Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court while referring to the para No.24 of the judgment rendered in the case of MANCHEGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA1 has held that the provisions of 'PTCL Act' cannot be made applicable to the alienations made prior to commencement of PTCL Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case JAGADISH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA has also culled out para No.24 of MANCHEGOWDA'S CASE, I deem it fit to cull out para No.24, which reads as under;

"24. Though we have come to the conclusion that the Act is valid, yet, in our opinion, we have to make certain aspects clear. Granted lands which had been transferred after the expiry of the period of prohibition do not come within the purview of the Act, and cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of this Act. The provisions of the Act make this position clear, as Sections 4 and 5 become applicable only when granted lands are transferred in breach of the condition relating to prohibition on transfer of such granted lands.

6. On meticulous examinations of the observations and findings recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MANCHEGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, it is clearly evident that Sections 4 and 5 of the 'PTCL Act' are applicable only if the granted lands were transferred in breach of condition relating to prohibition on transfer of such granted lands. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that granted lands transferred before commencement of the 'PTCL Act' and not in contravention of prohibition on

- 10 -

transfer are clearly found beyond scope and purview of 'PTCL Act'. If the granted land is sold after expiry of prohibition period and before commencement of the 'PTCL Act', the alienation is saved and the grantee cannot proceed under the provisions of 'PTCL Act'. Therefore, respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner erred in entertaining the petition and therefore, the order of restoration passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JAGADISH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA (cited supra).

- 13 -

under statute where no limitation is stipulated. The law on the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments.

10. In the light of the discussions made supra, I am of the view that respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner was justified in reversing the order of restoration passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner. The proceedings initiated by the original grantee are liable to be dismissed on three counts. Firstly, the alienation admittedly being after expiry of prohibition period, the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of 'PTCL Act' are not applicable. Secondly, the petition filed by the legal heir of original grantee is not maintainable as original grantee's petition seeking restoration of land was rejected in the year 1981. Thirdly, there is an inordinate delay of 37 years. Therefore, respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner ought to have rejected the petition on these grounds.