Point of law : Doctrine of reasonable period is not to punish the grantee who has negiected to assert his right but the same is propagated to protect those transferees who have maintained the possession of a property under registered document for a valuable sale consideration.

ORDER :

The captioned writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner who has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner ordering resumption of petition lands in favour of the petitioners/grantees.

2. Before I advert to the facts of the present case, it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another, (2020) 14 SCC 232 and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha, (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC. It would be also useful to refer to the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446 of 2012, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on 05.04.2021.

3. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's case while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "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 Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (2018) 12 SCC 527 and also in the case of Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others, (2020) 14 SCC 236 was pleased to reiterate the settled position of law 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 to 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-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 disposed of on 24.1.2020 declined to entertain the application filed by the original grantee where there was a delay of ten years. This Court was of the view that the application itself was not maintainable since the same was not filed within a reasonable time. While recording the finding this Court was pleased to rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others, where the Apex Court had declined to entertain the application which was submitted after nine years seeking restoration of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021.

4. In the present case on hand, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 5 namely Eraiah acquired right and title over the petition lands pursuant to grant made by the authorities on 22.09.1972. The petition land was granted subject to non-alienation clause of 15 years. The petitioners claim that original grantee died on 18.03.1991 and thereafter his legal representatives i.e., petitioner Nos.1, 4, 5 and respondent No.5 sold the petition land under registered sale deed dated 24.08.1993. The petitioners alleging that there is contravention of conditions of grant and also alienation is in violation of provisions of Section 4 and 5 of PTCL Act, sought for restoration of land by filing application in SC/ST.HSN No.14/2014-15. What emerges from the above said facts is that the grant is of the year 1972 and alienation has taken place in the year 1993 and the application came to be filed in the year 2014-15. There is a delay of 21 years.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would contend before this Court that respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner has not at all properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case. He would contend that the di