A grantee who personally sells granted land cannot later initiate resumption proceedings.

The land in dispute was granted to Govindappa in 1977.

In 2005, Govindappa sold the entire property to petitioner No. 1 by registered sale deed.

In 2014, Govindappa initiated resumption proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered resumption on 18 January 2018, and the Deputy Commissioner affirmed that order on 17 June 2019.

The purchasers challenged both orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the original grantee, having sold the land to petitioner No. 1, could initiate resumption proceedings concerning that land

Whether the resumption proceedings, initiated approximately nine years after the sale, were liable to be set aside for delay or laches

The Court relied on the principle attributed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Seethamma’s case: an original grantee who was a party to the sale deed could not subsequently initiate proceedings for resumption of the land.

It also referred to a Division Bench clarification that laches are a primary consideration in land-resumption proceedings and that restoration action brought after significant delay may be barred by laches.

The judgment does not identify the specific statute or provide the full citation for either precedent.

The Court found that Govindappa had sold the entire property to petitioner No. 1 in 2005 but initiated resumption proceedings in 2014.

Applying the principle it drew from Seethamma’s case, the Court held that Govindappa’s participation in the sale deed made his later initiation of resumption proceedings unsustainable.

It also observed that the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner had failed to consider the approximately nine-year delay and the petitioners’ laches objection.

The Court did not determine the separate contentions concerning the Will or the pending appeal, stating that they could not be considered in the writ proceedings.

It directed the concerned authority to restore the petitioners’ name in the revenue records relating to the subject land.