This

writ

appeal

is

against

the

order

dated

13.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.17349/2022 (SC/ST) by

which the writ petition filed by the appellants has been

dismissed.

2.

The above writ petition is filed by the appellants

herein seeking quash of the order dated 12.08.2022

passed by the respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner. By

the said order the respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner

had set aside the order dated 01.12.2014 that was passed

by the respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner.

The case of the appellants is that they are the

family members of one Sri. Nanjaiah who was granted a

- 4 -

land by Additional Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams

Abolition, Bangalore under the provisions of the Mysore

(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954.

That the said Nanjaiah was registered as a permanent

tenant under Section 5 of the Inams Abolition Act by order

dated 05.06.1963. That in terms of a deed of sale dated

27.01.2012 the granted land was sold in favour of the

respondent Nos.3 to 5. Thereafter the appellants initiated

proceedings under the provisions of The Karnataka

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of

Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act')

seeking cancellation of the sale and restoration of the land

before the respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner, who

by his order dated 01.12.2014 annulled the sale deed

dated 27.01.2012 and directed restoration of the land in

favour of the appellants. Aggrieved by the same,

respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein preferred an appeal before

the

respondent

No.1-

Deputy

Commissioner.

The

respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner on consideration of

rival contentions of the parties came to the conclusion

- 5 -

that lands which are re-granted in favour of Sri. Nanjaiah

did not come within the purview of PTCL Act and

proceeded to set aside the order of the respondent No.2-

Assistant

Commissioner

order

by

his

order

dated

12.08.2022. Aggrieved by the same, appellants preferred

the aforesaid writ petition.

It was contended before learned Single Judge

that originally a sale agreement was entered into on

14.10.1987 by Sri.Nanjaiah in favour of father of

respondent Nos.3 to 5 who

had filed a

suit in

O.S.No.133/1987

for

specific

performance

and

had

obtained decree thereof. The said decree was carried in

appeal and ultimately, the same was confirmed in RSA

No.627/2005. Consequently, deed of sale was executed in

the year 2012. That initiation of proceedings seeking

cancellation and restoration was done within reasonable

time.

- 6 -

Taking note of the aforesaid contentions and

the factual aspect of the matter, learned Single Judge

opined that since admittedly agreement of sale was

executed on 14.10.1987 which would constitute a transfer

in terms of Section 3(e) of PTCL Act and that any

allegation of contravention of the provision of PTCL Act

and remedy thereafter ought to have been sought for

within reasonable time and that in the instant case there is

lapse of almost 25 years in appellants initiating the

proceedings. Notwithstanding the finding of the Deputy

Commissioner regarding non-applicability of PTCL Act to

the facts in the instant case and in view of the law laid

down by the Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA

LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 held that the appellants

were not entitled for relief of restoration of lands. Being

aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal.

- 7 -

6.

Learned counsel for the appellants apart from

reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of

appeal submitted that in terms of sub-Section(2) of

Section 4 of the PTCL Act an agreement of sale can be

enforced only if a prior permission had been obtained from

the appropriate authority and in the instant case, there

being no such prior permission and the agreement itself

was void ab initio and no relief could therefore have been

granted in favour of the private respondents. Therefore,

he insists the transaction being void a