ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser, assailing the eviction notice issued by respondent No.1/Assistant commissioner vide Annexure-D. The said eviction notice is under challenge at the instance of widow of purchaser namely, Parameshwarappa.

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

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

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.

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

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

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 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. The short question that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether respondent No.1/Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction to issue possession notice under the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978.

My answer is emphatically 'No'.

5. On examining the material on record, this Court would find that the land in question was granted to one Kalubanna vide order dated 28.07.1972 with condition of non-alienation period of 15 years. After the demise of original grantee, one of his sons sold the granted land in favour of one Siddaramamma w/o Eshwarappa under registered sale deed dated 29.09.1977. The legal heir, having sold the granted land, initiated proceedings by filing a petition under Section 5 of PTCL Act, 1978 questioning the alienation on the ground that it contravenes the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. Respondent No.1/Assistant Commissioner entertained the petition and after enquiry, found that alienation is in contravention of PTCL Act and accordingly, allowed the petition and ordered restoration. Eshwarappa, who is the husband of Siddaramamma, approached this Court by filing a writ petition. This Court dismissed the writ petition, reserving liberty to said Eshwarappa to avail efficacious remedy of an appeal under Section 5(a) of the PTCL Act, 1978. It appears that the first purchaser has not challen