ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP.

2. The brief facts of the case is that one Kaveriga was granted land on 22.12.1928 comprised in Sy.No.41/2 measuring 4 acres 2 guntas of Halnayakanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The said grantee sold the land in favour of one Ramaiah S/o. Papaiah for a valid consideration under a registered Sale Deed dated 04.11.1946. The second sale was executed by the purchaser. The purchaser once again resold the land in favour of said Kaveriga on 17.02.1948. The Petitioner purchased 1 acre 14 guntas of the grant lands under the registered Sale Deed dated 07.04.1969 from the daughter-in-law of the said Kaveriga and to an extent of 1 acre out of 4 acres 2 guntas from Kaveriga and sons on 28.01.1971. Remaining extent of one acre was purchased by the petitioner under the registered Sale Deed dated 05.05.1966. From the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said lands.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the in the year 2004, respondent Nos. 3 to 10 claiming to be the legal representatives of the original grantee preferred an application under Sections 4 and 5 of PTCL Act,1978 on 14.6.2004 before the second respondent. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The second respondent by order dated 11.04.2005 was pleased to reject the application of the said respondents.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos. 3 to 10 preferred an appeal on 12.07.2006 before the first respondent and the first respondent by order dated 11.03.2010 was pleased to remand back the case to the second respondent i.e. Assistant Commissioner for fresh enquiry. It is contended that the application preferred in the year 2004 vitiated by gross and inordinate delay and the first respondent in another identical case of one Sri Annayyappa V/s. Venkatagiriyappa in Appeal No.12/220-2001 was pleased to hold that the grant being of the year 1928 the non-alienation clause was not attracted to the said grants. It is contended that the application was under Sections 4 and 5 seeking for nullifying the sale and resuming the land to the legal representatives of original grantee is vitiated by serious delay and latches.

5. It is contended that the first sale is in the year 1946 and the application is made on 14.06.2004 i.e. after the passage of 58 years. It is contended that even otherwise the sale in favour of the petitioner is in the year 1969 and hence, the application of the respondents herein is unsustainable as there was no embargo to convey or purchase the lands on the date of execution of the sale deed.

6. This Court while considering a similar case in W.P.No30614/2015 vide order dated 4.6.2018 was 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 pr