Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022 PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.1142/2021 BETWEEN:
SMT. SIDDAMUTHAMMA W/O LATE MALLAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS, 1(a) KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
1(b) SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE MYLARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
1(c) MAHALINGARAJU S/O LATE MYLARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
ANJINAPPA @ ANJANAMURTHY S/O LATE MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
KENCHAMALLAIAH S/O LATE MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
MARAIAH S/O LATE KENCHAMALLAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR,
4(a) KUMARA
S/O MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SRI ANJINAPPA S/O MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
SMT. MALAMMA D/O MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
SMT. BYLAMMA D/O MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
SMT. GANGAMALLAMMA D/O MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
SRI KUMARA D/O MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
SMT. NINGAMMA D/O MYLARAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA S/O MYLARAPPA AGED 35 YEARS,
SMT. BYLANJINAPPA S/O MYLARAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
SMT. MANGALAGOWRAMMA D/O MYLARAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
SRI M. L. JAGADISH S/O LATE LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
SRI M. L. NAGARAJU S/O LATE NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
SMT. MANGALAGOWRI D/O LATE LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 18 ARE RESIDING AT MACHOHALLI VILLAGE BAPA GRAMA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560091.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. KISHAN. G. S., ADV.)
AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU.
SRI LATE MARIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
3(a) SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O LATE MARIYAPPA DEAD, LRS ALREADY ON RECORD,
3(b) SRI C. M. CHANDREGOWDA S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
3(b)1. SMT. K. M. LATHA W/O LATE C. M. CHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3(b)2. SRI RAJATH S/O LATE C. M. CHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
3(b)3. PRAGATHI D/O LATE C. M. CHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.3(a), 3(b)1 TO 3(b)3 ARE R/AT NO.53/1, 3RD MAIN, 1ST CROSS, OPP. VAKKALIGARA SANHA HIGH SCHOOL, BENGALURU 91.
3(c) SRI C. M. SHIVARAMU S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
3(d) PARAVATHAMMA D/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
3(e) LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
3(f) NIRMALA D/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3(g) TANUJA D/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 3(c) TO 3(g) ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKERE VILLAGE, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160.
SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O SHIVANANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.170, 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS, S. G. KAVAL, KOTTIGEPALYA, BENGALURU-91.
SRI SANJEEVAIAH S/O KEMPAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.52, RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA 5TH CROSS, PAPIREDDYPALYA, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-72.
SMT. B. SUSHILAMMA. B. W/O SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.837, SANJEEVINAGARA, OMSHAKTHI TEMPLE, 1ST MAIN, HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU-91.
SMT. KRISHNAVENI W/O RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.11/107, 5TH CROSS, GANESHA BLOCK, NANDHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-96.
SRI S. NAGAIAH S/O NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT S. BEDARAHALLI KALLUDEVANAHALLI POST, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
SRI S. N. GIRISHKUMAR S/O S. M. NAGASUNDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.24, 17TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA, ULLAL MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-56.
SMT. C. H. INDRAMMA W/O M. B. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.401, 6TH CROSS, 50 FEET ROAD, CHOWDESHWARI NAGARA, LAGGERE,
BENGALURU.
SRI BETTEGOWDA S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT S. BEDARAHALLI, KALLUDEVANAHALLI POST, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
SMT. RAMA W/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.15, IST FLOOR, 4TH MODULE HOUSE STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-.04
SRI N. SHIVAKUMAR S/O C. K. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.19, IST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SVG NAGARA, NAGARABHAVI ROAD, MUDALAPALYA, BENGALURU-72.
SRI JAYANNA S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, 6TH CROSS, A. D. HALLI, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-79.
SMT. JAYAMMA W/O RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT NO.8, IST MAIN, 5TH B CROSS, SRINIVASANAGARA, SUKADAKATTE, BENGALURU-91.
SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.153, 1ST CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, D-GROUP. ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-91.
SMT. MANJAMMA W/O CHALUVARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.153, 1ST CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, D-GROUP, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-91.
SRI K. S. DIVAKARA S/O SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.648, BEST CLUB BEML LAYOUT, 4TH STAGE, R. R. NAGAR, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU-98.
SMT. N. D. BABY W/O NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.2982, 13A MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-40.
SRI A. M. DINESH S/O MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.1329/A, 27TH MAIN, 22ND CROSS, S. G. KAVAL, D GROUP LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-91.
SRI N. NENGEGOWDA S/O V. NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, RAJIVGANDHINAGAR, HANUMANTHANAGAR MAIN ROAD, SUNKADAKATTE, KEBBEHALLA, BENGALURU-91.
SRI R. SUDHAKAR S/O RAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS,
ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-72.
SMT. MANJULA W/O BALAJI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, IST FLOOR, IST CROSS, JAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT, PAPIREDDY PALYA, NAGARABHI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-72.
SRI P. UPENDRA S/O PADMANABHARAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, IST FLOOR, IST CROSS, JAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-72.
SRI H. VENKATESH S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.22/A, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-72.
SRI K. NAGARAJ S/O K.RAMAKRISHNARAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.22/A, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-72.
SRI D. ANANTHA S/O D. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,. R/AT NO.22/A, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS,
ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA,. NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-72.
SRI H. LAKSHMINARASIMHA S/O H. RAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.22/A, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA,. NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-72.
SRI K. VASUDHA W/O K. VASRAJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA,. NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-72.
SRI SUHAS S/O ACHYUTHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.22/B GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 72.
SRI ACHYUTHKUMAR S/O KRISHANA RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 72.
SRI K. GURURAJ S/O K. SHAMASUNDAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 72.
SRI K. RAVINDRA S/O K. SHAMASUNDAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT 22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 72.
SRI VENKATESH S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.22 PADMANABHA NILAYA, NEAR SIDDARTHA SCHOOL NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU – 73.
SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI S/O NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT 57, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS MAHADESHWARANAGARA HEROHALLI CROSS BENGALURU – 91.
SMT. PARVATHI W/O SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT 61/C, 2ND MAIN CROSS VIDYARANAYANAGARA BENGALURU – 23.
SMT. V KALAIARASI W/O VENKATARAMAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT 119, 4TH CROSS MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU – 23.
SMT. NINGAMMA W/O JAYARAMU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT GIRISH PROVISION STORE 6TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA SCHOOL ROAD BENGALURU – 79.
SRI G. RAVEESH S/O LATE GATTAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.56, 1ST A MAIN, LATHA ENGINEERING WORKS, KOTTIGEPALYA, BENGALURU – 91. (LRS., OF DECEASED GATTAPPA)
SMT. R. MANGALA W/O M. S. LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT No.45, 4TH CROSS, S. G. KAVAL, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU – 91.
SMT. NEELAMMA W/O PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.73, 5TH CROSS, S.G.KAVAL, S.G.KATTE, CHANDARASHEKAR LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-91
SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.73, 5TH CROSS, S.G.KAVAL, S.G.KATTE, CHANDARASHEKAR LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-91.
SMT. SHUBHA W/O ADARSHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.139, 3RD MAIN INCOME TAX LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGLURU-40.
SRI K. B. GUDINAVAR S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.9/7, 3RD CROSS, MRS LAYOUT, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU-91.
SMT. S. N. NAGAMANI W/O R.C.SARASIJ, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, GROUND FLOOR, MATRIX ABACUS BUILDING, SBI BANK ROAD, DWARAKANAGAR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-40.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VANI.H., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI G.R.RAVEESHA, ADV. FOR C/R4 TO C/R45)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE CASE W.P. NO. 18782/2019 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE SAID W.P. NO. 18782/2019 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The unsuccessful petitioners have preferred this intra-court appeal challenging the order dated 9th August 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.18782/2019 (SC/ST).
The parties are referred to by their rankings assigned to them in the writ petition.
Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are:
The land bearing Sy.No.108 (old Sy.No.84/7) measuring 2 acres 1 gunta of Machohalli village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (for short, “the land in question”), was granted in favour of one Hanuma s/o Kenchamallaiah in the year 1931. Under a sale deed dated 04.11.1991, 20 guntas of said land was sold by the grand-children of the original grantee in favour of one Kamalamma and the remaining extent was subsequently sold by the said grand-children in favour of Kamalamma under a registered sale deed dated 05.04.1994. The aforesaid Kamalamma sold the land in question in favour of Mariyappa on 03.10.1996. In the year 2011, the legal heirs of the original grantee had filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short “PTCL Act”) seeking restoration of the land on the ground that the sale of the land in question made under the registered sale deeds dated 04.11.1991 and 05.04.1994 was hit by Section 4(2) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 05.07.2014 allowed the said application for restoration and the said order was questioned by Mariyappa, the subsequent
purchaser, before the Deputy Commissioner who, vide order dated 22.03.2019, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the application for restoration was filed beyond a reasonable period. The said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22.03.2019 was questioned in W.P.No.18782/2019 by the legal heirs of original grantee, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this court vide the impugned order dated 9th August 2021 and it is under these circumstances, the present writ appeal is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sale deeds have been executed in respect of the granted lands after the Act came into force and therefore, in view of Section 4(2) of the Act, a prior permission from competent authority is a must and any sale made without prior permission is null and void. He submits that, therefore, the delay caused in filing the application for restoration cannot come in the way of the competent authorities granting relief to the applicants. He submits that the Act is a piece of beneficial legislation and
therefore, the interest of the applicants ought to be the paramount consideration. He also submits that the Act is a special enactment and having regard to Section 11 of the Act, it has got an overriding effect on other Acts and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Act on the ground that the same was filed beyond a reasonable period.
He further submits that the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge would not be applicable to the facts of the case and therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in placing reliance on the same. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Padma Sundara Rao (dead) and Others –vs- State of T.N. and others1 and Union of India and Others –vs- Dhanwanti Devi and Others2.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has argued in support of the impugned order and prays to dismiss the appeal.
1 (2002) 3 SCC 533 2 (1996) 6 SCC 44
We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record.
The undisputed facts of the case are that, the land in question was sold in favour of Kamalamma under two separate registered sale deeds dated 04.11.1991 and 05.04.1994. Thereafterwards the said Kamalamma had sold the said lands in favour of one Mariyappa under a registered sale deed dated 03.10.1996. All these registered sale deeds have been executed after receipt of a valid sale consideration. The legal heirs of the original grantee had filed an application under Section 5 of the Act in the year 2011, seeking restoration of the land in question on the ground that the sale deeds executed on 04.11.1991 and 05.04.1994 were hit by Section 4(2) of the Act.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi –vs- State of Karnataka & Another3 while reiterating the law laid down earlier in the
3 (2020)14 SCC 232
case of Chhedi Lal Yadav –vs- Hari Kishore Yadav4 has observed that where the Statute do not prescribe the period of limitation, the provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that though Section 5 of the Act does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made, held that action under Section 5 of the Act whether on an application or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had over-ruled the judgment of this court in the case of R. Rudrappa vs. Deputy Commissioner5 wherein it was held that there is no limitation provided for filing an application under Section 5 of the Act. The same principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vivek M.Hinduja –vs- M.Aswatha6 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that, where limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to have approached the competent Court or authority within reasonable time, beyond which no relief can be granted.
4 (2018) 12 SCC 527 5 2000(1) KLJ 523 6 (2019)1 Kant LJ 819 SC
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ningappa –vs- Deputy Commissioner and Others7 wherein an application was filed for restoration after 9 years from the date of the Act coming into force has held that the said application was filed beyond a reasonable period. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case had also observed that the sale of the land in question was voluntary and of their own free volition and therefore, the application filed for cancellation of such a sale transaction and restoration of the lands which was the subject matter of the sale, filed beyond a considerable delay was not maintainable. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that even if no limitation is prescribed by the Statute, all acts have to be done within a reasonable period of time.
In the case on hand, the application under Section 5 of the Act seeking restoration has been filed after a delay of more than 17 years. The learned Single Judge having appreciated this aspect of the matter and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, Vivek M.Hinduja
7 (2020) 14 SCC 236
and Ningappa (supra) has rightly dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the decisions relied upon by the learned Single Judge of this court are not applicable to the facts of the case do not merit consideration. In the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Single Judge, it has been clearly held that though the statute does not provide for any limitation for filing an application under Section 5 of the Act, all acts have to be done within a reasonable period of time. The petitioners herein have not given any explanation for the inordinate delay of 17 years caused in filing the applications for restoration of the land.
Be that as it may, the vendors, who had executed the sale deed, had not filed any application under Section 5 of the Act and it is only after their death, their legal representatives have filed an application for restoration.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the sale deeds have been executed subsequent to the Act coming into force and in view of Section 4(2) of the Act, the sale in question is null and void and therefore, the applications filed under Section 5 of the Act cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay, is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that Section 4(1) of the Act provides that any transfer of the granted land either before or after commencement of the Act in contravention of the terms of the grant order or the law providing for such grant or in contravention of sub-section
(2) of Section 4 of the Act shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or deemed to have been conveyed by such transfer. However, there is no automatic restitution of the granted land even if the sale is either hit by Section 4(1) or Section 4(2) of the Act and on the other hand, under Section 5 of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner is granted powers for the resumption and restitution of the granted lands, if he is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. The action under Section 5 of the Act
could be on an application filed by an interested person or on information given in writing by any person or suo motu.
In the case on hand, an action has been taken by the Assistant Commissioner on the application filed by the petitioners after a lapse of 17 years from the second sale and 20 years from the first sale. Since the power for resumption and restitution is vested upon the Assistant Commissioner, all acts and actions under Section 5 of the Act are required to be exercised by the Assistant Commissioner within a reasonable period. The question whether the sale of the granted land was prior to the date of Act coming into force or after Act coming into force makes no difference for the purpose of exercise of power by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the sale in question has taken place subsequent to the Act coming into force, the question of delay does not arise, as the sale itself is null and void. For the purpose of Section 4(1) of the Act, all transactions in contravention of the terms of the grant order and the law providing for such grant or in
contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 4 are null and void.
The Assistant Commissioner exercising his powers under Section 5 of the Act, if he is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act may restore possession of the granted land in favour of the original grantee or his legal heirs provided the application under Section 5 of the Act is filed or any suo motu action is taken, within the reasonable period.
In the case on hand, as observed above, the application for restoration has been filed after a period of 17 years and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, Vivek M.Hinduja and Ningappa (supra), the said application, which has been filed beyond a reasonable period, was not maintainable and therefore, the learned Single Judge is fully justified in dismissing the writ petition and we find no reasons to interfere with the said order.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
KNM/-