JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal takes exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 28th August 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.47423/2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The appellant claiming to be the nephew of the original grantee one Muniyappa, initiated proceedings under Sections 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.3/8 measuring 2 situated at Palya village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli taluk, Bangalore Rural District, hereinafter referred to as a 'schedule property'. It was his specific contention that the schedule property was granted to his uncle Muniyappa who belonged to the SC/ST community on 19.02.1973 subject to the condition that the grantee shall not alienate the property. It was also contended that the said grantee sold the schedule property vide sale deed dated 18th May 1973. Subsequently, after several alienations, the schedule property was ultimately sold in favour of the fourth respondent in the year 2005.

3. The appellant has further contended that he initiated the proceedings in the year 2013 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 14th September 2016, the fourth respondent herein preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner who allowed the same by order dated 21st August 2017, which was challenged by the appellant herein before the learned Single Judge.

4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 28th 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, that the schedule property was granted in favour of Muniyappa on 19th February 1973 subject to the condition that the property shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years in terms of the Land Grant Rules. Further, 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 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 2013 were liable to be dismissed on account of delay and latches.

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

8. It is not in dispute that the schedule property was granted in favour of the original grantee as long back as on 19th February 1973 and that the grantee had alienated the same under the sale deed dated 18th May1973, pursuant to which there were several alienation culminating in the sale of the schedule property in favour of the fourth respondent in 2005. An application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act was made on 21st January 2014.

9. The various contentions urged on behalf of the appellant are no longer res integra in the light of the pronouncements of the Apex Cou