An unexplained 14-year delay in challenging a PTCL land transfer is unreasonable.

In 1965, two acres in Survey No. 26, later Survey No. 290, were granted to a member of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. One acre was sold in 1972 and was not in dispute. Of the remaining acre, 20 guntas were sold in 1999 and 20 guntas in 2009 to the petitioner.

Respondents 4 and 5 sought resumption and restoration under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (“PTCL Act”) in 2013. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application; on appeal, the Deputy Commissioner protected the 1972 sale but ordered resumption and restoration of the remaining acre. The petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order, principally alleging unreasonable delay in bringing the PTCL Act application.

Whether the 2013 application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was made after an unreasonable delay in relation to the 20 guntas sold in 1999.

Whether the 2013 application was made within a reasonable period in relation to the 20 guntas sold in 2009.

Section 5 of the PTCL Act provides the statutory basis for seeking resumption and restoration of granted land transferred in contravention of the Act. Section 4(2) prohibits a transfer of granted land in violation of its restrictions.

The Court applied the principle that a challenge under the PTCL Act must be brought within a reasonable period; whether the period is reasonable depends on the circumstances, including the length of delay and whether it has been explained. No judicial precedents were cited in the judgment.

The Court treated the 1999 and 2009 sales separately. The challenge to the 1999 sale was brought 14 years later, and the delay was unexplained; the Court therefore considered it unreasonable.

By contrast, the 2009 sale was challenged in 2013, and, in the circumstances of the case, the Court held that the challenge was made within a reasonable period. The sale was not disputed to be in violation of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act.

It directed that the revenue records for the 1999-sale portion be restored to the status quo ante as it existed before the Assistant Commissioner’s order.

The challenge to the 2023 amendment to Section 5 was dismissed as not pressed.