Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 – s.5 – A land was sold to R, predecessor-in-title of the appellants in the year 1946-47 and a Saguvalli Chit was confirmed on 12.05.1954 – The land was sold by R on 20.06.1969 – The application u/s.5 of the PTCL Act was filed on 06.06.1992 by one D (not a legal representative of the original grantee) – The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application vide order dated 01.03.1999 and on appeal, the Deputy Commissioner has affirmed the aforesaid order vide order dated 16.10.2003 holding that there was violation of alienation clause as under the Mysore Land Revenue Rules which were in force on the date of grant, particularly on account of the non-alienation clause, the land could not have been alienated before the expiry of period of 20 years – Writ petition and thereafter writ appeal filed before the High Court was dismissed: Held: The application preferred in the matter under the PTCL Act was hopelessly barred by delay and latches – In the instant case, the application was preferred only on 06.06.1992 and the land was sold on 20.06.1969, it was certainly beyond reasonable period and, therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Single Judge and the impugned orders are set aside – The appellants had purchased the land by virtue of the sale deed, and, therefore, have all rights over the land in question – The application u/s.5 of the PTCL Act was preferred after expiry of more than 10 years period, the same should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches – There is one another important aspect with regard to Saguvalli Chit which was confirmed on 12.05.1954 – The records reveal that there is a non-alienation clause which provides that the land in question shall not be transferred before expiry of period of 10 years and, therefore, in the light of this categoric recital in the Saguvalli Chit, the sale deed executed in the matter could not have been declared as null and void as has been done by the authorities and affirmed by the Courts below – The respondents before this Court were also not having any locus in the matter as they are not descendants of R, the original grantee and, therefore, they could not have preferred an application u/s.5 of the PTCL Act – Thus, the impugned orders are set aside. [Paras 6-10]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.