A party to an alienation cannot later seek its resumption under the PTCL Act.

The subject land was granted to Nanjashetty in 1965. His son, Krishna (respondent No. 3), executed a registered sale deed in 2007 in favour of the husband of petitioner No. 1.

Resumption proceedings under the PTCL Act were initiated in 2012, and the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner allowed the claim by orders dated 29 December 2017 and 13 July 2021, respectively.

The petitioners sought certiorari to quash those orders. They argued, among other things, that Krishna, having executed the sale deed, could not later invoke the Act in respect of that alienation. Krishna alleged that the sale deed had been obtained by fraud and that the family had not consented to it.

1. Whether a person who executed the sale deed could subsequently initiate proceedings under the PTCL Act to seek resumption of the same land.

2. Whether the allegation that the sale deed was obtained by fraud could be determined in the writ proceedings.

The Court applied the PTCL Act and the principle it derived from the Supreme Court’s decision in Seethamma’s case: a person who was himself a party to and executed the sale deed cannot subsequently invoke the Act to allege that the same alienation violated its provisions.

The Court also held that disputed allegations of fraud requiring appreciation of evidence could not be adjudicated in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The judgment does not identify a specific provision of the PTCL Act or provide the full citation for Seethamma’s case.

Krishna had executed the registered 2007 sale deed in favour of the petitioners’ predecessor, yet later initiated resumption proceedings concerning that alienation. Applying the principle from Seethamma’s case, the Court held that he could not invoke the PTCL Act to challenge a sale deed to which he was a party.

The Court declined to determine Krishna’s fraud allegation because resolving it would require consideration of disputed facts and evidence, which was not appropriate in writ proceedings.

It directed the concerned authority to restore the petitioners’ name in the revenue records relating to the subject land. The writ petition was allowed; any interim order stood discharged and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.