Karnataka High Court quashes PTCL land-resumption order for failing to consider 65-year delay

The subject land was granted in 1939 and alienated in 1956 and 1972. In 2021, proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act were initiated seeking resumption of the land.

The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application, but the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and ordered resumption by order dated 25 June 2024. The petitioners challenged that order by writ petition; at the hearing, they did not press prayer No. 1.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s order directing resumption could stand when the proceedings were initiated after a substantial delay and the authority had not considered laches.

2. Whether, upon quashing the Deputy Commissioner’s order, the petitioners were entitled to restoration of their names in the revenue records.

The Court considered Section 5 of the PTCL Act, under which the resumption proceedings had been initiated.

It also applied the principle, attributed in the judgment to a Division Bench, that laches is a primary consideration in proceedings to resume granted land and that a restoration action brought after significant delay may be barred by laches. The judgment does not identify the Division Bench decision by name or citation.

The Deputy Commissioner ordered resumption without addressing the delay—nearly 65 years from the 1956 sale—or the petitioners’ contention that the proceedings had been commenced unreasonably late.

The Court held that the authority was required to assess whether resumption proceedings should proceed after such delay, particularly where rights in the land had been settled by the sale deed. Because the Deputy Commissioner failed to consider this material issue, the resumption order could not legally be sustained.

It directed the concerned authority to restore the petitioners’ name in the revenue records relating to the subject land. Any interim order was discharged, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.