A Grantee’s Family Member Cannot Seek Resumption by Disowning a Family Sale as a Non-Signatory.

The land was granted to the petitioner’s grandfather in 1938. He mortgaged it in 1949 for ten years, and it was retransferred to him in 1959; the land was subsequently sold in 2004.

The petitioner, his granddaughter, initiated resumption proceedings in 2007. After an earlier rejection by the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner allowed an appeal and set aside that order. In W.P. No. 26894/2012, the High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Assistant Commissioner then allowed the claim, but the Deputy Commissioner set that order aside. The petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order in this writ petition.

1. Whether the petitioner, as a member of the original grantee’s family, could independently initiate resumption proceedings concerning the 2004 sale.

2. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s decision to set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court relied on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Seethamma’s case, without providing the case’s full citation or identifying a specific statutory provision.

As applied by the Court, a family member of the original grantee could not contend that a sale by members of the grantee’s family was not binding merely because that family member had not signed the sale deed.

The Court found that the petitioner was the daughter of the original grantee’s grandson and that the 2004 sale had been executed by members of the original grantee’s family.

Applying Seethamma’s case, it held that the petitioner’s status as a family member, and her non-signatory status, did not permit her to challenge the transaction through resumption proceedings. It therefore found no basis to interfere with the Deputy Commissioner’s order.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit; any interim order was discharged, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.