Karnataka High Court
Kumbayya vs Deputy Commissioner on 30 December, 2020
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.40435/2015 (SC - ST)
BETWEEN
1. KUMBAYYA
S/O KARIGIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT GUBBI TOWN, GUBBI,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.
2. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O LATE GANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
3. RAMASWAMY
S/O LATE GANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
PETITIONER NOS.2 AND ARE
R/AT GUBBI TOWN,
NEAR SLN RICE MILL,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.
4. HEMAVATHI
W/O MANJUNATH,
D/O LATE GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT BANGALAPALYA
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.
2
5. PUSHPALATHA
W/O RANGANATH,
D/O LATE GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT TOTADAPALYA,
GUBBI TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.
6. CHIKKANARASAIAH
S/O KUMBINARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
7. CHANDRAKUMAR
S/O KUMBINARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
8. G.K.NARASIMHA RAJU
S/O KUMBINARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
9. GOPALKRISHNA G K
S/O KUMBINARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 9 ARE
AT SUBASH NAGAR,
GUBBIYAPPA TEMPLE ROAD,
OPPOSITE TO KANTHARAJASHETTY MILL,
GUBBI TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHRIHARI K., ADVOCATE (VIDEO
CONFERENCING))
AND
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
TUMAKURU - 572 101.
3
2. VENKATARAMAIAH
S/O VENKATAPPA @ KARIYANNA,
BASTHIKATTEKAVAL,
KASABA HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION,
TUMAKURU,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVASAGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3 (PHYSICAL
HEARING);
SRI GANGADHARAPPA A.V., C/RESPONDENT NO.2 (VIDEO
CONFERENCING)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER IN PTCL 17/06-07 DT.27.4.2015 PASSED BY THE DY.
COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DIST., R-1 FILED AS ANNX-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 23.10.2020, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :-
ORDER
The petitioners in this writ petition have called in question the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 27.04.2015, in case No.PTCL 17/06-07, directing resumption of land in favour of the legal heir of the original grantee.
42. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as the purchasers (petitioners) and legal heir of the original grantee (respondent No.2).
3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition are that, a land in survey No.38, measuring 3 acres 38 guntas, situated at Basthi Katte Kaval Village, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, was granted to one Venkatappa @ Kariyanna - the original grantee on 08.05.1957, under 'Grow More Food Scheme'. The original grantee sold the land on 28.06.1969 in favour of one H.S.Gundu Rao. For the first time, the legal heir of the original grantee instituted proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner on 22.08.1997, under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short), which came into force on 01.01.1979. The Assistant Commissioner considering the fact that the land was granted to the original grantee under 'Grow More Food Scheme' which 5 is a temporary grant and there was no condition that he should not sell the land holds that the land was not sold in violation of any conditions of the grant and rejects the claim of the legal heir of the original grantee, by his order dated 17.07.2006.
4. Against the order of rejection passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the legal heir files an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the said Act. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 27.04.2015, allowed the appeal filed by the legal heir of the original grantee holding that the land was sold in violation of the conditions of the grant, consequently was in contravention of Section 4(1) of the said Act and restored the land in favour of the legal heir of the original grantee. It is this order of the Deputy Commissioner that is called in question by the purchaser.
5. Heard Sri Shrihari K., learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Gangadharappa A.V., learned counsel for caveator -
6second respondent and Sri R. Srinivasa Gowda, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently argue and contend that the original grantee himself had filed O.S.No.154/1997, for declaration and permanent injunction that the land belongs to him, which came to be dismissed and another suit filed by the present petitioners in O.S.No.160- 161/1997 came to be allowed holding that the petitioners are absolute owners of the property, both by order of a civil Court dated 09.07.2008. The judgments so rendered by the civil Court have become final. He would further contend that the proceedings were instituted for the first time, by the so called legal heir of the original grantee on 22.08.1997, 18 years after the said Act coming into force seeking annulment of the sale that took place on 28.06.1969, prior to the said Act coming into force.
77. On the other hand, learned counsel for second respondent - the legal heir of the original grantee would contend that the lands granted under 'Grow More Food Scheme' also would be a grant in terms of the said Act and government orders obtaining at the relevant point of time.
The Assistant Commissioner had grossly erred in not allowing the claim of the legal heir of the original grantee notwithstanding the fact that all the records of the grant were available. The Deputy Commissioner having reconsidered the entire matter has rightly resumed the land in favour of the legal heir of the original grantee.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. The dates and events are not in dispute. The land in survey No.38, measuring 3 acres 38 guntas, situated at Basthi Katte Kaval Village, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, was granted to 8 one Venkatappa @ Kariyanna - the original grantee on 08.05.1957 and the granted land was sold on 28.06.1969.
The proceedings were instituted by the legal heir of the original grantee on 22.08.1997, which is 18 years after the said Act coming into force. Certain proceedings are taken up by the parties before the civil Court, though not binding on the Authorities, are germane to arrive at a fact as to the sale and possession of the property. The legal heir of the original grantee instituted proceedings before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Gubbi in O.S.No.154/1997, seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the purchasers.
The trial Court after considering the entire evidence dismissed the suits with the following order:
"ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Under the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own cost."9
At the same time, the purchasers had instituted proceedings before the trial court in O.S.Nos.160/1997 and 161/1997 again seeking declaration and permanent injunction that the suit scheduled property i.e., the land in question in this petition belong to him. The trial Court by the order on same date i.e., 09.07.2008, decreed both the suits in favour of the purchasers declaring that the petitioners have proved that they are absolute owners of the property. The findings rendered by the civil Court have become final.
10. During the pendency of the proceedings before the civil Court, one Venkataramanaiah, files an application under Section 3(2) of the said Act before the Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption of the land and declaration that the sales dated 28.06.1969 and 04.03.1997, to be null and void, which was executed in favour of the present petitioners. The application is filed on 22.08.1997. It seems to have been filed by one Venkatramanaiah who is the legal heir of the original grantee - Kariyanna. This application presupposes that the 10 original grantee is dead and the legal heir is prosecuting the appeal. In the course of the order of the Assistant Commissioner notices that, Kariyanna - the original grantee died on 14.11.1997, if the application is filed on 22.08.1997, by the second respondent claiming to be the legal heir, it was during the lifetime of the original grantee. Therefore, it was imperative on the authorities particularly the Deputy Commissioner to notice whether the claimant before the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner was actually the legal heir of the original grantee.
11. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the proceedings were instituted by the legal heir of the original grantee on 22.08.1997, against the sale that took place on 28.06.1969, after 18 years of the said Act coming into force, which cannot be construed a proceedings instituted within a reasonable time, as held by the Apex Court in the case from CHHEDI LAL YADAV V. HARI KISHORE YADAV 11 reported in (2018) 12 SCC 527, wherein it has held as follows:
"10. In Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edn., "reasonable time" is explained as follows:
"That is a reasonable time that preserves to each party the rights and advantages he possesses and protects each party from losses that he ought not to suffer."
Thus, time must be reckoned reasonably, not only in order to preserve rights and advantages a party possesses, but equally to protect each party from the losses he ought not to suffer. Thus, whether an action has been taken within a reasonable time, must also be viewed from the point of view of the party who might suffer losses.
11. In the instant case, we find that the High Court had observed as follows:
"The auction-sale took place in 1942, the application for restoration of the lands was first made in 1975 and the appeal from it was dismissed for default in 1983. In the meanwhile, the disputed lands changed hands twice and were in the possession of the appellant-writ petitioners from 1962 and 1986. Such a long-settled position could only be upset 12 for some very compelling reasons and on making out an extremely strong case for restoration of the appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest anything remotely like that. Secondly, the action of the Additional Collector in restoring the appeal even without any notice to the appellant-writ petitioners was clearly illegal and in contravention of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act."
The High Court was clearly right in the view it had taken.
12. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that power of the Additional Collector for restoration of lands could have been exercised suo motu and since no limitation was prescribed for exercise of such power, the delay in this case may be overlooked. This submission presupposes that where the power can be exercised suo motu, such exercise may be undertaken at any time. The submission is directly contrary to a decision of this Court in Collector v. D. Narsing Rao [Collector v. D. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 396] where this Court affirmed the view [Collector v. D. Narasing Rao, 2010 SCC OnLine AP 406 : (2010) 6 ALD 748] of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Para '17' of the judgment reads as follows: (D. Narsing Rao case [Collector v. D. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 13 695 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 396] , SCC p. 706, para
17) "17. ... that the suo motu revision undertaken after a long lapse of time, even in the absence of any period of limitation was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of rule of law."
Thus, we have no hesitation in rejecting this contention.
13. In our view, where no period of limitation is prescribed, the action must be taken, whether suo motu or on the application of the parties, within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, what is reasonable time would depend on the circumstances of each case and the purpose of the statute. In the case before us, we are clear that the action is grossly delayed and taken beyond reasonable time, particularly, in view of the fact that the land was transferred several times during this period, obviously, in the faith that it is not encumbered by any rights.
14. We are of the view that merely because the legislation is beneficial and no limitation is prescribed, the rights acquired by persons cannot be ignored lightly and proceedings cannot be initiated after unreasonable delay as observed by this 14 Court in Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand [Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 8 SCC 340]."
(emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC ONLINE 1862, wherein it is held as follows:
"7. We, however, find that the observations in those cases are not apposite and are made with reference to the period of prescription in respect of Government properties under the Limitation Act, 1963.
8. It was also submitted on behalf of the respondents that Section 45 of the Karnataka Act proprio vigore annuls a transfer made in contravention of itself. Therefore, it makes no difference if the proceedings are initiated even after 20 to 25 years.
9. We do not find it possible to accede to this submission. This Court in the case of Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla v. Hargovind Jasraj6 reiterated the necessity of an order of a 15 competent Court or Tribunal before which the impugned order can be declared as null and void. The Court relied on the oft-quoted passage in Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council7 which reads as under :
"...An order, even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders.' (Smith Case, AC pp.769-70) (emphasis supplied) This must be equally true even where the brand of invalidity is plainly visible: for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the court. The necessity of recourse to the court has been pointed out(sic) repeatedly in the House of Lords and Privy council without distinction between patent and latent defects (Ed. Wade and Forsyth in Administrative Law, 7th Edn.1994."
10. In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. State of Maharashtra8, this court reproduced the following observations with regard 16 to the declaration of orders beyond the period of limitation as invalid:
"39. Setting aside the decree passed by all the courts and referring to several cases, this Court held that if the party aggrieved by invalidity of the order intends to approach the court for declaration that the order against him was inoperative, he must come before the court within the period prescribed by limitation. 'If the statutory time of limitation expires, the Court cannot give the declaration sought for'."
(emphasis supplied)
11. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. It is, however, necessary to add that where limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach the competent Court or authority within reasonable time, beyond which no relief can be granted. As decided earlier, this principle would apply even to suo motu actions.
12. We find from the impugned judgments that the High Court has not given due regard to the period of time within which the action was taken in the present cases. The competent authorities in all these cases had declined relief to the respondents and had refused to annul the transfers. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment(s) 17 and order(s) passed by the High Court are set aside."
(emphasis supplied) The Apex Court has further reiterated in the case of MR.VIVEK M HINDUJA AND OTHERS v. MR. ASWATHA AND OTHERS reported in 2019 Kar.L.J. 819 (SC), "8. Shri R.S. Hedge appearing for the appellant urged several grounds. It is contended by Shri Hegde that proceedings are void for non-joinder of the first purchaser of the land. It is further contended that the non alienation period, i.e., period for which Kriyappa could not have transferred the land was not 15 years but was 10 years under the Rules of the land and, therefore, transfer was legal having been made after 10 years. However, the applicant had not produced the original grant, and, therefore, it was not possible for the purpose to come to a conclusion that the transfer was in breach of the non alienation period. We, however, find that one of the points raised on behalf of the appellant deserves acceptance. That point is that the application for restoration of the land was made by the heir of Kriyappa after unreasonably long period, i.e. 25 years from the Act came into force. Section 4 of the Act itself has a ubiquitous effect in it, annulling the transfer of granted land "made either before or after the commencement of the 18 Act." as null and void. The Act does not specify how much before the commencement of the Act. Thus on a plain and critical reading of the Act, it seems that it covers proceedings made in time before the Act was enacted. However, we are not called upon to deal with the reasonableness of this provision and we do not propose to say anything on this. The validity of the Act has been upheld by a judgment of this Court in Machegowda v. State of Karnataka, (1984) 3 SCC 301.
9. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs., 2017 (6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa v. Dy. Commissioner (C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act 19 which provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1st January, 1939 to 31st December, 1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent-Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R. Rudrappa v. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa v. State of Karnataka, 2006 (4) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda v. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga, 2000 (2) Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly."
(emphasis supplied) 20 The law laid down in the afore-extracted judgments of the Apex Court is followed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of MUNIMADA @ MUNIMADAPPA V. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT reported in ILR 2019 KAR 4073, it was held as follows:
"4. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Perusal of Section 4 of the said Act will show that sub-Section (1) which starts with a non obstante clause declares certain transfers as null and void. For ready reference, Section 4 is quoted, which reads thus:
"4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.- (1) Not with standing anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer.21
(2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government.
(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority."
Then comes Section 5, which reads thus:
"5. Resumption and restitution of granted lands.- (1) Where, on application by any interested person or on information given in writing by any person or suo motu, and after such enquiry as he deems necessary, the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under sub-section (1) of Section 4, he may. -
(a) by order take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard;
(b) restore such land to the original grantee or his legal, heir. Where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land 22 to such grantee or legal heir, such land shall be deemed to have vested in the Government free from all encumbrances.
The Government may grant such land to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the rides relating to grant of land. (1-A) After an enquiry referred to in subsection (1) the Assistant Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that transfer of any granted land is not null and void pass an order accordingly. (2) Subject to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A, any order passed under sub-sections (1) and (1-A) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.
(3) For the purposes of this section, where any granted land is in the possession of a person, other than the original grantee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such person has acquired the land by a transfer which is null and void under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section
4."
235. Section 5 confers a power on the Assistant Commissioner of passing an order of taking possession of the land, the alienation of which is null and void as per sub-Section (1) of Section 4. In such a case, the Assistant Commissioner can exercise the power of evicting all persons found in possession of the granted land.
6. Before passing an order under Section 5, the Assistant Commissioner must be satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under sub- Section (1) of Section 4. Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 provides a remedy to any interested person to apply to the Assistant Commissioner for exercising powers of resumption of the granted lands. The power can also be exercised suo motu.
7. Now we turn to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, (supra). Paragraph 8 of the said decision reads thus:
"8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of 24 the Act. This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs., (2017) 6 Scale 459 and also in the case of Ningappa v. Dy.
Commissioner, (C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time.
That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act which provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1st January, 1939 to 31st December, 195V. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. An application for restoration was 25 made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent -
Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely. R.Rudrappa v.
Deputy v. Commissioner, (2000) 1 Kant LJ 523, Maddurappa v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 4 Kant LJ 303 and G. Maregouda v. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Ors, (2000) 2 Kant LJ (SN) 48 holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly."
(Underlines supplied)
8. Careful perusal of paragraph 8 shows that the Apex Court has observed that Section 5 does not prescribe any period within which an application can be 26 made by an interested party for seeking resumption. It also notes that it does not prescribe any period within which suo motu action under sub-Section (1) can be taken. The Apex Court reiterated the law laid down in its earlier decision in Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav (Dead) Through Legal Representatives [(2018) 12 SCC 527] . The Apex Court held that when the statute does not provide for a period of limitation, the provisions of the statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. The Apex Court also held that in such a case, whether on the application of the parties or suo motu, action must be taken within a reasonabletime. As the Apex Court has relied upon the earlier decision in the case of Ghhedilal Yadav (supra), we must make a reference to the said decision. This was a case arising under an enactment of State of Bihar which provided for restoration of possession. The issue before the Apex Court was whether making an application for restoration of a land after a period of 24 years from the date of enactment can be said to be an action taken within a reasonable time. In paragraph 13 of the said decision, the Apex Court held thus:
27"13. In our view, where no period of limitation is prescribed, the action must he taken, whether suo motu or on the application of the parties, within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, what is reasonable time would depend on the circumstances of each case and the purpose of the statute. In the case before us, we are clear that the action is grossly delayed and taken beyond reasonable time, particularly, in view-of the fact that the land was transferred several times during this period, obviously, in the faith that it is not encumbered by any rights."
(Underlines supplied)
9. We must note that in paragraph 12 of the said decision, the Apex Court also dealt with an argument that the power of restoration under the statute could be exercised suo motu and as no limitation is prescribed, when action is taken suo motu, the delay has to be overlooked. Even the said contention was negatived by the Apex Court by relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Collector v. D. Narsing Rao [(2015) 3 SCC 695] . Another argument which was 28 negatived in the case of Chhedilal Yadav, (supra) was that as the legislation which provided for restoration or resumption is a beneficial Legislation, the rights acquired by persons in contravention of the Legislation cannot be ignored lightly. Even the said argument is negatived by the Apex Court paragraph 14.
10. Therefore, in our considered view, the issue whether the grant provided a clause providing a permanent embargo on the alienation or whether it provided for an embargo on alienation for a limited period may not be relevant at all while we apply the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, (supra). What is held by the Apex Court is that the remedy under Section 5 must be taken recourse to within a reasonable time. Therefore, irrespective of the fact whether the prohibition on alienation was for a limited period or whether there was a permanent prohibition on alienation, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision will squarely apply.
11. In all the four cases in hand, apart from the gross delay from the date of alienation till the date of making the applications, admittedly, the applications 29 under sub-Section (1) of Section 5 were made after lapse of about 27 years from the date on which the said Act came into force. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the delay of 27 years is not unreasonable. Therefore, we concur with the view taken by the Learned Single Judge, which is consistent with the law laid down by the Apex Court.
12. Now coming to W.A. No. 374/2019, even assuming that sub-Section (1) of Section 4 applies to any transfer and not only to the transfer effected by the grantee, still the application under sub- Section (1) of Section 5 will have to be made within a reasonable time. In this case also, the application was made 27 years after the said Act came into force. The first two sale deeds were of the date prior to the date on which the said Act came into force, Notwithstanding the rejection of the application under sub- Section (1) of Section 5, the contention of the appellant that his predecessor had not alienated the said property remains open which can be always agitated by filing an appropriate proceeding, if permissible at this stage, in accordance with law.
30The afore-extracted judgments are applicable to the facts of the case and in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court and that of the learned Division Bench of this Court holding that proceedings ought to have been initiated within a reasonable time and the legal heir of the grantee not having done so, would render the proceedings vitiated. Therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner becomes unsustainable.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order a. The writ petition is allowed.
b. The order dated 27.04.2015, of the Deputy Commissioner in case No.PTCL 17/06-07 are quashed.
c. The order dated 17.07.2006, of the Assistant Commissioner in case No.PTCL 9/99-2000 is restored.
Sd/-
JUDGE nvj CT:MJ