Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2765
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO, MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF, JJ
SRI. Y. KRISHNAPPA – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WA 787 of 2023
Gross delay in invoking statutory provisions acts as an impediment to relief, reaffirming that authorities must act within a reasonable time frame.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Section 5(2) - Delay and laches in initiating action - The court emphasized that gross delay in invoking statutory provisions acts as an impediment to relief, as established in prior judgments. (Paras 5-7)
(B) Limitation - The court reiterated that where no limitation is provided, the authorities must act consciously and delay may bar the application for restoration of land. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, grandson of the original grantee, challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order reversing the Assistant Commissioner's restoration of land granted in 1967, which had been sold in 1974. The application for restoration was filed in 2011, resulting in a delay of 34 years.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge upheld the Deputy Commissioner's decision, stating the application was not maintainable due to gross delay.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appeal was barred by time and the implications of delay and laches on the merits of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the delay of 34 years in challenging the sale deed was significant, and the Deputy Commissioner acted correctly in rejecting the application based on established legal principles regarding delay.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
The report of notice on respondent No.6 states ‘refused’.
Hence, notice on respondent No.6 is deemed to have been effected. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel for respondents No.1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8.
2. The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.4376/2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein by stating in paragraphs No.5 to 7 as under:
“5. In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 34 years in initiating action. The respondent No.2 has not examined the delay and laches in moving the application. The judgments cited supra clearly indicates that on the ground of gross delay and laches, the application made by the grantee or by the legal heirs under Section 5(2) of the PTCL Act requires to be rejected. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has held that where statute does not provide for limitation, the authorities and State must act consciously and if the process of invoking the provisions of statute is delayed and is initiated after long lapse of time, the delay by itself would act as an impediment. Thus, without exception and coming across various rules of law, the Apex Court has categorically stated the law in respect of exercise of power/jurisdiction under statute where no limitation is stipulated. The law on the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments.
6. In the present case on hand, I would find that the action is grossly delayed and taken beyond reasonable time. In that view of the matter, the application filed by petitioner seeking resumption and restoration of granted land on the ground that the transfer is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act is not at all maintainable since the same is not filed within a reasonable period. Therefore, order passed by respondent No.2 ordering restoration of petition land is contrary to principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Respondent No.1 Deputy Commissioner has rightly reversed order of respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner.
7. In view of discussion made supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.”
3. The appellant herein - the grandson of original grantee filed the writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by respondents No.3 to 9 and set aside the order dated 11.05.2016 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner.
4. The records reveal the facts as, the Authorities have granted the petition land in favour of one Krishnabovi, who is the grandfather of the appellant herein, by order dated 17.04.1967. The original grantee, during his lifetime, sold the land in favour of father of respondents No.3 to 8 under the registered sale deed dated 27.11.1974. The grandchild of original grantee i.e., the appellant herein moved an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘PTCL Act’ for short) in the year 2011. The respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner ordered restoration of the petition land. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the purchaser on the ground of delay.
5. The submission of Sri. Abhinav.R, learned counsel for the appellant is that, the Deputy Commissioner could not have entertained an appeal after three years of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. In that sense, the appeal was barred by time. The other submission is that, the delay and laches occurred would not mean that the Authorities or the Court would not consider the case on merits. It is only that delay and latches would disentitle the party to the relief. According to him, the land was granted to the predecessor of the appellant
