Summary
Purchasers of land originally granted to a Scheduled Caste grantee in 1946-47 challenged orders restoring the land under the Karnataka PTCL Act on an application filed in 1992 in respect of a 1969 sale. The Court held that although Section 5 of the PTCL Act prescribes no limitation, such an application must be made within a reasonable time and this one, filed over two decades after the sale, was barred by delay and laches; that the Saguvalli Chit itself stipulated a ten-year non-alienation period which the 1969 sale did not breach; and that the applicant, not being a descendant of the grantee, had no locus. The restoration orders and the High Court's judgments were set aside.
Issues
- Whether an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 filed in 1992 in respect of a sale made in 1969 was barred by delay and laches.
- Whether the sale of the granted land in 1969 violated the non-alienation condition of the grant.
- Whether a person who is not a descendant or legal representative of the original grantee has locus to apply under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.
Provisions considered
- Section 5, Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978Section 5 enables an interested person to seek annulment of a transfer of granted land and prescribes no period for doing so, but following Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja the power must be invoked within a reasonable time. An application filed on 06.06.1992 against a sale made on 20.06.1969 was beyond any reasonable period and ought to have been dismissed for delay and laches. The applicant, not being a descendant of the original grantee, also lacked locus to apply. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 10)
- Section 4, Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978Section 4 declares transfers of granted land made in breach of the grant's terms null and void. The Court held that the Saguvalli Chit confirmed on 12.05.1954 contained a ten-year non-alienation clause, so the 1969 sale could not have been declared null and void by the authorities. (¶¶ 6, 9)
Held
- Where a statute confers a power without prescribing a period of limitation, the power must be exercised within a reasonable time. An application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed in 1992 for restoration of land sold in 1969 was hopelessly barred by delay and laches and ought to have been dismissed on that ground alone. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- The Saguvalli Chit on record, in its vernacular version and English translation, stipulated that the land shall not be transferred before the expiry of ten years. In the light of that categoric recital, the sale deed executed by the grantee could not have been declared null and void by the authorities or the courts below. (¶ 9)
- The respondents who sought restoration were not descendants of the original grantee and therefore had no locus to prefer an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act; the impugned orders were liable to be set aside on this count as well. (¶¶ 4, 10)
- The appellants, having purchased the land under a registered sale deed, hold all rights over it. (¶ 7)
Result
Appeal allowed; orders of the Assistant Commissioner (01.03.1999), the Deputy Commissioner (16.10.2003), the Single Judge (18.12.2003) and the Division Bench of the High Court (27.07.2010) set aside; no order as to costs.