JUDGMENT :

1. This writ appeal is filed challenging the order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.5604/2018 (Sri Srinivas Murthy, since dead by his LRs Vs. State of Karnataka & others).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the writ petition.

3. Brief facts of the case are, one Mugappa was granted 3 acres of land in Sy. No.10/P60 situated at Balajigapade village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk (hereinafter referred to as ‘the land in question’), on 29.10.1977. The saguvali chit in respect of the granted land in question was issued to the original grantee on 18.06.1984. As per the grant condition, there was a non-alienation clause for a period of 15 years in respect of the land in question. In violation of the same, the land in question was sold by the original grantee under a registered sale deed dated 14.08.1989 in favour of T.Nagabhushana. The said T.Nagabhushana, subsequently under a registered sale deed dated 05.02.1991 sold the land in question in favour of Sri Srinivas Murthy. The respondents 3 & 4 who are the wife and son of the original grantee – Mugappa, in the year 2006 filed an application for resumption and restoration of the land in question in their favour contending that the sale made by the original grantee dated 14.09.1989 was hit by the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘PTCL Act’). Respondent no.2 – Assistant Commissioner allowed the said application filed by respondents 3 & 4 vide order dated 04.03.2011 which was confirmed by respondent no.2 – Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 23.12.2013. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the subsequent purchaser – Srinivas Murthy approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5604/2018, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order impugned herein.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner’s submits that the learned Single Judge had erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay. He submits that the delay has been properly explained and inspite of the same, without taking into consideration the delay of 16 years caused by the legal representatives of the original grantee in filing the application for restoration, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay which is only four years. He submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to properly appreciate the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER – 2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1862, and in the case of VIVEK M.HINDUJA & OTHERS VS M.ASHWATHA & OTHERS – 2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1858.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 3 & 4 submits that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi’s case (supra) applies to the petitioners also. He submits that the son of the subsequent purchaser – Srinivas Murthy was present before the Deputy Commissioner on 18.02.2013 which has been noted in the order sheet, and therefore, he was very much aware of the proceedings. The explanation given by the petitioners is, therefore, not genuine. The learned Single Judge having considered this aspect of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition.

6. We have carefully considered the rival arguments and also the material available on record.

7. It is an admitted fact that the land in question was granted to the original grantee – Mugappa on 29.10.1977 and he had sold the said land in violation of the non-alienation clause to one T.Nagabhushana under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.1989. The said T.Nagabhushana has subsequently sold the land in question to Sri Srinivas Murthy under a registered sale deed dated 05.02.1991 and ever since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. During the lifetime of Mugappa, he had not filed any application for resumption and restoratio