An application for the restoration of granted land under the PTCL Act must be filed within a reasonable time; excessive, unexplained delay invokes the doctrine of laches, rendering the application unsustainable even following legislative amendments to the Act.

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2023 PASSED IN W.P.No.19013/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE K.SC.ST NO.95/2009-10.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This Writ Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19013/2023 (SCST).

2. We have heard Shri. Murali N, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri. Khamroz Khan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that land measuring 2 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.100, Khajisonenhalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, was granted free of cost by the State Government to Shri. T. Poojappa vide a Grant Order dated 07.11.1957. Pursuant to the grant, a saguvali chit was issued and the revenue records were mutated in his name. Upon his demise, the revenue entries were transferred to his wife, Smt. Kenchamma. Thereafter, Smt. Kenchamma and her son Shri. Muninarayanappa executed a Sale Deed dated 23.11.1960 in favour of Smt. Nanjamma/respondent No.4 herein. Subsequently, the land was alienated to various purchasers and later Shri. S.K. Jayaram/respondent No.3 purchased the said land under a Sale Deed dated 22.09.1988.

4. Pursuant to the enactment of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ("PTCL Act"), the appellants, being the grandchildren of the original grantee, filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.2 seeking restoration of the granted land in the year 2009. The application was dismissed by respondent No.2 by Order dated 22.08.2011 holding that the land had been granted to the original grantee at an upset price and that, in cases where land is granted for an upset price, no condition of restraining alienation could be imposed.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred an appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act before the Deputy Commissioner/respondent No.1. By Order dated 11.01.2022, respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal, on the ground of delay in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The appellants approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.19013/2023, challenging the legality of the impugned orders.

6. The learned Single Judge found that the authorities had dismissed the application for restoration on the finding that the initial grant was on upset price and on account of long unexplained delay. Even after the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, there was a delay on the part of the writ petitioners in approaching the Court. It was noted that when the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Act, 2023 came into force, on the basis of which the appellants had approached this Court, no proceedings relating to the land in question were pending and the orders passed by the authorities had already attained finality. The writ proceedings were initiated only after the PTCL Amendment Act came into force. The learned Single Judge further held that the writ petitioners had failed to furnish any explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the learn