Decades-long delay and laches must be considered before ordering resumption under the PTCL Act.

The subject land was granted to the original grantee in 1956 and sold under a registered sale deed in 1971.

Resumption proceedings under the PTCL Act were initiated in 2011.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered resumption on 18 August 2014, and the Deputy Commissioner affirmed that order on 24 June 2016.

The petitioners challenged both orders by writ petition, contending, among other things, that the authorities had failed to consider the delay in initiating proceedings.

The proceedings concerned resumption under the PTCL Act, including the respondents’ allegation that the alienation violated the Act and occurred during the non-alienation period.

The Court relied on the principle, attributed to a Division Bench, that laches is a primary consideration in land-restoration proceedings and that restoration action initiated after significant delay may be barred by laches.

Although the respondents argued that the alienation violated the PTCL Act, the Court focused on the authorities’ failure to address the nearly 40-year interval between the 1971 sale and the initiation of proceedings in 2011.

Because the sale deed had settled rights in the land, the authorities were required to consider whether proceedings should be pursued after that delay.

Their omission to assess delay and laches meant that the resumption orders could not stand.

It issued a writ of certiorari, quashed the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 18 August 2014 and the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 24 June 2016, and directed the authorities to restore the petitioners’ names in the revenue records.

The petitioners had also stated that they were not pressing prayer (b1), which the Court recorded.