ORDER

This captioned writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of the original grantee feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2009 passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner and order dated 03.11.2016 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy 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 Hon'ble 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

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

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. In the present case on hand, the grant was made on 19.07.1963. The original grantee sold the petition land in favour of respondent No.3 under registered sale deed dated 24.04.1967, who, in turn, sold it to respondent No.4 under registered sale deed dated 16.03.1987. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, the only question that requires consideration at the hands of this Court is;

As to whether after the death of original grantee, the legal heirs of original grantee are entitled to seek resumption of petition lands?

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra has categorically stated that where statute does not provide for limitation, the authorities-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 in this regard is no more res-integra. Apart from embargo placed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in exercise of jurisdiction by the Authorities under the statute, where no limitation is specified, the law