Applications under the PTCL Act must be filed within a reasonable time despite no specific limitation, to prevent undue delay in land restoration cases.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 , impugning an order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3966 of 2022 (SC-ST), captioned'Peeryanaika v. The Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division and others'.

2. The appellant had filed the said petition alleging that the sale deed dated 22.02.1984 executed in favour of respondent No.3 was in contravention of Section 4 (2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [the PTCL Act]. The said application was allowed by respondent No.1 and the subject land was restored in favour of the appellant. Respondent No.4 had appealed the said order under Section 5 (A) of the PTCL Act before respondent No.2, which was allowed. Respondent No.2 set aside the order passed by respondent No.1 and held that the appellant was not entitled for restoration of the subject land as the application was filed after an inordinate delay of twenty eight years from the date of the first sale. 3. The learned Single Judge has, following the decisions of the Supreme Court inNekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and another: (2020) 14 SCC 232 andNingappa v. Deputy Commissioner and others : (2020) 14 SCC 236, dismissed the appellant’s writ petition.

4. Briefly stated, the facts necessary to address the controversy in the present appeal are that the agricultural land measuring three acres located in Survey No.61/B10, New No.108 [subject land was granted to the appellant on 02.05.1961. Thereafter, on 22.02.1984 the appellant sold the subject land to respondent No.3, which appellant claims was in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act.

5. On 27.04.1995, respondent Nos.3 and 4 exchanged their properties in terms of an exchange deed. Consequent to the said transaction, respondent No.4 became the owner of the subject land. Approximately, eighteen years thereafter, the appellant initiated the proceedings in [Case No.PTCL.CR.07/14-15] under the PTCL Act for annulling the sale of the subject land, which was consummated on 22.02.1984 .

6. Respondent No.1 accepted the appellant's claim and by an order dated 30.01.2017 annulled the sale deed dated 22.02.1984 executed in favour of respondent No.3. Consequently, the subject land was restored in the name of the appellant.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.4 filed an appeal before respondent No.2 [Case No.PTCL/CR-6/2017-18]. The said appeal was allowed by an order dated 24.08.2021. Respondent no. 2 found that the application for restoration was not maintainable as it was filed after an inordinate delay of about 28 years. Accordingly, the cancellation/restoration order passed by respondent No.1 was set aside.

8. The appellant assailed the said order by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No.3966 of 2022, which was dismissed.

9. The only question is to be examined whether the appellant's application for annulling the sale deed dated 22.02.1984, was maintainable, after a period of almost twenty eight years. The said issue is no longer res integra. InNekkanti (supra), the Supreme Court, in somewhat similar context, had held as under, "8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav , (2018) 12 SCC 527 : (2018) 5