SHARDHAMMA & ANR.versusTHE DY. COMMISSIONER & ORS.

                 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2045 : 2025 INSC 583

                         Shardhamma & Anr.
                                 v.
                     The Dy. Commissioner & Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 5689 of 2025)
                                 29 April 2025
       [B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       The present appellants being aggrieved by the order passed by
       the Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner
       preferred a writ petition before the High Court and vide order dated
       18.12.2003, the writ petition was dismissed. The present appellants
       thereafter preferred a Writ Appeal in the matter and the same was
       also dismissed by the High Court.

                                  Headnotes†
       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
* Author
2046                                                           [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    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]

                              Case Law Cited
    Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another (2020)
    14 SCC 232; Vivek M. Hinduja and Others v. M. Ashwatha and
    Others (2020) 14 SCC 228 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
    Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
    Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978; Mysore Land Revenue Rules.

                             List of Keywords
    Section 5 of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
    (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978; Delay and
    laches; Non-alienation clause; Beyond reasonable period.

                            Case Arising From
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5689 of 2025
    From the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2010 of the High Court
    of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA No. 1928 of 2004

                         Appearances for Parties
    Advs. for the Appellants:
    Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., S.j. Amith, Ms. Vidushi Garg, Dr. Mrs.
    Vipin Gupta.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                        2047

          Shardhamma & Anr. v. The Dy. Commissioner & Ors.


     Advs. for the Respondents:
     P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Sr. Adv., V. N. Raghupathy, Raghavendra
     M. Kulkarni, Ms. Mythili S, M. Bangaraswamy, Venkata Raghu
     Mannepalli, Dhanesh Ieshdhan, Shiv Kumar, Ms. Vaishnavi,
     G. N. Reddy, Mahesh Thakur, Vibhav Chaturvedi.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

     Leave granted.
2.   The present appeal is arising out of order dated 27.07.2010 passed
     in Writ Appeal No. 1928 of 2004 (SC/ST) by the High Court of
     Karnataka at Bangalore whereby the High Court has set aside the
     order passed in Writ Petition No. 50446/2003 dated 18.12.2003.
3.   The facts of the case reveal that four acres of land in old Survey No.
     14/1 (New No. 150) of Hosahalli Village, Hulikunte, Hobli were granted
     on lease through auction conducted by Tehsildar, Sira Taluk to one
     Shri Ranga @ Rangappa during the year 1946-47 i.e. 01.04.1946
     and a Saguvalli Chit was confirmed on 12.05.1954 in his favour.
     The upset price was paid by Shri Ranga towards the land and Shri
     Ranga continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
     land in question from 1946 to 1969, i.e., for a period of 23 years. His
     name continued in existence in the revenue records. Shri Ranga, the
     land holder (the Grantee), sold the land to the husband of the first
     appellant, namely, Sri Basavarajappa by way of a registered sale
     deed and the appellant No. 2 is son of Basavarajappa. Thus, the
     land in question continued to be in possession of late Shri Ranga
     and after his death in the name of his wife and son.
4.   On 06.06.1992, one Dodda Hanumaiah preferred a petition under
     Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
     (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter
     referred to as, ‘the PTCL Act’), stating that the original grantee is the
     elder brother of his late father and the land was sold on 20.06.1969
     and as the land was sold on 20.06.1969, the possession of the same
     has to be restored to the original grantee and as the original grantee
     was not alive, to his relative. It is pertinent to note that respondent
2048                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     No. 3 Doddahanumaiah is certainly not the 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. The present appellants being aggrieved by the order passed
     by the Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner
     preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka and vide
     order dated 18.12.2003, the writ petition was dismissed.
5.   The present appellants thereafter preferred a Writ Appeal in the matter
     and the same was also dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka
     vide order dated 27.07.2010.
6.   This Court has carefully gone through the orders passed by the
     Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, learned Single Judge
     as well as Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. In the
     present case, the land was sold to Shri Ranga, 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 Shri Ranga on 20.06.1969
     and the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed on
     06.06.1992. In the considered opinion of this Court, the application
     preferred in the matter under the PTCL Act was hopelessly barred by
     delay and latches, as has been held in the case of Nekkanti Rama
     Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Another (2020) 14 Supreme
     Court Cases 232, in paragraphs 7 and 8, as under:
          “7. Shri R.S. Hedge appearing for the appellant urged
          several grounds. It is contended by Shri Hegde that
          proceedings are void for non-joinder of the first purchaser
          of the land. It is further contended that the non-alienation
          period i.e. period for which Kriyappa could not have
          transferred the land was not 15 years but was 10 years
          under the Rules of the land and, therefore, transfer
          was legal having been made after 10 years. However,
          the applicant had not produced the original grant, and,
          therefore, it was not possible for the purpose to come
          to a conclusion that the transfer was in breach of the
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                           2049

          Shardhamma & Anr. v. The Dy. Commissioner & Ors.


           non-alienation period. We, however, find that one of
           the points raised on behalf of the appellant deserves
           acceptance. That point is that the application for
           restoration of the land was made by the heir of Kriyappa
           after unreasonably long period i.e. 25 years from when
           the Act came into force. Section 4 of the Act itself has a
           ubiquitous effect in it, annulling the transfer of granted
           land “made either before or after the commencement
           of the Act” as null and void. The Act does not specify
           how much before the commencement of the Act. Thus,
           on a plain and critical reading of the Act, it seems that
           it covers proceedings made in time before the Act was
           enacted. However, we are not called upon to deal with the
           reasonableness of this provision and we do not propose
           to say anything on this. The validity of the Act has been
           upheld by a judgment of this Court in Manchegowda v.
           State of Karnataka [Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka,
           (1984) 3 SCC 301].”
           “8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms
           of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person
           to make an application for having the transfer annulled
           as void under Section 4 of the Act. This section does not
           prescribe any period within which such an application
           can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within
           which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in Chhedi
           Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav [Chhedi Lal Yadav v.
           Hari Kishore Yadav, (2018) 12 SCC 527:(2018) 5 SCC
           (Civ) 427] and also in Ningappa v. Commr.[Ningappa v.
           Commr.(2020)14 SCC 236] reiterated a settled position
           in law that whether statute provided for a period of
           limitation, provisions of the statute must be invoked within
           a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an
           application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within
           a reasonable time. That action arose under the provisions
           of a similar Act which provided for restoration of certain
           lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from
           which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1-1-1939
           to 31-12-1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due
           to flood in Kosi River which make agricultural operations
2050                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          impossible. An application for restoration was made
          after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background
          that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do
          so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present
          application for restoration of land made by respondent
          Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and
          was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly,
          the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R.
          Rudrappa v. Commr. [R.Rudrappa v. Commr., 1998 SCC
          OnLine Kar 671:(2000) 1 Kant LJ 523], Maddurappa v.
          State of Karnataka [Maddurappa v. State of Karnataka,
          (2006) 4 Kant LJ 303] and G. Maregoudav. Commr.
          [G. Maregouda v. Commr., (2000) 2 Kant LJ SN 4B]
          holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5
          of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at
          any time, are overruled. Order accordingly.”
7.   In the light of the aforesaid judgment, as in the present 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, learned 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.
     This Court again in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja and Others Vs.
     M. Ashwatha and Others (2020) 14 Supreme Court Cases 228
     dealing with the similar Act, in paras 10 to 12, has held as under:
          “10. In Pune Municipal Corpn. v. State of Maharashtra
          [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5
          SCC 211] this Court reproduced the following observations
          with regard to the declaration of orders beyond the period
          of limitation as invalid: (SCC p. 226, para 39)
               “39. Setting aside the decree passed by all
               the courts and referring to several cases,
               this Court held that if the party aggrieved by
               invalidity of the order intends to approach the
               court for declaration that the order against him
               was inoperative, he must come before the court
               within the period prescribed by limitation. ‘If the
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                        2051

          Shardhamma & Anr. v. The Dy. Commissioner & Ors.


                statutory time of limitation expires, the court
                cannot give the declaration sought for’.”
                                                (emphasis supplied)

           “11. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid
           observations. It is, however, necessary to add that where
           limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach
           the competent court or authority within reasonable time,
           beyond which no relief can be granted. As decided earlier,
           this principle would apply even to suo motu actions.”
           “12. We find from the impugned judgments [Vivek M.
           Hinduja v. M. Ashwatha, 2006 SCC OnLine Kar 882] ,
           [George Thomas v. K.P. Krishnappa, 2011 SCC OnLine
           Kar 4496] that the High Court has not given due regard
           to the period of time within which the action was taken in
           the present cases. The competent authorities in all these
           cases had declined relief to the respondents and had
           refused to annul the transfers. In the circumstances, the
           impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High
           Court are set aside.”
8.   In the light of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it can
     be safely gathered that as the application under Section 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.
9.   There is one another important aspect with regard to Saguvalli Chit
     which was confirmed on 12.05.1954. The vernacular version and
     the English translation which are on record 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
     learned Courts below.
10. Resultantly, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly
    allowed. The respondents before this Court were also not having
    any locus in the matter as they are not descendants of Shri Ranga,
2052                                                    [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


    the original grantee and, therefore, they could not have preferred an
    application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. On this count also, the
    impugned orders deserve to be set aside and are hereby set aside.
11. The appeal is allowed. No orders as to costs.

    Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



    †
        Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan