Applications for resumption of land under the PTCL Act must be filed within a reasonable time to be maintainable.

JUDGMENT

H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-B whereby the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the fourth respondent under Section 5-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, the PTCL Act) and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the land bearing Sy. No. 89 measuring 4 acres situated at Juttanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk was originally granted in favour of the petitioner under Darkhast Rules on 24.04.1962 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years. The original grantee by violating the condition sold the land in favour of fourth respondent by a sale deed dated 02.03.1970. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The original grantee filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2013. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 26.04.2017 allowed the application and restored the land in favour of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the fourth respondent herein filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 29.07.2019 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Sri Ananda, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the land was originally granted in favour of the petitioner under Darkhast Rules in the year 1962 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years. The original grantee by violating the conditions of grant sold the land to the fourth respondent in the year 1970. The same is contrary to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner had rightly allowed the application and resumed the land in favour of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner contrary to the provisions of the Act has passed the impugned order. Secondly, he contended that the fourth respondent herein was represented before the Assistant Commissioner. He has not taken any contention regarding delay in filing the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. For the first time he has taken the said contention before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner herein has allowed the appeal. The impugned order is contrary to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent contended that the land was originally granted to the petitioner in the year 1962. He sold the land in favour of the fourth respondent in the year 1970. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The petitioner filed an application for resumption of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2013, after a lapse of 34 years from the date the Act came into force. The application itself is not maintainable. In support of her contentions, she has relied on Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another . Secondly, she contended that the fourth respondent has filed objections before the Assistant Commissioner and specifically taken a contention that the application itself is not maintainable on the ground of delay. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Smt. Savitramma, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contended that land was originally granted to the petitioner under Darkhast Rules in the year 1962 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years. By violating the same, petitioner sold the land in favour of the fourth respondent herein in the year 1970. Since the original grantee violat