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. 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 petitio