- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 11547 OF 2020 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B MUNIYAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS 1(a) SRI. MAHESH M, S/O LATE B MUNIYAPPA R/AT VENKATAGIRI KOTE POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 2. SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA, D/O LATE. B. MUNMISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUDAGARKI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. 3. SRI. BALAPPA S/O LATE B. MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUDAGARKI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. 4. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE B. MUNISHAMAPPA Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT MUDAGARKI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARNAV A BAGALAWADI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT ADMINSITATIVE BHAVAN, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU- 562 110. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPUR- 560 064. 3. SMT. PILLAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS 3(a) SRI. CHANDRA SHEKAR M S/O M.S. MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT MUDUGURKI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. 4 SRI. PILLAPPA S/O SEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 RESIDING AT MUDAGURKI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. 5. SMT. AKKAYAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL HIRES 5(a) SRI. PILLAPPA W/O KARAGAPPA AGED ABOT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUDAGURKI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. 6. SRI. NANDEESHAPPA S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUDAGURKI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. 7. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O JAYAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUDAGURKI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. 8. SRI S.RAMAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 8(a) SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUDAGURKI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. 8(b) SMT. KANTHAMMA D/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOT 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUDAGURKI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. 8(c) SMT SHANKUNTALA D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUR 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUDAGURKI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. 8(d) SRI. CHANDRASHEKAHAR S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUDAGURKI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. 9. SRI. KEMPANNA S/O KYATHAPPA CHOWDASANDRA VILLAGE - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 SIDALAGATTA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL- 562 105. 10. SRI. K.M. RAMANANDA REDDY S/O K.H. MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT VENKATAGIRIKOTE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. 11. SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O LATE DODDA VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, VENKATAGIRIKOTE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. 12. SRI VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE DODDA VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, VENKATAGIRIKOTE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. 13. SRI. V. NAGARAJ S/O M.V. VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT VENKATAGIRIKOTE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 14. SRI M.V. MANJUNATHA S/O M.V. VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT VENKATAGIRIKOTE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562110. 15. SRI.M.V. LAXMANAREDDY S/O M.V. VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, VENKATAGIRIKOTE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110. 16. SRI VELU B. PETHI S/O SRI. T.R. BALASUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 209, 2ND MAIN, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 086. 17 SMT. RADHA SOAMI SATSANG (A REGISTERED SOCIETY, REGISTERED) UNCER THE REGISTRATION OF SOCITIES ACT, 1860 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT DERABABA JAIMAL SINGH TEHRIL BABA BAKALA DISTRICT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB AND LOCAL OFFICE AT BANGALORE AT PARADISE VALLEY 15TH TUMKUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 073 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 REPRESENTED BY SRI. K.P LAKSHMINARAYANA (ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY VIDE RESOLUTION NO.127) &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SESHU-HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SRINIVASA H.K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R10 IN CP 5375/2020; SRI. S.N. ASWATHANRAYAN., ADVOCATE FOR R3(a), R6-R8(a-c); SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R13-R15; SMT. POONAM PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R16; NOTICE TO R8(d), R9, R11, R12, R5(a) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. RAJESH CHANDER KUMAR ROHRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI YOVINI RAJESH ROHRA., ADVOCATE FOR R17) *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ISSUE WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2017 PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-E AND BEING AB INITIO VOID QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.01.2020 PRODUCED IN CASE HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-F AS ILLEGAL AND VOID AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 ORAL ORDER The present petition was originally filed by Sri. B. Muniyappa and on his demise his legal representative has come on record along with Smt. Chikkamuniyamma, Sri. Balappa, Smt. Gowramma. All the petitioners claim rights through late Munishappa. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the land is a granted land and have relied on documents enclosed along with the memo dated 07.01.2021, which consists of copy of index of lands in Form-VI and copy of grant certificate stated to have been issued to late Munishappa. It is the case of the petitioners that there has been a violation of provisions of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, and though proceedings were initiated at an earlier point of time which culminated into an order of remand, liberty was granted in terms of the order at Annexure-C to approach afresh and accordingly, fresh - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 proceedings were initiated which culminated into the order at Annexure-E passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 3. It is admitted that the Assistant Commissioner without entering into the merits has merely rejected the claim of the grantees on the basis that the first round of litigation had already concluded adjudication and proceedings was barred by res-judicata. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said order was taken up before the Deputy Commissioner which culminated in the order at Annexure- F. However, the Deputy Commissioner has merely rejected the petition on the ground of delay in approaching the authority to set-aside the first of the sale deed dated 29.10.1956. 5. It is a case of the petitioners that though documents were produced which are produced before this Court along with the memo dated 07.01.2021 which is referred to by the Deputy Commissioner, the finding as - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 regards such documents is not clear. Accordingly, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner in the second round of litigation at Annexures-E and F have been called in question. 6. The purchasers have been arrayed as respondents Nos.10 to 17. 7. Sri. Rajesh Chander Kumar Rohra, learned Senior counsel appears on behalf of Sri. Yovini Rajesh Rohra, learned counsel for respondent No.17 and Learned counsel Ms. Poonam Patil, appears for the respondent No.16. 8. The arguments on behalf of the respondents- purchasers is that the present factual matrix reveals a case where the original grant records are absent and the only documents relied upon are documents of mutation which at the most could be considered as records constituting secondary evidence. It is admitted that in the absence of the original records the nature of grant cannot - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 be inferred and unless the original records are available so as to prima-facie demonstrate that grant is made for less than the market value there can be no finding that the land is a granted land. For the purpose of treating land to be granted land, it should be demonstrated that the grant made must be for a premium/price which is lesser than the market value. 9. It is submitted that the first round of proceedings that led to passing of Order at Annexure-C by the Assistant Commissioner and affirmation of order of the Assistant Commissioner as per Order at Annexure-D would act as res-judicata insofar as the second round of proceedings that were initiated. 10. It further submitted that even in the second round of litigation though the petitioners has referred to grant certificate however the Government has never accepted the correctness of such documents and in the absence of which, the liberty granted in the order at - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 Annexure-C could not have been invoked or considered as has been done in the second round. It is finally submitted that the sale deeds are executed by the family of the grantees as reflected in the table produced along with the memo. It is submitted that there is an undertaking in several of such sale deeds that they would withdraw the writ petition pending before this Court and that land does not come within the purview of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The memo further refers to the clauses in the sale deeds to such effect. 11. It is also submitted that the sale deeds which have been executed by the grantee's family have also recorded a clear recital that the property was purchased by way of an auction and if that were to be so, the property would come outside the purview of granted land. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 12. Finally, it is also submitted that if the first sale was of the year 1952, the proceedings initiated for the first time in the year 1997, after unreasonable delay and where grantees invoke provisions of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, if same is invoked after unreasonable period of time, the authorities ought not to have entertained such proceedings, taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nikkanti Ramalakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and others1. 13. Heard both sides. 14. At the outset, it is a matter of record that the first round of proceedings culminated in the order at Annexure-C passed on 12.07.2001 by the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner in his order has referred to the Rule in force, namely Rule 43(1) Of the Mysore Land Revenue Code. The Assistant Commissioner 1 (2018) 1 KLJ page 5 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 has specifically recorded that no original records were available to find out the upset price or market value fixed and sanction of Government, if any obtained as required under the existing rules. Further, the Assistant Commissioner has also recorded a finding that the petitioners had failed to produce a saguvali chit to ascertain conditions of land grant, if any. 15. The Assistant Commissioner after noticing that the original records were not available, so as to record a finding whether grant was made in favour of a person belonging to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe, that a grant was either for an upset price or a free grant or even for a price less than upset price, and that the alienation had taken place within the period of prohibition, had rejected the petition. However, liberty was granted to file afresh, which is a strange observation made in the said order. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 16. The order at Annexure-C was taken up before the Deputy Commissioner and culminated the order at Annexure-D. The Deputy Commissioner, after a detailed consideration, has affirmed the findings of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has referred to the order of this Court in the case of Nagendrappa and another Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District and others2 and to the observations that the authorities cannot rely upon mutation entry without there being any report of the Tahsildar as to the availability or otherwise of grant order or the relevant register evidencing the grant. The Deputy Commissioner while referring to the above referred judgment, after extracting the observations includes a reference that where there are no means of ascertaining what the terms of allotment were and the date, even if some records were available which would furnish vague particulars, such circumstances could not be treated to be conclusive. 2 2002(3) KCCR 1633 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 17. Taking note of the judgment in Nagendrappa's case3, the Deputy Commissioner has affirmed the findings of the Assistant Commissioner, declining to accept the contention that it was granted land, while observing that there is a dispute about the nature of the grant. Such finding was recorded, taking note of the specific assertion of the purchasers that late Munishappa had purchased the property through ''darkhast rules''. After recording that the grantees had failed to produce records and the Tahsildar had also taken the stand that no original records were available, the Court found no reasons to interfere with the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 18. It is relevant to notice that the second round of litigation commences in the year 2013-14, which is more than 11 years after the order at Annexure-D passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the first round. Now insofar as the contention of the petitioners is concerned, it is asserted specifically that the land is a granted land and 3 2002(3) KCCR 1633 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 that the documents filed along with the memo on 07.01.2021, which is a copy of the index of lands in Form- VI and copy of the grant certificate of the petitioners of the year 1948-49, were documents produced in the second round of litigation before the Assistant Commissioner. It is submitted that the order of the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-E merely dismisses the petition while recording that the second round of proceedings was barred by res-judicata and initiated after delay of 12 years. It is the contention of the petitioners that no finding has been recorded on the merits of the claim. While such of the submissions could be accepted as made by the petitioner that there are no findings recorded on merits, however, the order at Annexure-F passed by the Deputy Commissioner requires closer scrutiny. 19. The Deputy Commissioner in the order at Annexure-F has principally taken the aspect of delay in approaching the authorities and has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nikkanti - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 Ramalakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and others4, as well as the case of Vivek M. Hinduja and others Vs. V.M. Ashwatha and others5. 20. However, what is also necessary to notice is that the Deputy Commissioner has specifically referred to the documents of the petitioners as referred to in the present proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner has referred to the documents produced by the petitioners. What is of significance is that the State Government in the present proceedings has filed a memo when specifically asked as to the veracity of the orders relied on by the petitioners enclosed along with the memo dated 07.01.2021. The stand of the learned AGA upon instructions of Sri. Sumukha. C, SDA, who is present before the Court is that the transfer by the State was by way of public auction and it could not be construed to be a grant. It is submitted that the authorities have no other 4 2018 (1) KLJ page 5 5 2018 (1) KLJ page 176 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 information of the grant. This stand is the same stand as noticed by the Deputy Commissioner, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has observed that Tahsildar being the custodian of the records had issued an endorsement notifying non-availability of records as claimed by the petitioners herein who are appellants in the said proceedings. Though the same appears to be the contention by the respondent, however that could also be inferred to be the stand of the State as reflected in the memo filed before this Court. 21. It must be noticed that if the land is to be construed to be a 'granted land', the observation of the Assistant commissioner in the first round of litigation, in the order at Annexure-C in PTCL-SR No.23/2000-01, that the applicable Rule is Rule 43(1) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code requires to be noticed. The said rule as extracted in the order of the Assistant Commissioner reads as follows: - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 ''All lands shall ordinarily be sold by public auction: All the lands shall be sold by public auction after observing the prescribed formalities. But, it shall be in the discretion of the Deputy Commissioner in special cases to grant an occupancy at an upset price to any bonafide applicant who is agriculturist or proposes to cultivate the land himself, when he is satisfied that, in the event of a public auction being held, advantage may be taken of the needs of the applicant to force up the price. Lands so granted shall not however, exceed 20 acres in extent or Rs.400/- in value. If it is proposed to give lands exceeding this extent or value to any applicant for upset price, the previous permission of the Revenue Commissioner shall be obtained in cases where the extent does not exceed 50 acres and the market value of the land is within Rs.1,000/-. In cases exceeding these limits, the sanction of Government shall be necessary for the grant of lands at an price. These concessions are not to be shown to absentees and to people speculating in lands." - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 22. It must be noticed that the Rule would provide that lands ordinarily would be sold by public auction. In fact the document relied on by the petitioner which is stated to be the document in Form-II, which is a saguvali chit, observes that the land has been made over after collecting an amount of Rs.32/-, which is referred to as entirety of Government price in the said document. 23. The exception to a sale by public auction is that the Deputy Commissioner in special cases could grant occupancy at an upset price to a bonafide applicant who proposes to cultivate at an upset price. Further, the same Rule extracted above would also indicate that the lands so granted ought not to exceed 20 acres and if it is proposed to give lands exceeding 20 acres or at a price which is an upset price previous permission of the Revenue Commissioner shall be obtained. It is further provided under the Rule that in cases exceeding the limits referred to in the said Rule, sanction of the Government would be necessary for grant of lands. However in the present case - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 there are no records indicating relaxation of such conditions by way of Orders by the Government as well as by the Deputy Commissioner recording invoking of the exception to the Rule under Rule 43(1) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code. 24. In absence of the original records, where the proceedings are not suo-moto proceedings for resumption the burden is upon the grantee, who appears before the Assistant Commissioner to make out a case. In the present case, admittedly, there are no original orders of grants. What is available is only mutation records. The saguvali Chit relied on by the petitioner is not accepted by the Government. In the absence of such documents, to come to a conclusion that land was granted land, appears to be an unacceptable legal inference to be drawn. 25. It is necessary to notice that the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner in the second round have also come to the same conclusion - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 eventually as was made by in the orders at Annexures-C and D. 26. It must be noticed that in the absence of original records, the question whether the grantees had made out a case for construing the land to be granted land also requires consideration. 27. The stand of the Government is that no original records were there. In fact the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner in the second round of litigation at Annexure-F would refer to an endorsement by the Tahsildar regarding absence of original records. If that were to be so, in the absence of primary documents, the finding that it is granted land cannot be arrived at. 28. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for petitioner on the judgment in Sri.Aswathappa and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.15263/2014 dated 28.04.2022 would not aid the petitioner as the present factual matrix presents a - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 situation where the grant is not evidenced by original records. In Aswathappa's case there was no such dispute. Accordingly, entering into such question does not arise. 29. In the present case, what is only available to evidence the alleged grant is only the mutation. Though there may be presumption as regards revenue entry in terms of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, however, such presumption cannot extend to presumption of grant itself. In the present case, the ambiguity is with respect to whether the auction sale which the petitioner contends would be lesser than the market price or whether the auction sale is to be taken to be as one under market price. 30. In the absence of any material to the contrary to indicate that the land was granted at lesser than market value, in light of Rule 43 (1) extracted above, the only inference could be drawn was that the land was granted at the prevailing market price. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 31. The contention that the petitioners have been parties to sale deeds in which certain recitals have the effect of eating into the contention that the lands are granted lands also requires consideration. In terms of the details furnished in the memo dated 24.11.2025, with reference to the clauses in sale deed and confirmation deeds, it is clear that the grantees have executed sale deeds which contain clauses which would indicate that they intend to withdraw the writ petitions on the ground that the lands are not granted lands, that the lands were in fact auctioned, that the earlier sale deeds which were subject matter of proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were also accepted as sale deeds executed with no intention to challenge. If that were to be so and in light of the ambiguity regarding grant, the inference in favour of the grantee cannot be invoked. The conduct of the petitioner may not entitle a discretionary remedy at the hands of this court in light of the sale deeds the details of which are - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48780 WP No. 11547 of 2020 referred to in the memo. Accordingly, the petitions are rejected in light of the discussions made above. 32. In light of decision on merits itself, though legal position regarding initiation of proceedings after an unreasonable delay is settled, the said aspect need not be subjected to a detailed analysis. It is the Sale Deed of the year 1952 was sought to be challenged in 1997 and though the learned counsel for petitioner submits that proceedings for restoration were initiated in 1997 as they became aware of the sale transactions as revenue entries were there in the petitioners names. Such delay would vitiate the exercise of power as being arbitrary power conferred under a statute which cannot be exercised after an unreasonable period of time. 33. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE RL/NP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41