Claims for restoration of land under the PTCL Act can be barred by unreasonable delay, even if no statutory limitation is prescribed.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner - purchaser knocks the door of this Court assailing the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, who by the order directed for restoration of land bearing Sy.No.9/15 measuring 01 acre 15 guntas and Sy.No.11/18 measuring 01 acre 03 guntas both situated at V Komaranahalli village, Channagiri taluk, Davangere district confirmed by the respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner.

2. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land in Sy.No.9/15 from its erstwhile owner one Rudrabai under registered sale deed dated 19.01.1994 and under a sale deed dated 12.10.1995 Sy.No.11/18 is conveyed in favour of the petitioner by the respondent No.4, who in turn had purchased the land Sy.No.11/18 under sale deed dated 07.07.1993 from Rudrabai and pursuant to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner they claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. The respondent No.3 filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner - respondent No.2 under Section 4 (2) and (5) of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act’ for short) contending that the sale of the lands which is executed in favour of the petitioner herein is in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act, and sought for restoration in his favour on the score that he is the legal heir of the grantee Rudrabai, whom he claims to be his grandmother and the date of grant being 19.04.1978. The well settled legal proposition laid down by this Court and also by the Apex Court is that the law does not come to the rescue of those who have slept over their rights. The application filed by the respondent No.3 claiming to be the legal heir of the original grantee namely, Rudrabai has to provide an acceptable explanation as to what compelled him to maintain a silence for more than 20 years i.e., from the period between 1993, the first sale to 2015, the date on which he filed an application for resumption. This Court deems it appropriate to refer the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another , [(2020) 14 SCC 232] (Nekkanti).

3. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti while interpreting Section 5 of the Act observed that the point of limitation wherein interested person can file appropriate application seeking annulment of sale as void under Section 4 of the Act. Reiterating the principles laid down in the case ofChhedi Lal Yadav and others vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (Dead) through LRs and others , [2018 (12) SCC 527] and also in the case ofNingappa vs. Deputy Commissioner and others , [2020 (14) SCC 236] held that where a statute did not prescribe a period of limitation, the provisions of the statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. The Apex Court was of the view that the authorities have to give due regard to the period of time within which an action has to be taken by the interested person. The Apex Court was of the view that an inordinate delay in initiating an action by an interested person under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act no annulment of transfer could be allowed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the question of dealing in making a resumption application would pale in significance in view of the Karnataka Act No.30/2023, whereby the PTCL Act has been amended, to the effect that there shall be no limitation of time to invoke the provisions of the PTCL Act and this aspect has been rightly considered by the Deputy Commissioner. It is submitted that the validity of the aforesaid amendment is challenged in W.P.No.27496/2023 and is pending consideration before the coordinate bench of this Court and submits that the present petition needs to await the order of the coordinate bench in W.P. No.27496/2024.

5. In this context learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placing reliance upon various judgments of the Apex Court