PTCL restoration claims remain subject to the reasonable-time requirement despite the 2023 amendment.

The subject land, measuring three acres, was granted to the appellants’ predecessor in 1971.

The appellants sold it to respondent No. 3 by registered sale deed dated 6 March 1995.

In 2017, the appellants sought resumption and restoration under the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act).

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application in 2019 for inordinate delay; the Deputy Commissioner reversed that decision in 2024, relying on the 2023 amendment to Section 5 of the PTCL Act.

The Single Judge set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s order and restored the Assistant Commissioner’s decision. The appellants challenged that order in this appeal.

Whether the 2023 amendment to Section 5 of the PTCL Act displaced the requirement that proceedings for restoration be initiated within a reasonable time.

Whether the appellants’ restoration claim, initiated approximately 23 years after the sale and without an explanation for the delay, could be entertained.

Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act govern prohibited transfers of granted land and proceedings for annulment, resumption, and restoration.

Although the Act prescribes no limitation period, Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Vivek M. Hinduja v. M. Aswatha establish that such proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time and cannot be entertained after an inordinate delay.

The Court, following Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma v. The Deputy Commissioner, held that the 2023 insertion of clauses (c) and (d) into Section 5—providing that there is no limitation period and applying that provision to pending cases—did not displace the separate equitable doctrine of delay and laches.

Laches requires consideration of the length of delay and the circumstances, including conduct and prejudice.

The sale occurred in 1995, but the appellants did not seek restoration until 2017, and they offered no explanation for the approximately 23-year delay.

Applying Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and the interpretation of the 2023 amendment in Gouramma, the Court held that the amendment’s removal of any limitation bar did not eliminate the requirement to act within a reasonable time.

Nor did the alleged absence of prior Government permission under Section 4(2), by itself, revive a claim that had not been pursued within a reasonable time.

The Deputy Commissioner therefore erred in treating the amendment as curing the delay.

The Assistant Commissioner’s order dismissing the restoration application for inordinate delay accordingly remained in force.