Authorities must consider unreasonable delay before ordering land resumption under the PTCL Act.

The land in Sy. No. 39, measuring four acres, was granted to Sri Chaluvaiah in 1969–70 and sold in 1996.

In 2024, proceedings for resumption were initiated under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.

The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim, and the Deputy Commissioner confirmed that order.

The petitioners challenged both orders by writ petition, contending, among other grounds, that the proceedings had been initiated after an unreasonable delay.

Whether the resumption orders could stand when the authorities had not considered the nearly 28-year delay in initiating proceedings.

Whether the impugned orders should be quashed and the petitioners’ names restored in the revenue records.

The Court considered resumption proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.

It also applied the principle of laches, observing that, as clarified by a Division Bench, laches is a primary consideration in proceedings to resume granted land and restoration action initiated after a significant delay may be barred by laches.

The judgment does not identify the Division Bench decision by name or citation.

The sale took place in 1996, but resumption proceedings were initiated only in 2024.

The Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner failed to address whether this nearly 28-year delay was unreasonable, despite the rights in the land having been settled by the sale deed.

Because delay and laches were material considerations in deciding whether to proceed with resumption, the authorities’ failure to consider them rendered their orders unsustainable.

It quashed the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 5 March 2025 and the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 4 November 2025, and directed the concerned authority to restore the petitioners’ names in the revenue records for the subject land.