Applications for land restoration under the PTCL Act must be made within a reasonable time; otherwise, they are barred by delay.

JUDGMENT :

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is arising out of order dated 27.07.2010 passed in Writ Appeal No. 1928 of 2004 (SC/ST) by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby the High Court has set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No. 50446/2003 dated 18.12.2003.

3. The facts of the case reveal that four acres of land in old Survey No. 14/1 (New No. 150) of Hosahalli Village, Hulikunte, Hobli were granted on lease through auction conducted by Tehsildar, Sira Taluk to one Shri Ranga @ Rangappa during the year 1946-47 i.e. 01.04.1946 and a Saguvalli Chit was confirmed on 12.05.1954 in his favour. The upset price was paid by Shri Ranga towards the land and Shri Ranga continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question from 1946 to 1969, i.e. for a period of 23 years. His name continued in existence in the revenue records. Shri Ranga, the land holder (the Grantee), sold the land to the husband of the first appellant, namely, Sri Basavarajappa by way of a registered sale deed and the appellant No. 2 is son of Basavarajappa. Thus, the land in question continued to be in possession of late Shri Ranga and after his death in the name of his wife and son.

4. On 06.06.1992, one Dodda Hanumaiah preferred a petition under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PTCL Act’) stating that the original grantee is the elder brother of his late father and the land was sold on 20.06.1969 and as the land was sold on 20.06.1969, the possession of the same has to be restored to the original grantee and as the original grantee was not alive, to his relative. It is pertinent to note that respondent No. 3 Doddahanumaiah is certainly not the legal representative of the original grantee. The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application vide order dated 01.03.1999 and on appeal, the Deputy Commissioner has affirmed the aforesaid order vide order dated 16.10.2003 holding that there was violation of alienation clause as under the Mysore Land Revenue Rules which were in force on the date of grant, particularly on account of the non-alienation clause, the land could not have been alienated before the expiry of period of 20 years. The present appellants being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka and vide order dated 18.12.2003, the writ petition was dismissed.

5. The present appellants thereafter preferred a Writ Appeal in the matter and the same was also dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 27.07.2010.

6. This Court has carefully gone through the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. In the present case, the land was sold to Shri Ranga, predecessor-in-title of the appellants in the year 1946-47 and a Saguvalli Chit was confirmed on 12.05.1954. The land was sold by Shri Ranga on 20.06.1969 and the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed on 06.06.1992. In the considered opinion of this Court, the application preferred in the matter under the PTCL Act was hopelessly barred by delay and latches, as has been held in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2020) 14 SCC 232, in paragraphs 7 and 8, as under:

“7. Shri R.S. Hedge appearing for the appellant urged several grounds. It is contended by Shri Hegde that proceedings are void for non-joinder of the first purchaser of the land. It is further contended that the non-alienation period i.e. period for which Kriyappa could not have transferred the land was not 15 years but was 10 years under the Rules of the land and, therefore, transfer was legal having been made after 10 years. However, the applicant had not produced the original grant, and, therefore,