Amendment to PTCL Act clarifying no time limitation does not override the requirement of reasonable time for invocation.

The subject land was granted to respondent No. 4 in 1967 and subsequently alienated to the petitioner’s mother in the same year

The Karnataka SC/ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act) came into force on January 1, 1979

Forty years after the sale, in 2007, the grantee challenged the alienation

The Assistant Commissioner (R3) ordered land resumption in 2011, and the Deputy Commissioner (R2) upheld this in 2017, restoring the land to the grantee’s legal heirs

The petitioner challenged these orders, arguing they violated the "reasonable time" doctrine established by the Supreme Court

The court primarily interpreted Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act regarding the prohibition of transfer and resumption of granted lands

It relied on Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka, which held that the Act cannot defeat titles perfected by prescription

Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka, which established that in the absence of a statutory limitation period, the Act must be invoked within a "reasonable time"

It further applied the interpretation of the 2023 Amendment to the PTCL Act from Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma v. The Deputy Commissioner, which held that the amendment is merely declaratory and does not alter the "reasonable time" requirement or the doctrine of laches

The court reasoned that although the PTCL Act is beneficial legislation, it cannot be used as a tool to exploit others after an inordinate delay

Despite the State’s contention that the 2023 Amendment removed all time limitations, the court clarified that "limitation" (a statutory bar) differs from "laches" (an equitable principle regarding unreasonable delay)

The court noted that the sale took place for valuable consideration in 1967 and was challenged only after 40 years when land values had increased significantly

It held that such a delay is unreasonable and causes "serious injustice" to the purchaser

Furthermore, the court criticized the State’s failure to reflect the "granted" status of lands in revenue records, which leads to the registration of deeds that puts bona fide purchasers at risk

The Writ Petition was allowed, and the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner were set aside and issued a mandatory direction to the State to clearly mention the "granted land" status in revenue records to protect future purchasers