Karnataka HC Upholds Return Of SC Woman’s Granted Land To Her, Rejecting Buyer’s Delay Challenge After Grant Was Restored

Respondent No. 4, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, was granted 30 guntas of land in 1953 subject to a 15-year non-alienation condition. In 1996, she sold 15 guntas to the appellant without prior Government permission.

Revenue proceedings later resulted in cancellation of the grant entries, but that order was quashed and, on reconsideration, the grant was restored in 2010.

Meanwhile, respondent No. 4’s 2007 application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (“PTCL Act”) was closed in 2009 because the grant was under adjudication, with liberty to apply again after that issue was decided.

She filed a fresh application in 2011; the Assistant Commissioner declared the alienations void and ordered restoration, and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, and the appellant brought this appeal.

Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act prohibits transfer of granted land without the Government’s previous permission; Section 5 provides for declaring a prohibited transfer null and void and for resumption and restoration, while Section 5A provides for an appeal.

Although no limitation period is prescribed for a Section 5 application, the power must be exercised within a reasonable time; whether delay is unreasonable depends on the circumstances.

In Satyan v. Deputy Commissioner, the Supreme Court held that an eight-year delay, by itself, did not bar action under the PTCL Act, particularly given its beneficial purpose.

The Court also relied on Smt. Kavita v. Deputy Commissioner in applying that approach.

The Court treated the relevant delay as approximately eight years, taking account of the proceedings that questioned the grant and the fact that the grant was not restored until 2010.

Respondent No. 4 had filed her first Section 5 application in 2007; it was closed because the grant was then under adjudication and with express liberty to apply again after that issue was resolved. The Court therefore rejected the contention that the delay was inordinate or that the fresh application was impermissible.

It also noted that the appellant had previously joined respondent No. 4 in challenging the order affecting the grant, and held that he could not now question the grant’s nature.

The sale had admittedly occurred after the PTCL Act came into force without prior Government permission.

Finding no merit in the appeal, it dismissed the writ appeal and disposed of all pending interlocutory applications.