The land bearing Sy.No.72 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas

situated in Surigenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, was

granted to one Chikkarangaiah, who belonged to Scheduled caste

community under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules of 1969 and

the Grant Certificate was issued on 26.11.1976.

2.

The original grantee sold the subject property in

favour of one Mansoor Kadar Mohiddhin by executing the

registered sale deed dated 22.7.1988 and in turn he sold the

subject land to one Puttaraju under the registered sale deed

dated 28.09.1995 and in turn, Puttaraju sold the subject land to

Gangaiah by executing the registered sale deed dated 9.9.1996.

In pursuance of the said sale deed, Gangaiah was put in

possession of the subject land and his name was mutated in the

revenue records concerned.

3.

Such being the case, the respondent No.4 who is the

legal heir of the deceased Chikkarangaiah filed an application

under Section 5 of the (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)

4

Act, 1978 (for short `PTCL Act9) on 5.10.2004 for resumption

and restoration of the subject land stating that the land was sold

in contravention of 4(1) of the PTCL Act and the Assistant

Commissioner concerned by order dated 23.6.2008 allowed the

application and resumed and restored the subject land in favour

of the respondent No.4 against which the petitioner filed an

appeal under Section 5(3) of the PTCL Act before the Deputy

Commissioner concerned.

4.

The Deputy Commissioner concerned by order dated

19.09.2014 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the

resumption

and

restoration

passed

by

the

Assistant

Commissioner concerned against which the present petition is

filed.

5.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed

after an inordinate delay of 16 years from the date of the first

sale without offering a plausible explanation and as such the

application is not maintainable in view of the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -

5

vs- State of Karnataka and another reported in ILR 2018 Kar.

1352.

6.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner having not taken the

contention of the limitation before the Assistant Commissioner

concerned is estopped from raising the said contention in this

writ petition. If this Court comes to a conclusion that the

application was not filed within the reasonable time, the matter

may be remanded to the Assistant Commissioner concerned so

as to enable the respondent No.4 to offer a plausible explanation

for the delay in filing the application.

7.

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing

for the State submits that the land having been sold in

contravention of section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, the authorities

concerned have rightly passed an order and the same does not

warrant any interference.

8.

I have examined the submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6

9.

The first sale was effected on 22.7.1988 and in

pursuance of the same, name of the purchaser was mutated in

the revenue records. The respondent No.4 filed an application in

the year 2004 after an inordinate delay of 16 years without

offering any plausible explanation for the delay.

10.

Section 5 of the PTCL Act, does not prescribes the

time limit for taking suo motu action nor filing an application for

resumption and restoration of the land. In the absence of any

limitation prescribed under section 5 of the PTCL Act, suo motu

action or application for resumption and restoration should have

been filed within the reasonable time. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -vs- State of

Karnataka and another reported in ILR 2018 Kar. 1352 has held

that the grantees are not entitled for restoration of land if an

application for restoration is not filed within a reasonable time

from the date of commencement of the PTCL Act.

11.

In the application, the respondent No.