ORDER

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioner herein is a purchaser of granted land and is aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, who have concurrently held that the sale transaction between the petitioner and the original Legal Representatives of the original grantee is hit by the provisions of the Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.

2. It is not disputed that the petitioner herein purchased

30 guntas in Sy.No.13 of Gantiganahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk, under a sale deed dated 19.07.2004. The sale deed was executed by Smt. Narayanamma, wife of late Sri Chikka Kenchappa and Sri Muniraju and Sri Ramesh, sons of late Sri Chikka Kenchappa. The 4th respondent herein filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner, contending that the land in question was granted in favour of his father Sri Chikka Kenchappa during the year 1978-79. However, the Saguvali Chit was issued on 27.01.1986. It was contended that in the Saguvali Chit a non alienation clause of 15 years was incorporated. Nevertheless since a land granted in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community could not be alienated without the prior permission of the State Government in terms of Section 4 (2) of the Act, it was contended that sale transaction was in violation of Section 4(2) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to allow the application holding that the sale transaction was in contravention to Section 4(2) of the Act since there was no prior permission obtained from the State. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner ordered resumption and restoration of land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee. The petitioner herein approached the Deputy Commissioner in an appeal under Section 5A of the Act. It was contended before the Deputy Commissioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner. Nevertheless Deputy Commissioner proceeded to hold that the Assistant Commissioner has looked into all the relevant documents and has rightly come to a conclusion that the land is a granted land, in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste community and that sale transaction is in violation of Section

4(2) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.Nagaraja, submits that it is clear from the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner that the petitioner herein was placed ex-parte and consequently it is clear that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It was further contended that the 4th respondent failed to produce the original of the grant certificate or the certified copy of the same before the fact finding authority and therefore the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained. Nevertheless, the learned counsel submits that if the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, he would be able to substantiate his contention that the land was indeed not a granted land.

4. The learned counsel would further submit that the sale transaction took place on 19.07.2004 and an application was filed before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2012 after a delay of 8 years and therefore in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi /vs./ State of Karnataka and another, reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 and Vivek M.Hinduja and others /vs./ M.Ashwatha and others, reported in 2018 (1) KAr.L.R. 176 (SC), the application should have been rejected on the ground of delay and laches. 5. Heard the learned counsels and perused the writ petition papers.

6. On the question of delay and laches, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Satyan /vs./ Deputy Commissioner and oth