The main legal point established is that applications for restoration under the PTCL Act must be filed within a reasonable period, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments.

JUDGMENT

VISHWAJITH SHETTY,J. - This intra-court appeal is filed challenging the order dtd. 10/2/2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.30983/2018.

2. The parties are referred to by their rankings assigned to them in the writ petition.

3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, that the land bearing Sy.No.240/3 (New No.305) measuring 2 acres situated at Godabanalu Village, Chitradurga District was granted in favour of Marappa @ Muddapura Hanumappa on 17/10/1962 and saguvali chit was issued on 30/9/1963 with a non- alienation clause for a period of 15 years. The original grantee and his son sold the said land in favour of the father of the petitioner on 17/1/1973. Subsequently, in the year 2003, the son of the original grantee filed an application under Sec. 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'PTCL Act'), contending that the sale made by them was in violation of Sec. 4 of the Act, and therefore, sought for restoration of the land in his favour.

4. The Assistant Commissioner by order dtd. 3/12/2005 had allowed the said application and the appeal filed by the petitioner as against the said order before the Deputy Commissioner was also dismissed by his order dtd. 20/6/2018. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.30983/2018 before this Court challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner allowing the application for restoration filed by the third respondent/legal representative of the original grantee.

5. The learned Single Judge of this Court having appreciated that the application for restoration under Sec. 5 of the Act has been filed after 23 years, allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent no.3 who is the legal representative of the original grantee has preferred this appeal.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the ground of delay was not raised by the purchaser before the authorities, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition. He submitted that the legal representative of the original grantee ought to have been given an opportunity to explain the delay and latches. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of SMT. P.KAMALA VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT and OTHERS - ILR 2019 KAR 3301.

7. The undisputed facts of the case are that the land in question was granted in the year 1962 and saguvali chit was issued in the year 1963 and the said land was sold by the original grantee as well as his son Basavaraj who is the third respondent herein under a registered sale deed dtd. 17/1/1973 to the father of the petitioner. Basavaraj had filed the application under Sec. 5 of the PTCL Act for restoration of the land only in the year 2003.

8. The learned Single Judge of this Court taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA and ANOTHER - (2020)14 SCC 232, has held that the application filed under Sec. 5 of the Act for restoration was not within reasonable period, and accordingly, the same was not maintainable.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NINGAPPA VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and OTHERS - (2020)14 SCC 236, has held that an application filed after a delay of nine years for restoration under Sec. 5 of the Act was beyond reasonable period, and therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge in the present case that the application filed by the legal representative of the original grantee after a lapse of more than 23 years is beyond reasonable period cannot be found fault with.

10. Though the learned Counsel for respondent no.3 has contended that he was not