Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. 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 (2020) 14 SCC 232 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC NC: 2023:KHC:25144 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 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 (2018) 12 SCC 527 (2020) 14 SCC 236 NC: 2023:KHC:25144 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.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act would contend that the purchasers cannot take the benefit of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench on a review petition in NC: 2023:KHC:25144 RP.No.393/2022. Referring to the principles laid down therein, he would submit that the same is squarely applicable to the present case on hand and therefore, the order of restoration passed by the authorities would not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

9. In the present case on hand, there is delay of 27 years. Diligence is found to be woefully lacking. The grantee who sold the land in question in contravention of the provisions of the PTCL Act has not questioned the alienations by invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act during his life time. This Court has been examining the restoration proceedings initiated by the legal heirs of the original grantee. If the original grantee during his life time (2004) 10 SCC 65

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25144 has not chosen to challenge the sale deeds on the ground that alienations are in contravention of the PTCL Act, I am unable to understand as to how the legal heirs of original grantee who do not have pre-existing right can maintain restoration proceedings, more particularly, when there is delay of more than 27 years. Therefore, I am more than satisfied that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha and the latest judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Satyan are squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Dehors that, if the alienations are found to be after the commencement of the PTCL Act, the doctrine of reasonable period is also applicable and needs and deserves to be applied bearing in mind the right of the purchaser who has acquired a defective title for valuable sale consideration. After passage of time, the rights of the purchaser have stood crystallized and therefore, legal heirs of the grantee cannot be permitted to take away