Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The captioned writ petition is filed by helpless petitioners - purchasers feeling aggrieved by the order of restoration passed by respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner, who has allowed the petition filed by respondent No.3 under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") and has ordered for restoration of the granted land NC: 2023:KHC:20596 on the premises that the alienations are found to be in contravention of the 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 (2020) 14 SCC 232 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC NC: 2023:KHC:20596 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-

5. Respondent No.3, who claims to be son of original grantee - Lakshmaiah, initiated proceedings by submitting a petition to respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the "PTCL Act" seeking restoration alleging that alienations are in contravention of provisions of the "PTCL Act".

6. On receipt of notice, the present petitioners, who are subsequent purchasers, tendered their objections and in the objections, the petitioners brought to the notice of respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner that in view of inordinate delay of 24 years, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (cited above) and also in the case of NC: 2023:KHC:20596 Ningappa vs. Deputy Commissioner (cited above) and also Chhedi Lal Yadav vs. Hari Kishore Yadav5, the petition seeking restoration is liable to be rejected only on the ground of delay. The present petitioners herein have also placed on record the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

7. Respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner in the order under challenge, though indicated at para No.4 of the order that there is a delay of 24 years, by ignoring the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court has proceeded to hold that petition land in question being a granted land is alienated in contravention of the provisions of "PTCL Act"

and therefore, the alienations being in contravention of Section 4 of the "PTCL Act", the legal heirs of grantee are entitled to seek restoration. Consequently, the petition is allowed.