SMT. SIDDAMUTHAMMA V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

WP/18782/2019

AI Insights

The case involves a dispute over the restoration of land granted under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act). The original grantee's descendants sought to restore land that had been alienated, arguing that the alienations were void under the PTCL Act. However, the Deputy Commissioner found that the application for restoration was filed after a significant delay, which was deemed unreasonable based on precedents set by the Supreme Court. The petitioners contended that the principles from cases dealing with alienations before the commencement of the PTCL Act did not apply, but the court disagreed, applying the doctrine of reasonable time to the case at hand.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726746 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another, Vivek M. Hinduja vs. M. Aswatha, Manchegowda vs. State of Karnataka, The Punjab University, Chandigarh vs. Vijay Singh Lamba and others, Ambika Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat and others, Quarry Owners' Association vs. State of Bihar and others, Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta, D.V. Lakshmana Rao vs. State of Karnataka and others
• Laws Referred To: Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K S ARUN; V SRINIVAS; G R RAVEESHA
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHAN
• Keywords: Alienation; Land restoration; Reasonable time; Writ petition; PTCL Act
• Section: 5; 4

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 18782 OF 2019(SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SIDDAMUTHAMMA W/O LATE MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs. 1(a). SHRI.KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE SRI.MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 1(b). SMT.MUNIYAMMA, W/O MAILARAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS 1(c). SRI.MAHALINGARAJU, S/O LATE MYLARAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 1(a) TO 1(c) ARE RESIDING AT MACHOHALLI COLONY, BAPA GRAMA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560091 2. ANJINAPPA @ ANJANAMURTHY S/O LATE MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 2 3. KENCHAMALLAIAH S/O LATE MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4. MARAIAH S/O LATE KENCHAMALLAIAH, SINCE DEAD (DIED ON 10-09-2016 BY HIS LRS 4(a). KUMARA, S/O MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 5. SRI. ANJINAPPA S/O MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 6. SMT. MALAMMA D/O MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 7. SMT. BYLAMMA D/O MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 8. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 9. SMT. GANGAMALLAMMA D/O MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 10. SRI KUMARA S/O MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 11. SMT. NINGAMMA D/O MYLARAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3 12. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA S/O MYLARAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 13. SMT. BYLANJINAPPA S/O MYLARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 14. SMT MANGALAGOWRAMMA D/O MYLARAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 15. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 16. SRI M L JAGADISH S/O LATE LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 17. SRI M L NAGARAJU S/O LATE LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 18. SMT MANGALAGOWRI D/O LATE LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS P1 TO 18 ARE R/A MACHOHALLI VILLAGE BAPA GRAMA POST DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560091 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.KISHAN G S, ADVOCATE) 4 AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, K G ROAD BENGALURU 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU 3. SRI LATE MARIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 3(a). SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED AOBUT 80 YEARS, SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY HER LRs. WHO ARE ALREADY RECORD 3(b). SRI C M CHANDREGOWDA S/O LATE MARIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 3(b)1. SMT K M LATHA W/O LATE C M CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3(b)2. SRI RAJATH S/O LATE C M CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 3(b)3. PRAGATHI D/O LATE C M CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.3(a), 3(b)1 TO 3(b)3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.53/1, 3RD MAIN, 1ST CROSS, 5 OPP: VAKKALIGARA SANHA HIGH SCHOOL BENGALURU-91 3(c). SRI C M SHIVARAMU S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3(d). PARAVATHAMMA D/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 3(e). LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3(f). NIRMALA D/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3(g). TANUJA D/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESPONDENTS 3(c) TO 3(g) ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKERE VILLAGE CHANNAPATTANA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 4. SMT NAGARATHNAMMA W/O SHIVANANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.170, 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS, S G KAVAL KOTTIGEPALYA, BENGLAURU-91 5. SRI SANJEEVAIAH S/O KEMPAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 6 RESIDING AT NO.52, RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, 5TH CROSS, PAPIREDDYPALYA NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-72 6. SMT B SUSHILAMMA B W/O SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.837, SANJEEVINAGARA, OMSHAKTHI TEMPLE, 1ST MAIN, HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU-91 7. SMT KRISHNAVENI W/O RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.11/107, 5TH CROSS, GANESHA BLOCK, NANDHINI LAYOUT BENGALURU-96 8. SRI S NAGAIAH S/O NAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT S.BEDARAHALLI KALLUDEVANAHALLI POST, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 9. SRI S N GIRISHKUMAR S/O S M NAGASUNDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.24, 17TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA, ULLAL MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-56 10. SMT C H INDRAMMA W/O M B RAMESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.401, 6TH CROSS, 50 FEET ROAD, CHOWDESHWARINAGARA LAGGERE, BENGALURU 7 11. SRI BETTEGOWDA S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT S.BEDARAHALLI, KALLUDEVANAHALLI POST, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISRICT 12. SMT RAMA W/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.15, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH MODULE HOUSE STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-04 13. SRI N SHIVAKUMAR S/O C K NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.19, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SVG NAGARA NAGARABHAVI ROAD MUDALAPALYA, BENGLAURU-72 14. SRI JAYANNA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3, 6TH CROSS, A D HALLI MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-79 15. SMT JAYAMMA W/O RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.08, 1ST MAIN, 5TH B CROSS, SRINIVASANAGARA, SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU-91 16. SMT LALITHAMMA W/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.153, 1ST CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, 8 D GROUP, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-91 17. SMT MANJAMMA W/O CHALUVARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.153, 1ST CROSS, 4TH BLOCK D GROUP, ANDHRAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-91 18. SRI K S DIVAKARA S/O SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.648, BEST CLUB BEML LAYOUT, 4TH STAGE, R R NAGAR, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU-98 19. SMT N D BABY W/O NAGESH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2982, 13A MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-40 20. SRI A M DINESH S/O MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1329/A 27TH MAIN, 22ND CROSS, S G KAVAL, D GROUP LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-91 21. SRI N NENGEGOWDA S/O V NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5 RAJIVGANDHINAGAR, HANUMANTHANAGAR MAIN ROAD, SUNKADAKATTE, KEBBEHALLA BENGALURU-91 9 22. SRI P SUDHAKAR S/O RAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-72 23. SMT MANJULA W/O BALAJI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.10, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS JAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT, PAPIREDDY PLAYA NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-72 24. SRI P UPENDRA S/O PADMANABHARAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.10, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS JAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-72 25. SRI H VENKATESH S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22/A, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-72 26. SRI K NAGARAJ S/O K RAMAKRISHNARAO AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22/A , GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-72 10 27. SRI D ANANTHA S/O D SURESH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22/A, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-72 28. SRI H LAKSHMINARASIMHA, S/O H RAMARAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22/A, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-72 29. SRI K VASUDHA W/O K.VASRAJ, AGED AOBUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-72. 30. SRI SUHAS S/O ACHYUTHKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-72. 31. SRI ACHYUTHKUMAR S/O KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-72 11 32. SRI K GURURAJ S/O K.SHAMASUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-72 33. SRI K RAVINDRA S/O K.SHAMASUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-72 34. SRI VENKATESH S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YARS, RESIDING AT NO.22 PADMANABHA NILAYA, NEAR SIDDARTHA SCHOOL, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-73. 35. SMT VIJAYALAKSHMI S/O NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.57,1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, MAHADESHWARANAGARA, HEROHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU-91. 36. SMT PARVATHI W/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.61/C, 2ND MAIN CROSS, VIDYARANYANAGARA, BENGALURU-23 12 37. SMT V KALAIARASI W/O VENKATARAMAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.119, 4TH CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-23 38. SMT NINGAMMA W/O JAYARAMU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT GIRISH PROVISION STORE, 6TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA SCHOOL ROAD, BENGALURU-79. 39. SRI G RAVEESH S/O LATE GATTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDITN AT NO.56, 1ST A MAIN, LATHA ENGENEERING WORKS, KOTTIGEPALYA, BENGALURU-91. (LRs OF DECEASED GATTAPPA). 40. SMT R MANGALA W/O M.S. LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.45, 4TH CROSS, S.G.KAVAL, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU-91. 41. SMT NEELAMMA W/O PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.73, 5TH CROSS, S.G.KAVAL, S.G.KATTE, CHANDRASHEKAR LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-91 42. SMT SAROJAMMA W/O BASAVARAJAPPA, 13 AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.73, 5TH CROSS, S.G.KAVAL, S.G.KATTE, CHANDRASHEKAR LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-91. 43. SMT SHUBHA W/O ADARSHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.139, 3RD MAIN INCOME TAX LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-40 44. SRI K B GUDINAVAR S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9/7, 3RD CROSS, MRS LAYOUT, SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU-91. 45. SMT S N NAGAMANI W/O R.C.SARASIJ, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, GROUND FLOOR, MATRIX ABACUS BUILDING, SBI BANK ROAD, DWARAKANGAR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-40 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.S.ARUN, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI.V.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a), R3(b)(i TO iii), R3(c) TO R3(g); SRI.G.R.RAVEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R13, R14, R15 TO R43, R44 & R45; SRI.VENKATESH.G, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED R46 IN I.A.4/21; R3B(i) TO B(iii) ARE TREATED AS LRs OF DECEASED R3(a)) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON 14 THE FILE OF THE R-1 IN SCST (APPEAL) NO.58/2014-15 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN SC.ST(APPEAL)NO.58/2014-15 DATED 22.03.2019 (ANNEXURE-J) AND THERE BY RESTORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN K.SC.ST.NO.80/2011-12 DATED 05.07.2014 (ANNEXURE-D). THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.07.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed by the grantee questioning the order of the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner who has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner ordering restoration of land in favour of the grantee. 2. Before I advert to the facts of the present case, it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another1 and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha2 It would be also useful to refer to the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446 of 2012, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on 5.4.2021. 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 2.(2019) 1 Kant LJ 819(SC) 15 The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's case while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short \"PTCL Act\") had an occasion to examine the point of limitation wherein interested person can file appropriate application seeking annulment of sale as void under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Apex Court by reiterating the principles laid down in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav3 and also in the case of Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others4 [(2020) 14 SCC 236] was pleased to reiterate the settled position of law where Statute did not prescribe the period of limitation, the provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. The Apex Court was of the view that the authorities have to give due regard to the period of time within which action has to be taken by the interested person. The Apex Court was of the view that it is well within the discretion of the competent authorities to not to annul the alienations where there is inordinate delay in initiating action by the interested persons under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL 3 (2018) 12 SCC 527 4 (2020) 14 SCC 236 16 Act. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 disposed of on 24.1.2020 declined to entertain the application filed by the original grantee where there was a delay of ten years. This Court was of the view that the application itself was not maintainable since the same was not filed within a reasonable time. While recording the finding this Court was pleased to rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others wherein the Apex Court had declined to entertain the application which was submitted after nine years seeking restoration of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja(supra) have no application to the present case on hand since the principles laid down therein are in respect of alienations before commencement of the Act whereas in 17 the present case on hand the alienations are subsequent to commencement of the PTCL Act. Further, placing reliance on para 24 of the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case of Manchegowda .vs. State of Karnataka5, the learned counsel submits that the Apex Court has held that the granted lands transferred before commencement of Act and not in contravention of prohibition on transfer are clearly beyond the scope and purview. Therefore, he would contend that the Act has application only in those cases where transferees of the granted land have perfected their title but the same would not cover those cases where transferee has a voidable title after the commencement of the Act. Further placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of The Punjab University, Chandigarh vs. Vijay Singh Lamba and others6 the learned counsel would vehemently argue and contend that the Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed and therefore, submits that the Courts while examining an application filed by the grantee seeking 5 (1984) 3 SCC 301 6 (1976) 3 SCC 344 18 restoration of the lands has to apply law by looking into the facts and circumstances of the case. To buttress his arguments that the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja have no relevance would further place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India and others .vs. Dhanwanti Devi and others7 and contend that everything which is said by a Judge while rendering a judgment will not constitute a precedent. The only thing in a judge's decision which would be binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and therefore, he would request this Court to analyse the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja before applying the said principles to the present case on hand. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Ambika Quarry Works .vs. State of Gujarat and others8 he would contend that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. Learned counsel also relied on a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Quarry Owners' Association .vs. State 7 (1996) 6 SCC 44 8 (1987) 1 SCC 213 19 of Bihar and others9 and has contended that whenever there are two possible interpretations, its true meaning and legislature's intent has to be gathered from the Preamble, from the statement of objections and reasons and other provisions of the same statute. At this juncture, he would take this Court to the preamble of the PTCL Act 1979. He would also place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority .vs. M.K.Gupta10 and contend that PTCL Act has to be construed in favour of the grantee to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social oriented legislation. He would contend that the primary duty of the Court while construing such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the provisions and should not be contrary to the object of the enactment. The learned counsel would lastly place reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in D.V. Lakshmana Rao .vs. State of Karnataka and others11 and submit that the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Manchegowda's case has a binding precedent and therefore, this Court is bound by the ratio 9 (2000) 8 SCC 655 10 (1994) 1 SCC 243 11 ILR 2001 KAR 2689 20 laid down by the Full Bench and the same would prevail over the recent judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja. On these set of grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the order passed by the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner is not in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Manchegowda's case and therefore, the order suffers from serious infirmities and would warrant interference at the hands of this Court. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the transferee would however, support the order under challenge and would submit that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja(supra) is being consistently followed by this Court and in cases where action is initiated by the grantee beyond reasonable period, this Court has taken a consistent view that the application is not maintainable. Therefore, the order under challenge is in accordance with law and would not warrant any interference by this Court. 21 5. In the present case on hand, the authorities granted the petition land in favour of Hanuma s/o. Kenchemallaiah somewhere in the year 1931. After the demise of the original grantee, the petition property devolved upon his only son Kenchemallaiah. After the death of Kenchamallaiah, his four sons succeeded to the petition property. From the records, it is forthcoming that the grand children of the original grantee sold the petition property in favour of Kamallamma under two registered sale deeds dated 4.11.1991 and 5.4.1994. In turn, the said Kamalamma sold the property in favour of Mariyappa through registered sale deed that 30.10.1996. The great grand children of the original grantee filed an application seeking restoration of lands in the year 2011. The 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner declared the sale deeds of the year 1991, 1994 and 1996 as void and consequently ordered for restoration of lands in favour of the L.Rs of original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the purchaser preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent who has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner. The first respondent-Deputy Commissioner relied on the judgment of this Court rendered in W.P.24501/2012 where there was a delay 22 of 11 years and this Court has set aside the orders passed by the authorities on the ground that the grantees had not approached the Court within a reasonable period. The 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner was of the view that the application filed under the PTCL Act for restoration of land was after 17 years and therefore, the application which is filed beyond reasonable period is not maintainable. 6. The contention of the petitioners before this Court is that the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja(supra) have no application to the present case on hand since in those cases the Apex Court was dealing with alienations before commencement of the Act. This Court is unable to accede to the said contention. The Apex Court was dealing with the question of reasonable time and the Apex Court reiterating the principles laid down in Chhedi Lal Yadav's case was of the view that where statute does not provide for period of limitation, the provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time and that the action whether on an application of the parties or suo motu must be taken within a reasonable time. 23 This Court would also find that the Apex Court has also placed reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in Manche Gowda's case. The Apex Court in the case of Vivek Hinduja referred to the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla vs. Hargovind Jasraj and another(supra) and has culled out an oft-quoted passage in Smith .vs. East Elloe Rural District Council12 which reads as under: \"….An order, even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable or orders.' (Smith Case, AC pp.769-70). (emphasis supplied) This must be equally true even where the brand of invalidity is plainly visible; for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the Court. The necessity of recourse to the court has been pointed out(sic) repeatedly in the House of Lords and Privy council without distinction between patent and latent defects (Ed.Wade and Forsyth in Administrative Law, 7th Edn.1994.\" 12 1956 AC 736: (1956) 2 WLR 888 24 What emerges from the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja(supra) is that the Apex Court has laid down doctrine of reasonable period. In both the cases, the principle was in regard to reasonable period within which a grantee on an application or the authority suo motu are required to initiate action against alienations of granted land. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Apex Court was that since no time is prescribed by law for taking such action, the grantee must exercise the powers and seek annulment of alienations within a reasonable period. Therefore, the broader principle laid down by the Court was that the action has to be brought within a reasonable period. Therefore, in both the cases, the Apex Court was not directly dealing with alienations before the commencement of the Act. Incidentally, the facts in those cases were in respect of alienations before the commencement of the Act. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel that facts are not similar and the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja(supra) would only deal with alienations before 25 commencement of the PTCL Act is misconceived and therefore such an argument cannot be accepted. 7. Therefore, the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the case of Ambika Quarry Works and Union of India vs. Dhanwanti Devi (supra) would not come to the aid of the petitioners. On the contrary they come to the aid of the respondent-transferee. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dhanwanti Devi (supra)has held that it is not everything said by a Judge while giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided. The Apex Court in the case of Ambika Quarry Works (supra) was of the view that the ratio of the decision must be understood in the facts of the case. Therefore, the principle laid down by Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja(supra) lays down the proposition of doctrine of reasonable period. The test of reasonable period has to be applied to each case where grantee seeks restoration of the lands. Therefore, to apply the test of reasonableness all that is required to be examined by the 26 authorities is to ascertain the date of alienation by the grantee or the legal representatives of the grantee and the date on which an application is filed seeking restoration of land. Therefore, this Court would find it difficult to accept the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the facts in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja(supra) are totally different and that the law was laid down in a totally different context. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 declined to entertain an application filed after nine years which is confirmed in WA.No.16/2021. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra and the judgment rendered by the Division Bench are squarely applicable to the present case on hand. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is in consonance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja(supra). Therefore the order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 27 9. Hence, the following: ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE *alb/- "