JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal takes exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 14th August 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 31117/2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant and the sixth respondent has been dismissed.

2. The appellant and the sixth respondent claiming to be the legal representatives of the original grantee initiated the proceedings under Section 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘the PTCL Act’) for restoration of the land bearing Sy. No. 151 measuring 4 acres 9 guntas situated at Hosahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North taluk, hereinafter referred to as a schedule property. It was their specific contention that the schedule property was granted to one Thimmappa @ Thimmaiah, who belonged to the SC/ST community on 24th September 1941 subject to the condition that the grantee shall not alienate the land forever. It is also contended that the said grantee sold the schedule property vide sale deeds dated 29th March 1966 and 12th January 1972. Subsequently, the schedule property was sold in favour of the third to fifth respondents in the year 2005.

3. The appellant has further contended that in the year 2007, the appellant and the sixth respondent initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The said petition having been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant and the sixth respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which was withdrawn by filing a memo dated 16th June 2014. Subsequently, the appellant and the sixth respondent once again initiated the proceedings in the year 2015 before the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of the schedule property by seeking nullification of the sale deeds as being violative of the provisions of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner having allowed the said petition vide order dated 28th September 2015, the third to fifth respondents herein preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the same vide order dated 14th November 2018. The said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was challenged by the appellant and the sixth respondent herein before the learned Single Judge.

4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 14th August 2019 dismissed the writ petition placing reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Nikkanti Rama Laxmi vs. State of Karnataka, 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 and Vivek M. Hinduja and Others vs. M. Ashwatha and Others, 2017 SCC Online SC 1858.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous, in as much as the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the PTCL Act being socio-beneficial legislation enacted with the object of improving the social and economic conditions of the persons belonging to the weaker sections of the society, in particular, the scheduled castes/scheduled tribes, mere delay in initiating the proceedings would not be fatal to the proceedings and the claim of the appellant could not have been rejected on this ground alone. It was also contended that no period of limitation has been prescribed for initiating the proceedings under the PTCL Act and as such, the learned Single Judge committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the proceedings initiated in the year 2015 were liable to be dismissed only on account of delay and latches and that the same were not initiated within a reasonable time.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third to fifth respondents supported the impugned order.

8. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant and perused the material on r