Heirs’ Bid To Recover Granted Land, Filed 23 Years After Sale, Fails; Karnataka HC Upholds Rejection Under PTCL Act

Land measuring 2 acres in Sy. No. 68/2, Balagare Village, was granted to a member of the Scheduled Caste community in 1940 and sold to Narayana Reddy by a registered sale deed dated 22 February 1961.

The original grantee’s son first sought resumption and restoration under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (“PTCL Act”) in 1984–85, approximately 23 years after the sale; the application was rejected.

Further restoration proceedings and appeals followed, including proceedings brought by family members, and the matters were remitted for reconsideration.

By a common order dated 30 March 2022, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the grantee’s legal representatives’ claims on grounds of delay and laches and allowed the purchaser’s appeal.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the challenge to that order, prompting this appeal.

Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act govern transfers contrary to the conditions of grant and applications for annulment and restoration.

Although the Act prescribed no limitation period, the Supreme Court held in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka (2020) 14 SCC 232 and Vivek M. Hinduja v. M. Aswatha (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 (SC) that proceedings under the Act must be initiated within a reasonable time; absence of statutory limitation does not permit action after unreasonable delay.

The court also relied on the distinction between statutory limitation and equitable delay and laches, including the principles discussed in Union of India v. N. Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25.

The 2023 amendment to Section 5, inserting clauses (c) and (d), did not displace the reasonable-time principle, as explained in Gouramma @ Gangamma v. Deputy Commissioner and Smt. M. Manjula v. Deputy Commissioner.

The first restoration application was made about 23 years after the 1961 alienation, and the subsequent proceedings concerned the same property and did not overcome the original unreasonable delay.

Applying the rule that PTCL Act proceedings must be brought within a reasonable time, the court upheld the Deputy Commissioner’s rejection of the restoration claims and the Single Judge’s decision not to interfere.

Whether the alleged permission for alienation was genuine or had been obtained was not determined: even assuming the sale breached the grant conditions, the court held that the restoration proceedings were still barred by unreasonable delay and laches.

The challenge to the alleged lack of permission did not alter the result because the claims were brought belatedly.

Finding no infirmity in the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal and disposed of the pending application.