Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The orders were in respect of land in Sy.No.101, block No.9 measuring 1 acre 32 guntas of Soppahalli Village, KasabaHobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk and land bearing survey No.200 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas situated in the same village, which were granted in favour of father of the appellant namely A.K.Narasimahaiah. A.K.Narasimahaiah had executed a registered sale deed dated 10.07.1968. The appellant herein NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB had filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act') in the year 2007 alleging the sale deed dated 10.07.1968 is in violation of Section 4(1) of the said Act.

6. The learned Single Judge by referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2018(1) KAR.L.R. 5(SC) and in the case OF VIVEK M.HINDUJA AND OTHERS VS.

NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB M.ASHWATHA AND OTHERS reported in 2018(1) KAR.L.R. 176(SC) has held in paragraph No.8 on wards as under:

"8. The land in question was granted in favour of father of the respondent No.4 under grant order dated 01.06.1957. Original grantee executed a registered sale deed on 10.07.1968 prior to PTCL Act came into force i.e. on 01.01.1979. Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed an application under Sections 4 & 5 of the PTCL Act for declaring registered sale deed executed by original grantee dated 10.07.1968 as null and void and for restoration of land. Respondent No.3 after holding an enquiry held that sale transaction is in violation of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act and consequently allowed the application filed by the respondent No.4 and declared the registered sale deeds as null and void and ordered for restoration of land in favour of respondent No.4. The said order was confirmed by respondent No.2. From perusal of records, it is clear that original grantee executed a registered sale deed dated 10.07.1968. The respondent No.4 has filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2007 i.e., after lapse of more than 40 years from the date of execution of registered sale deed and also more than 25 years from the PTCL Act came into force. Thus, there is inordinate delay in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The respondent No.4 has not explained the delay in NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB filing the said application. Thus, the application filed by the respondent No.4 is beyond reasonable time.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's (supra) case held that application under Section 5 of PTCL Act must be invoked within a reasonable time. Though statute does not prescribed any limitation, it has to be filed within a reasonable time. Thus, as observed above, respondent No.4 has invoked provision of PTCL Act after more than 25 years from the PTCL Act came into force and more than 45 years from the date of execution of registered sale deed. Thus, there is inordinate delay in filing an application. Respondent NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB Nos.2 & 3 without examining the said aspect have proceeded to pass the impugned orders. Thus, the impugned order passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law of laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, the are liable to be set aside. In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:-

7. From the above, it is clear that, the learned Single has concluded that, the appellant herein had invoked provisions of PTCL Act, after more than 25 years from the PTCL Act came into force and more than 45 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deed. It was his conclusion that, there is an inordinate delay in filing the application. The Respondent Nos.2

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB and 3 without examining the aspect of delay and laches have proceeded to passed the impugned orders.