Point of law: Re-opening of case - Mainly because there is change in the position of law by virtue of decisions rendered by this Court or by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the cases which have attained finality cannot be permitted to be reopened to apply the subsequent position of law to such cases which have attained finality.

ORDER :

R. DEVDAS, J.

Petitioners herein are before this Court calling in question the order dated 04.07.2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order dated 07.05.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act, for short). A preliminary objection is raised at the hands of the private respondents that this writ petition is filed after delay of more than four years and therefore the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the sole ground of delay and laches. It is also submitted that the 4 appeal which was preferred by the petitioners herein before the Deputy Commissioner should not have been rejected on the ground that the appeal was filed after the delay of six years, since the order of the Assistant Commissioner is dated 04.07.2005 and the appeal was preferred in the year 2011.

2. The brief facts of the case are that land bearing Sy.No.119, New No.304 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas situated at Madanahalli Village, Gowribidanur, Kolar District was granted in favour of Sri M.Rangaswamy on 24.04.1964. The said M.Rangaswamy sold the land in favour of Sri K.V.Krishnappa on 17.09.1968. The said Sri K.V.Krishnappa got the land converted from agricultural purposes to non-agricultural purposes on 26.06.1991 in terms of the order passed by the Tahsildar. Although doubts are raised against the order of conversion passed by the Tahsildar, that issue need not be gone into at this juncture. The petitioners herein purchased the converted land from the wife and children of Sri K.V.Krishnappa under a sale deed dated 12.06.1996. Sri R.Dayananda, claiming to be the son of the original grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner during the year 2004. Smt. Savithramma, w/o late K.V.Krishnappa was arraigned as the respondent in the proceedings. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to hold that the sale transaction was in violation of the conditions of grant and therefore declared that the sale deed dated 17.09.1968 is void and consequently directed resumption and restoration of land in favour of the legal representatives of original grantee.

3. It is the contention of the private respondents that consequent to the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and there being no appeal filed by Smt. Savithramma, the lands were restored in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee i.e., private respondents herein. Thereafter the revenue records were mutated in favour of the private respondents vide MR No.26/2009-10.

4. The petitioners herein approached the Deputy Commissioner during the year 2011 calling in question the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal by order dated 07.05.2014. This writ petition is filed on 05.02.2019. Therefore, preliminary objection was raised at the hands of the private respondents that the writ petition having been filed after the delay of 4 years, the same is required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner, no information was made available to the petitioners regarding the dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, the writ petition came to be filed in the month of February, 2019 since the possession was sought to be taken from the petitioners during the 1st week of January, 2019. On the other hand, it is submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs State of Karnataka and Another, reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 and Vivek M. Hinduja and others Vs. M. Ashwatha and others, reported in 2018 (1) Kar. L.R. 176 (SC), the application having been filed after an enormous delay of more than 25 years, the application itself should have been dismissed on the grou