Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. When the matter was taken up today, there was no appearance for the appellants before this Court. However, we notice from the memorandum of appeal that the grounds urged are that though the grant was on 25.10.1979, the grant certificate was issued only on 20.06.1980. It is submitted that since the SC-ST (PTCL) Act came into effect on 01.01.1979, the first sale which took place on 09.10.1995 was in violation of the provision of the Act i.e., specifically Section 4(2) thereof. It is further contended that though there was a non-alienation condition mentioned in the grant, as per Section 4(1) of the SC-ST (PTCL) Act, there is a permanent prohibition for alienation of land granted under the provisions of the said Act. It is further contended that the decision of the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's case referred supra is not applicable since the petition was filed in the year (2020) 14 SCC 232 NC: 2025:KHC:1710-DB 2006-07 and that the inordinate delay cannot be attributed to the applicants in filing the petition before the Assistant Commissioner.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the land in question was never granted to Doddasubbaiah and that the land had been sold for upset price and had been purchased by Doddasubbaiah as is evident from Annexure-A1. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the land was purchased by Doddasubbaiah after fixing of the upset price, it is not the land granted under the darkhast rules and would not come under the provisions of SC-ST (PTCL) Act at all. It is further submitted that the non-alienation clause was for a period of 15 years and that the land was initially sold after the non-alienation clause had expired in 1995. Further, the writ petitioner had purchased the property in 2001. It is in those circumstances that the learned Single Judge had found that there was inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the Assistant Commissioner with NC: 2025:KHC:1710-DB an application under Section 5 of SC-ST (PTCL) Act. The learned counsel would also place reliance on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 25.11.2024 in W.A.No.210/2023. It is submitted that in almost similar circumstances and timelines, this Court has specifically held that where the first alienation was in the year 1995 and the application for restoration filed in the year 2007- 08, after the lapse of more than 11 years, it was not filed within a reasonable period and that the orders of restoration passed on such an application are bad in law. It is submitted that the decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court on the point specifically adverted to in the said judgment have been considered to hold that a delay of 11 years defeats an application for restoration. Learned counsel would also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court dated 23.06.2023 in W.A.No.100265/2023 where it was held that even a delay of more than 7 years would defeat an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.