Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

HIGH COURT DISMISSES APPEAL – UNDUE DELAY OF 7 YEARS ON DELAYED PROCEEDINGS UNDER PTCL ACT

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, dismissed an appeal challenging an order related to the initiation of proceedings under the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act). The court, in its decision, upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, emphasizing the significance of timely action under the PTCL Act.

In its judgment, the court stated, "The initiation of proceedings by the grantee after a period of 7 years is an afterthought, especially after receiving the entire sale consideration from the respondent No.3." The court further added that the grantee's contention of fraud, without proper pleading and supporting evidence, could not be accepted. It highlighted that the appellant had executed a registered sale deed, making it implausible to claim that the sale deed was executed under the guise of a mortgage deed.

The case revolved around a land transfer dispute concerning a 3-acre property in Alla Nagar, Koppal Taluk and District. The appellant, a grantee belonging to a deprived community, had sold the land to the respondent No.3 through a registered sale deed in 2005. However, the appellant later initiated proceedings for the resumption of the land under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, alleging a violation of Section 4(2) of the Act.

The Assistant Commissioner, followed by the Deputy Commissioner, confirmed the resumption of the land. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 filed a writ petition challenging the orders. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders and leading to the filing of the present appeal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, citing a delay in initiating the proceedings under the PTCL Act. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the appellant's delay of 7 years was unreasonable and not within a reasonable time frame as per the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Laxmi.

The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of timely initiation of proceedings under the PTCL Act. It establishes that delay in pursuing one's rights can lead to adverse consequences. The dismissal of the appeal reaffirms the principle that applications for restoration and resumption of land must be filed within a reasonable period.

This judgment contributes to the jurisprudence surrounding land acquisition and the application of the PTCL Act, emphasizing the need for diligence and prompt action to protect the rights of the concerned parties.

Quote of the Judgment: "The initiation of proceedings by the grantee after a period of 7 years is an afterthought, especially after receiving the entire sale consideration from the respondent No.3."

 Date of Judgment: 23rd June 2023

ERAPPA vs Assistant-Commissioner

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Erappa-Vs-Assistant-Commissioner-^0-Others-23-June-20231.pdf"]

Latest Legal News