Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") had an occasion to examine the point of limitation wherein interested person can file appropriate application seeking annulment of sale as void under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Apex Court by reiterating the principles laid down in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav3 and also in the case of Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others4 has held that where Statute did not prescribe the period of limitation, the provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. The Apex Court was of the view that the authorities have to give due regard to the period of time within which action has to be taken by the interested person. The Apex (2018) 12 SCC 527 (2020) 14 SCC 236 NC: 2023:KHC:25752 Court was of the view that it is well within the discretion of the competent authorities not to annul the alienations where there is inordinate delay in initiating action by the interested persons under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 disposed of on 24.1.2020 declined to entertain the application filed by the original grantee where there was a delay of ten years. This Court was of the view that the application itself was not maintainable since the same was not filed within a reasonable time. While recording the finding, this Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others, where the Apex Court had declined to entertain the application which was submitted after nine years seeking restoration of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021.

NC: 2023:KHC:25752

5. In the instant case, the application seeking resumption is liable to be rejected on three counts. Firstly, the provisions of PTCL Act are not applicable to the present case on hand. The petitioner himself has placed on record the Grant Certificate issued by the Authority and the same is issued under Form No.1 The controversy relating to issuance of Grant Certificate under Form No.1 is given quietus by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju vs State of Karnataka5. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the said controversy and upholding the judgment of the High Court, held that, merely because a document is styled as a certificate of grant, that in itself will not lead to an inference that the grant was intended for a depressed class. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju held as under:

With a view to ascertain the nature of a transaction, the document has to be read as a whole. A sentence or term used may not be determinative of real nature of transaction."

6. In the light of findings recorded by Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra, merely because the document is styled as a certificate of grant, it cannot be presumed that the land was granted in the category of depressed class.

7. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju, the grantee having participated in the public auction has purchased the land in question by depositing the entire auction price and therefore, it is not a granted land, but it is outright sale and therefore, it has to be treated as a title NC: 2023:KHC:25752 document in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra. The provisions of the PTCL Act are not applicable and therefore, respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking resumption. Therefore, he ought not to have exercised jurisdiction by invoking the provisions of the 'PTCL Act' to the present case on hand.

8. The second ground on which the application is liable to be rejected on account of inordinate delay of 49 years. In the present case on hand, the diligence is woefully lacking. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, the resumption application is liable to be rejected. The respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner has not examined the delay and laches in moving the application. The judgments cited supra clearly indicate that on the ground of gross delay and laches, the application made by the grantee or by the legal heirs under Section 5(2) of the PTCL Act requires to be rejected. The Hon'ble Apex Court