An unexplained 28-year delay defeats proceedings to resume granted land.

The land in dispute was granted to Dasappa in 1965 and sold to Katappa under a registered sale deed in 1978.

Resumption proceedings were initiated in 2006.

The Assistant Commissioner allowed the resumption claim, but the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal.

Dasappa’s legal representatives challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order, arguing, among other things, that the applicable non-alienation period was 15 years rather than 10 years and that the sale lacked the required permission.

The High Court framed the dispute as concerning the resumption proceedings and noted that they began nearly 28 years after the sale.

Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s order allowing the appeal against resumption warranted interference, given that the resumption proceedings were initiated nearly 28 years after the sale.

Whether the claim for resumption could succeed on the basis that the non-alienation period was 15 years rather than 10 years, notwithstanding the delay in initiating proceedings.

The Court applied the principle that a claim for resumption may fail on the ground of inordinate delay and laches.

It did not identify or cite a particular statute, statutory provision, or precedent in support of its decision; it treated the dispute over whether the non-alienation period was 10 or 15 years as unnecessary to resolve because the delay was independently fatal to the claim.

The Court noted that the land was sold in 1978, while resumption proceedings were initiated only in 2006, nearly 28 years later.

It held that this was substantial and unexplained delay on the grantee’s part.

Accordingly, even assuming that the applicable non-alienation period was 15 years, rather than 10 years, the resumption claim remained liable to fail for delay and laches.

The Deputy Commissioner had therefore been justified in allowing the appeal; the Assistant Commissioner ought to have rejected the claim on that ground.

Any interim order was discharged, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.