LALITHAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal has been filed against the order dtd. 18/11/2021 passed by learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the father of the appellant was granted the land on 20/3/1937. He alienated the land by a registered sale deed dtd. 26/3/1993. After a period of 20 years, the appellant filed a petition under Sec. 5 of PTCL Act seeking resumption of the land. The Assistant Commissioner by an order dtd. 15/7/2016 has rejected the same and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner has been affirmed in appeal on 25/2/2019.

(3.) The Supreme Court in 'NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS' (2020) 14 SCC 432 has held that Sec. 5 of the 1978 Act enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Sec. 4 of the Act. The aforesaid Sec. does not prescribe for any period of limitation. However, it has been held that any action whether on an application of the parties or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable period of time. The Supreme Court, in the aforesaid decision, held that the application seeking resumption of the land filed after a period of 24 years, suffered from inordinate delay and was therefore, liable to be dismissed on that ground. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in 'VIVEK M.HINDUJA & ANR. Vs. M.ASHWATHA' (2020) 14 SCC 228 and it was held that whenever limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach the competent Court or Authority within a reasonable time beyond which no relief can be granted. In the aforesaid case, delay of 20 years in filing the application for resumption was held to be unreasonable.