11.1941. That the said grantee conveyed the said lands under registered sale deed dated 05.10.1952. Subsequently, the said land become the subject matter of the partition. That the father of respondent Nos.8 to 10 purchased the same under the sale deed dated 20.08.1997 and another extent of 13 guntas was sold under the registered sale deed dated 08.04.2009. There is no dispute with regard to the said dates.

3. Thereafter, respondent No.4 claiming to be the grandson of the original grantee preferred an application under Section 4(1) of the Act before the third respondent and prayed that the sale transaction be nullified and land be resumed. The third respondent after hearing the parties is pleased to allow the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached respondent No.2 and was also pleased to affirm the order of the third respondent. Copies of the same are produced at Annexures – A and B to the writ petition.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned proceedings stand vitiated as the same is beyond reasonable time since the official respondents have exercised their authority after the lapse of nearly 6 decades and the said time can be no stretch of imagination be construed as being within a reasonable time.

5. This Court in similar circumstances in WP No.30614/2015 vide order dated 4.6.2018 has been pleased to hold as follows:

“5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2018(1) Kar. L.R.5 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold as hereunder:

“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. 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 limit