Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2499
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO, MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF, JJ
SRI.S.D. NARASIMHAMURTHY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WA 962 of 2023
Applications under the PTCL Act must be filed within a reasonable time, even if no specific limitation is prescribed.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Sections 4 and 5 - Challenge to sale deed executed prior to the PTCL Act - Delay in filing application for annulment of sale deed - The learned Single Judge held that the application was filed after an unreasonable delay of over 25 years from the Act's enforcement and over 40 years from the sale deed's execution, thus rendering the application liable to be dismissed. (Paras 8-11)
(B) Limitation - The court reiterated that even in the absence of a prescribed limitation period, applications must be made within a reasonable time, as established in prior Supreme Court judgments. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the orders declaring a sale deed null and void, executed by the father of the appellant in 1968, based on an application filed under the PTCL Act in 2007, which was deemed excessively delayed.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge found the delay in filing the application unreasonable and upheld the dismissal of the appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order.
Issues: The main issues were the delay in filing the application under the PTCL Act and whether the sale deed could be annulled after such a long period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the application was filed after an unreasonable delay, and the impugned orders were arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
The challenge in this intra-Court appeal is to an order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.44561/2013, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos.4 to 8.
2. The appellant herein was respondent No.4 in the writ petition. The subject matter of the writ petition was a challenge to an order dated 18.03.2011 passed by respondent No.3, namely the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapur sub Division and an order dated 16.09.2013 passed by respondent No.2/the Deputy Commissioner of Chikkaballapur.
3. The orders were in respect of land in Sy.No.101, block No.9 measuring 1 acre 32 guntas of Soppahalli Village, KasabaHobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk and land bearing survey No.200 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas situated in the same village, which were granted in favour of father of the appellant namely A.K.Narasimahaiah. A.K.Narasimahaiah had executed a registered sale deed dated 10.07.1968. The appellant herein had filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘the PTCL Act’) in the year 2007 alleging the sale deed dated 10.07.1968 is in violation of Section 4 (1) of the said Act.
4. Respondent No.3/the Assistant Commissioner after holding an enquiry held that, the sale deed is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act and allowed the application filed by the appellant herein.
5. Respondent Nos.4 to 8 being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3/the Assistant Commissioner had filed an appeal before respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner also dismissed the appeal. In the above background, the writ petition was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos.4 to 8 before the learned Single Judge.
6. The learned Single Judge by referring to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka AND ANOTHER reported in2018(1) KAR.L.R. 5(SC) and in the caseOF VIVEK M.HINDUJA AND OTHERS VS. M.ASHWATHA AND OTHERS reported in2018(1) KAR.L.R. 176(SC) has held in paragraph No.8 on wards as under:
“8. The land in question was granted in favour of father of the respondent No.4 under grant order dated 01.06.1957. Original grantee executed a registered sale deed on 10.07.1968 prior to PTCL Act came into force i.e. on 01.01.1979. Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed an application under Sections 4 & 5 of the PTCL Act for declaring registered sale deed executed by original grantee dated 10.07.1968 as null and void and for restoration of land. Respondent No.3 after holding an enquiry held that sale transaction is in violation of Section 4 (1) of the PTCL Act and consequently allowed the application filed by the respondent No.4 and declared the registered sale deeds as null and void and ordered for restoration of land in favour of respondent No.4. The said order was confirmed by respondent No.2. From perusal of records, it is clear that original grantee executed a registered sale deed dated 10.07.1968. The respondent No.4 has filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2007 i.e., after lapse of more than 40 years from the date of execution of registered sale deed and also more than 25 years from the PTCL Act came into force. Thus, there is inordinate delay in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The respondent No.4 has not explained the delay in filing the said application. Thus, the application filed by the respondent No.4 is beyond reasonable time.
9. In view of the law laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), it is observed in para No.8 which reads as under:
"8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void u
