ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner ordering for restoration of petition land and the order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

2. Before I advert to the facts of the present case, it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another1 and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha2. It would be also useful to refer to the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446 of 2012, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on

05.04.2021. 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

3. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") had an occasion to examine the point of limitation wherein interested person can file appropriate application seeking annulment of sale as void under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Apex Court by reiterating the principles laid down in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav3 and also in the case of Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others4 has held that where Statute did not prescribe the 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 action has to be taken by the interested person. The Apex Court was of the view that it is well within the discretion of the competent authorities not to annul the alienations

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527 4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

where there is inordinate delay in initiating action by the interested persons under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 disposed of on 24.1.2020 declined to entertain the application filed by the original grantee where there was a delay of ten years. This Court was of the view that the application itself was not maintainable since the same was not filed within a reasonable time. While recording the finding, this Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others, where the Apex Court had declined to entertain the application which was submitted after nine years seeking restoration of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021.

4. In the present case on hand, the petition land was granted to one Poojappa. The original grantee sold 2 acres of land in favour of Mohammed Hussain Sab on

20.09.1965. The said Mohammed Hussain Sab in turn sold in favour of one Ramaiah under registered sale deed dated 01.12.1977. The said Ramaiah has sold 1 acre 20 guntas out of total extent measuring 2 acres in favour of one S.A.Ansar Pasha, that is petitioner herein, under registered sale deed dated 07.10.1996. The respondents No.4 to 6, who claim to be the children of the original grantee, initiated proceedings on 07.03.2008 under the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner, after notifying the parties, has allowed the application and ordered for restoration and the said order is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. In the instance case, there is delay of 43 years.

5. In the present case on hand, there is a delay of

43 years in initiating action. The authorities below have 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 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 pr