Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 9823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA, J
Siddappa Laxmappa Gudagudi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 112012 OF 2014 (SCST)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SRI. P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; R6
The principle of delay and laches precludes restoration of land under the PTCL Act after an unreasonable delay in seeking relief.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Section 4 - Writ petition seeking to quash orders restoring land to original grantee after 16 years - The provisions of the PTCL Act apply to the granted land, and delay in action affects the right to restoration. (Paras 4.1, 5.1, 8)
(B) Delay and Laches - The principle of delay and laches applies to actions for restoration of land, and unreasonable delay defeats the claim for relief. (Paras 5.3, 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners purchased land from the father of respondent No.6, who later sought restoration of the land after 16 years, invoking the PTCL Act. The petitioners challenged the restoration orders.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the delay in seeking restoration was unreasonable and that the original grantee was not entitled to relief due to the principle of delay and laches.
Issues: The main issues were the applicability of the PTCL Act to the land grant and the effect of delay in seeking restoration of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the provisions of the PTCL Act apply to the granted land and that unreasonable delay in seeking restoration precludes relief.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the impugned orders are set aside.
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 19.06.2014, passed by respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, produced as per Annexure-A, confirming the orders dated 30.08.2012, passed by respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, produced as per Annexures B and C.
2. Heard Sri.Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Perused the materials on record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that;
3.1. The father of respondent No.6 was granted land in Survey No.291/1B measuring 02 acres and the land in Survey No.292/2 measuring 02 acres, situated at Gokak Village and Taluk, as per the order of grant dated 28.04.1977.
3.2. As per Annexure-E dated 29.11.1995, the Tahsildar passed an order for deletion of non- alienation clause for 15 years, found in the original grant order.
3.3. Accordingly, the original grantee and his children sold both these properties in favour of the petitioners under two separate registered sale deeds dated 12.12.1995.
3.4. After lapse of over 16 years i.e., on 01.12.2011, the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, appears to have initiated suo moto enquiry regarding alienation of the land in favour of the petitioners and passed an order for restoration of the land under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PTCL Act’, for short), produced as per Annexures B and C.
3.5. The petitioners have challenged this order before the Deputy Commissioner, who confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner, by passing the order as per Annexure-A.
3.6. Thus, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash Annexures - A to C.
4. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that;
4.1. It is a general grant made in favour of the father of respondent No.6 and therefore, the provisions of the PTCL Act is not applicable. The order of grant is produced as per Annexure-D. On the recommendation of the Land Grant Committee, invoking the power under Rule 8(4) of the Land Grant Rules, 1969, the land in question was granted in favour of the father of respondent No.6 and of course it is a general grant.
4.2. Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act, defines the word "granted land", which would mean any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe and includes the land allotted or granted to such persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms etc.
4.3. It is not in dispute that Respondent No.6 belongs to the Lamani Community, which is a Scheduled Caste. Since, the land in question was granted in favour of his father, under the provisions of the Land Grant Rules, definitely it will fall within the definition of ‘granted land’, as defined under Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners that the grant was made under the General Rules and that the provisions of the PTCL Act are not applicable, cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected.
5. The second contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that;
5.1. There has been an inordinate delay of more than 16 years in initiation of suo motto enquiry regarding alienation of the land in favour of the petitioners and therefore, the delay defeats the right of Assistant Commissioner to initiate suo moto enquiry and restore the land back to the original grantee.
5.2. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka And Another, [2020] 14 SCC 232 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, while referring to Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act, observed that, Section 4 of the PTCL Act does not prescribe any specific period, within which such applica
