Authorities must consider inordinate delay and laches before ordering resumption of granted land.

The land was granted to Lakkappa in 1961 and sold under a registered sale deed in 1966.

Resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner in 2015, nearly 49 years after the sale; the Assistant Commissioner rejected the petition.

On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner.

The purchasers challenged that remand order, contending that it failed to account for the delay and laches.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s remand order could stand when resumption proceedings were initiated nearly 49 years after the sale, without adequately considering delay and laches.

2. Whether the Assistant Commissioner’s order rejecting the resumption petition should be confirmed rather than the matter remanded.

The Court applied the principles of delay and laches, observing that the Division Bench had clarified that laches is a primary consideration in proceedings to resume granted land and that restoration action brought after significant delay may be barred by laches.

The judgment does not identify a particular statute or cite the Division Bench decision by name or citation.

The Court noted that the sale occurred in 1966, while resumption proceedings began only in 2015, and that the Deputy Commissioner remanded the matter without addressing the petitioners’ specific contention that this delay was unreasonable and unexplained.

Because the land rights had been settled by the sale deed and the delay was a crucial consideration under the stated laches principles, the remand order could not be sustained.

It also directed the concerned authority to restore the petitioners’ names in the revenue records for the subject land.