Applications under the PTCL Act must be filed within a reasonable timeframe; inordinate delays lead to dismissal.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5526/2021, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition.

2. The abridged facts of the case are as under:

The land bearing Sy.No.109/P-10, measuring an extent of

1 acre, situated at Singapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, was granted to appellant's grandfather Thimmaiah on 17-10-1977 and accordingly saguvali chit was issued in his favour on 19-04-1978. But the appellant's grandfather-Thimmaiah, in contravention of provisions of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short "PTCL Act" and also by violating conditions of grant, sold the subject land in favour of respondent No.3 through Sale Deed dated 17-07- 1995. Later, in the month of October 2013, through some other person the appellant came to know that the subject land was sold in favour of respondent No.3. Hence the appellant filed petition before respondent No.2, who has passed the order restoring the subject land in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, the appeal was filed by respondent No.3 challenging the order passed by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 passed the order dated 08-01-2020 setting aside the order of restoration passed by respondent No.2 in favour the appellant.

3. Later, challenging the order dated 08-01-2020 passed by the respondent No.1, the appellant approached this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 25-05-2023 on the ground of delay. The said order is challenged in this appeal by the appellant.

4. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Shastri Ganapati Shripad for the appellant, the learned AGA Sri.M.N. Sudev Hegde for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel Sri. H.P. Leeladhar for respondent No.3.

5. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed in para Nos.4 & 5 as under:

"4. In the present case on hand, the authorities granted the petition land in question vide order dated 19.04.1978 in favour of petitioners grandfather. The original grantee during his lifetime, alienated the petition land in favour of respondent No.3 under registered sale deed dated 17.07.1995. The petitioner, who is the grandson of the original grantee, has filed an application seeking restoration of land. The said application was filed on 15.10.2013. Therefore, this Court would find that there is inordinate delay of 18 years.

5. In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 18 years in initiating action. The Assistant Commissioner has not examined the delay and laches in moving the application. The judgments cited supra clearly indicates that on the ground of gross delay and laches, the application made by the grantee or by the legal heirs under Section 5 of the PTCL Act requires to be rejected. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has held that where statute does not provide for limitation, the authorities and 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 on the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments."

6. As could be gathered from records, the subject land granted in favour of