ORDER :

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner-respondent No.3 dated 12.12.2012 vide Annexure-E, which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.2 dated 16.06.2014 vide Annexure-G for having restored the land in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who are the legal representatives of grantee.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.l to 4 and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the land in Sy.No. 107/2 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas was owned and in possession by the deceased petitioner Sri V.Narayanappa and the land in Sy.No. 118 measuring 1acre 28 guntas was granted to the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 K.Venkatarayappa by the Government on 25.05.1978 with a condition not to alienate the same for 15 years. However, the said K.Venkatarayappa who is the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 have entered into sale with the deceased petitioner and sold the land in Sy.No. 118 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas in favour of the deceased petitioner on 25.04.1985.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the land was sold to the petitioner by the K.Venkatarayappa, but it was exchanged by selling his own land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No. 107/2 in the name of Parvathamma who is the wife of K.Venkatarayappa and mother of respondent Nos.5 and 6 on the same day i.e., on 25.04.1985. It is further contended that both the lands got exchanged each other for their convenience and executed on the same day. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed an application for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2010 and the same was restored in the year 2012 and even the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the same in the year 2014. It is further contended that filing of the application itself is after 25 years of the very sale deed effected. There is inordinate delay in filing the restoration application, which is not sustainable. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Kamataka and Another, 2018 (1) Kar. L.R. 5 (SC), Vivek M. Hinduja and Others vs. M. Ashwatha and Others, 2018 (1) Kar. L.R. 176 (SC) and Chhedi Lal Yadav and Others vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) through LRs. and Others, 2018 (1) Kar. L.R. 1 (SC) and also the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ningamma and the Tibetian Children's Village and Others in W.A.No.4092/2017 decided on 09.04.2019 has set aside the order of restoration for delay of 12 years in taking action by there venue authorities. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 supports the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and learned HCGP though supported the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as Assistant Commissioner, however, fairly admits that there is a delay of 25 years in filing the restoration application and with regard to sale is concerned it is contended that either it is the sale deed or exchange of land, it is subsequent to the commencement of the PTCL Act in the year 1979. The exchange or sale deed was effected in the year 1985. The permission of the Government under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as 'PTCL Act' for short) is mandatory. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, the points that arises for consideration is:

"Whether the order of restoration or taking action by the authorities are sustainable in view of delay of 25 years in filing the restoration application?"

7. On perusal of the record, it is an admitted fact that the land in Sy.No.118 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas was granted to one K.Venkatarayappa who is the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 25.05.1978 with a condition not to al