OF

THE

LEARNED

SINGLE

JUDGE

PASSED

IN

W.P.NO.6515/2019 (SC/ST) DATED 12.03.2021.

3

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,

THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the

order dated 12^th March 2021 passed by the learned Single

Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.6515/2019 (SC/ST).

2. The parties are referred to by their rankings

assigned to them in the writ petition.

3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for

the purpose of disposal of this appeal are:

The land bearing Sy.No.119, new No.304 measuring

1 acre 18 guntas situated at Madanahalli Village,

Gowribidanur, Kolar District (for short <the land in

question=) was granted in favour of one M.Rangaswamy

on 24.04.1964 and the said Rangaswamy sold the granted

land in favour of one K.V.Krishnappa on 17.09.1968.

Subsequently, said K.V.Krishnappa got the land converted

from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose on

26.06.1991 and after his death, the wife and children of

K.V.Krishnappa under a registered sale deed dated

4

12.06.1996 sold the land in question in favour of the

petitioners.

4. When the matter stood thus, the son of the

original grantee R.Dayananda filed an application under

Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)

Act, 1978 (for short <PTCL Act=) in the year 2004 for

restoration of the land in question on the ground that the

transaction was hit by Section 4 of the PTCL Act and

accordingly sought restoration of the land in question.

The

Assistant

Commissioner

vide

his

order

dated

04.07.2005 allowed the said application and the same was

confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in the appeal filed

by the petitioners vide his order dated 07.05.2014. Being

aggrieved by the same, the petitioners, who are the

purchasers of the land in question from K.V.Krishnappa,

filed W.P.No.6515/2019 before this court and the learned

Single Judge of this court vide the order impugned herein

has dismissed the same and being aggrieved by the same,

the petitioners are in appeal.

5

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the application filed for restoration in the year 2004 ought

not have been entertained by the competent authorities as

the same was filed beyond reasonable period. He also

submits that having regard to the judgments of the

Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

Lakshmi 3vs- State of Karnataka & Another reported

in (2020)14 SCC 232 and in the case of Vivek

M.Hinduja 3vs- M.Aswatha reported in (2019)1 Kant

LJ 819 SC, the learned Single Judge of this court ought to

have allowed the writ petition. He submits that, compared

to the delay of 25 years in filing the application under

Section 5 of the PTCL Act for restoration of the land in

question, the delay of four years in filing the writ petition

is very meager and therefore, the learned Single Judge

was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the

ground of delay and laches.

6. The respondents have argued in support of the

impugned order and have prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the

arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the

material available on record.

8. The undisputed facts of the case are that the land

in question was granted to M.Rangaswamy on 24.04.1964

and during his life time, he had sold the same in favour of

K.V.Krishnappa

on

17.09.1968.

Subsequently,

K.V.Krishnappa got the land in question converted from

agricultural

purpose

to

non-agricultural

purpose

on

26.06.1991 and after his death, his wife and children sold

the land in favour of the petitioners herein. The

application for restoration has been filed by the son of

original grantee in the year 2004, which was almost after

25 years from the date the PTCL Act came into force. The

PTCL Act has come into force with effect from 01.01.1979.

9. The Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of

Nekkanti Rama