The delay in initiating proceedings under the PTCL Act must be calculated from the date of the Act's enforcement, not from the date of grant or sale.

ORDER :

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV and HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)

1. This review petition is filed by petitioners (respondent Nos. 3-(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) in W.A. No. 898/1993) seeking review of judgment dated 23.04.2021 passed in W.A. No. 898/1993 and consequently to hear and dispose of W.A. No. 898/1993 afresh.

2. The gist of petitioner’s case is that, the land bearing survey No. 20/6 in Block No. 6 of Mosarahalli Village, Bhadravati taluk, measuring 3 acres was granted in favour of one Sri. Dakya Naika, son of Sri. Dodda Dharma Naika on 16.06.1957 under Darkasth Rules. It was indicated thereunder that non-alienation period is 15 years. Grantee sold the entire extent of 3 acres under a registered sale deed dated 20.03.1963 in favour of Smt. Krishna Bai and she in turn sold 1 acre out of total extent of 3 acres in favour of Sri. Javarappa (appellant in writ appeal and respondent No. 1 in this petition) under a registered sale deed dated 30.03.1967. The grantee – Sri. Dakya Naika claims to have filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga, for resumption of land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `PTCL Act’). The Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga Sub-Division, Shivamogga, in PTCL CR No. 290/1982-83, initiated proceedings under Section 5(1) of the PTCL Act, on the basis of report from the Tahsildar, in RRC.KR:188/78-79 dated 31.07.1982 and notice under Rule 3(3) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `PTCL Rules’) came to be issued to respondent No. 1 as to why sale deed executed in his favour should not be declared as null and void.

2A. The said suo motu proceedings resulted in an order being passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 13.03.1984, declaring the sale deed dated 30.03.1967 executed in favour of respondent No. 1 herein as null and void and it was further ordered that land has to be resumed by the State in favour of grantee. The appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga, in SC ST 283/1984-85 by respondent No. 1 herein did not yield any fruitful result in favour of respondent No. 1 herein or in other words, appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.10.1988. W.P. No. 15397/1988 filed challenging the said two orders also came to be dismissed on 18.03.1993. W.A. No. 898/1993 came to be filed challenging the order of learned Single Judge also came to be dismissed on 23.02.1995 against which respondent No. 1 filed SLP No. 17530/1995 (Civil Appeal No. 3953-60/1996) which was clubbed with other matters and the Hon’ble Apex Court by order dated 26.02.1996 disposed of the appeal in the light of judgment in the case of K.T. Huchegowda Vs. Deputy Commissioner and others reported in 1994 (3) SCC 536 and has requested this Court to examine individual grievance of the appellants in the background of facts obtained in respective cases. It was also made clear by the Hon’ble Apex Court that no opinion was being expressed on merits of the case.

2B. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the contentions raised, judgment came to be passed allowing the appeal, setting aside the order dated 18.03.1993 passed in W.P. No. 15397/1988 and consequently quashing the order dated 13.03.1984 as affirmed in SC ST 263/84-85 dated 13.10.1988 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. Said judgment is sought to be reviewed in the instant petition.

3. We have heard the arguments of Sri. Kantharaj H., learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri. L. Lakshminarayana, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and perused the records of the writ appeal.

Contentions of learned Senior counsel for petitioners

4. The reasonable time within which proceedings are to be in