Karnataka HC Restores Buyer’s Revenue Entry After Original Grantee Sought PTCL Resumption 19 Years After Selling Land

The land was granted in 1972. The original grantee sold it in 1990, and the purchaser later sold it to the petitioner in 2000.

In 2009, the original grantee applied for resumption under the PTCL Act, alleging an unlawful alienation. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim, and the Deputy Commissioner affirmed the decision.

The petitioner challenged those orders, including on the grounds of delay and the original grantee’s ability to initiate proceedings after selling the land.

The High Court noted that the authorities had failed to consider the delay and laches.

The Court applied the PTCL Act’s resumption framework and the principles governing delay and laches in restoration proceedings.

It stated that a Division Bench had treated laches as a primary consideration in resumption matters and recognised that restoration proceedings brought after significant delay may be barred.

The Court also relied on the law stated in the “Seethamma case,” which, as described in this judgment, precluded the original grantee from initiating PTCL proceedings after selling the property.

The original grantee sold the land in 1990 but applied for resumption only in 2009, a delay of approximately 19 years.

The Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner failed to address whether that delay amounted to laches.

Further, because the original grantee had himself sold the property, the Court considered that he could not initiate the resumption proceedings under the principle stated in the “Seethamma case.”

The resulting orders could therefore not be sustained.

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