Inordinate delay and laches must be considered before resuming granted land.

The land in question was granted to Javaranaika in 1961.

In 1981, the grantee’s family sold 35 guntas to the petitioners.

The grantee’s family initiated resumption proceedings in 2014, 33 years after the sale.

The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim, taking account of the delay and laches.

On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner noted the delay but nevertheless ordered resumption of the land to the Government.

The petitioners sought to quash the authorities’ orders, contending, among other things, that the land should be restored to the grantee’s family.

The Court applied the principle that delay and laches are material to proceedings seeking restoration or resumption of granted land, and that a significant delay may bar such action.

It referred to a Division Bench’s statement that laches should be treated as a primary requirement in resumption matters, but did not identify the decision or cite a specific statute.

The Court also relied on its decision in W.P. No. 5649/2024, which had quashed the Deputy Commissioner’s order concerning the same 35 guntas and directed restoration of the purchasers’ names in the revenue records.

The Court noted that the sale occurred in 1981 and resumption proceedings were not initiated until 2014.

It considered the 33-year delay and the settled rights arising from the sale deed material to the resumption claim.

Although the Deputy Commissioner had acknowledged the delay, the operative order resumed the land to the Government without adequately addressing its effect.

The petitioners nevertheless could not obtain resumption in favour of the grantee’s family, because the Court’s earlier decision in W.P. No. 5649/2024 had already quashed the order concerning the same 35 guntas and directed restoration of the purchasers’ names in the revenue records.

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