Karnataka HC Orders Buyer’s Name Restored In Land Records After Seller Sought Resumption 27 Years After Sale

The subject land was granted in 1960.

Respondent No. 4 executed a sale deed conveying it to the petitioner in 1993.

In 2020–21, respondent No. 4 initiated proceedings seeking resumption of the land under the PTCL Act.

The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim on 23 May 2022, and the Deputy Commissioner affirmed that order on 25 January 2024.

The petitioner challenged both orders, including on the ground of the nearly 27-year delay.

Respondent No. 4 disputed the sale deed and relied, among other things, on the Saguvali Chit.

The petitioner did not press prayer (a).

The Court considered the PTCL Act and the principles of delay and laches in proceedings seeking restoration or resumption of granted land.

It referred to Seethamma in connection with whether a person who had alienated the land could initiate resumption proceedings.

The Court also noted a Division Bench clarification that laches is a primary consideration in resumption proceedings and that a restoration action brought after significant delay may be barred by laches.

Respondent No. 4 sought resumption approximately 27 years after executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

The Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner did not address the delay-and-laches objection or examine whether respondent No. 4 could maintain proceedings after his own alienation.

The Court held that these were material questions requiring consideration and that their omission vitiated the decision-making process.

On that basis, it found the impugned orders unsustainable.

It directed the concerned authority to mutate or restore the petitioner’s name in the revenue records relating to the subject land.