Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 when the grant order was issued. Moreover, on perusal of Annexure-D, it is found that the format is in Telugu language, but all other details are filled in Kannada.

8. Admittedly, the grantee-Mallappa, the father of respondent No.3 sold the properties under 3 different sale deeds on 11.05.1970. No materials are placed before the Court as to when Mallappa died. But the fact remains that the original grantee never filed an application for resumption of the land during his life time. Respondent No.3 being the son of the original grantee, filed the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTLC Act, with the Assistant Commissioner only on 05.10.2004 i.e. after about 34 years of executing the sale deeds by his father. There is absolutely no reason assigned by the applicant as to why there was such a long delay in filing the application under Sections 4 and 5 of SC/ST PTCL Act.

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vivek M. Hinduja (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, referring to Section 4 of the SC/ST PTCL Act in the light of the observations made by it in it's decision in Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. State of Maharashtra5, held that, when period of limitation is not prescribed, the party must approach the competent court or authority within a reasonable time, beyond which no relief can be granted.

10. In Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, again referring to Sections 4 and 5 of the SC/ST PTCL Act held in paras 7 and 8 which reads as under:

"7. 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 2007 (5) SCC 211

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 (supra), the Division Bench headed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice, referred to the amendment made to the Karnataka SC/ST PTCL Act, notified in Gazette Notification dated 27th July 2023 to insert Sub- clauses (c) & (d), and observed that the validity of the said amendment is under challenge in W.P.No.27496 of 2023. It also referred to the decision of Division Bench in Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma (supra) and also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India V. N. Murugesan6, to hold that a person guilty of delay and laches may not be entitled for the indulgence for grant of equitable relief. When the Hon'ble Apex Court repeatedly held that the delay and laches defeats the remedy and the same is followed by this Court in various decisions, I do not find any reason to disagree with the same and to form a different opinion. In the present case admittedly, there is 2022 (2) SCC 25