28-year delay unacceptable: Karnataka High Court refuses restoration of SC/ST land under PTCL Act

Bengaluru: In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has clarified that applications filed under the PTCL Act (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), seeking restoration of land allotted to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, cannot be entertained if filed after an unreasonable delay — especially after a gap as long as 28 years.

The court held that such delayed petitions cannot be considered as having been filed within a “reasonable time”. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the Division Bench upheld the order of a single-judge bench that had dismissed a petition seeking reconveyance of land decades after its sale.

The petition had been filed by the legal heirs of Poojari Narayanappa from Vinobha Nagar, Chintamani, Chikkaballapur district. Their appeal challenged the single-judge order, but the Bench of Justice Anu Shivaram and Justice Vijay Kumar A. Patil dismissed the appeal, stating that the long delay made the claim untenable.

The land allotted to the petitioners’ father, Muniga — 4 acres and 4 guntas in Nayyanahalli village — had been granted by the government in 1935-36. It was subsequently sold in 1943. However, the plea for restoration under the PTCL Act was filed only in 2006–07, nearly three decades after the implementation of the Act.

The Bench observed that such a belated plea cannot qualify as being made within a reasonable time, especially given the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Nekkanti Ramlakshmi case, which clearly held that delayed restoration petitions under PTCL cannot be entertained after an excessive lapse of time.

The Bench further noted that, according to Section 5 of the PTCL Act, restoration pleas must be submitted before the Assistant Commissioner. But in this case, the petitioners had initially approached the Tahsildar, indicating procedural lapses.

The judges also referenced similar observations made in the Gangamma case, where another Bench had stressed that restoration requests cannot be considered after an undue delay.

The case had gone through several rounds of litigation. While the Assistant Commissioner had originally restored the land to the petitioners, the buyers had challenged the order before the Deputy Commissioner, who dismissed the challenge.

A single-judge Bench of the High Court later reversed both orders and rejected the petition entirely. The petitioners then approached the Division Bench, arguing that PTCL is a welfare legislation with no limitation period specified, and therefore their plea should be accepted. However, the Bench rejected this argument, reiterating that “reasonable time” is a crucial requirement.

The buyers’ counsel argued that their clients had purchased and registered 2 acres of land lawfully, and that the petition did not challenge this transaction at the time. The Government Pleader submitted that the land should ideally benefit the original grantees’ families, but acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “reasonable time” binds the proceedings.

After hearing all sides, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the single-judge verdict, and reaffirming that excessively delayed restoration claims under the PTCL Act cannot be entertained.

Also Read: DK Shivakumar CM, BY Vijayendra DCM: Yatnal revealed Amit Shah meeting secret