Land resumption orders cannot stand when authorities ignore a 28-year delay and laches.

The land was granted to Eranaika in 1977. After his death, his family sold it under a registered sale deed dated 22 April 1993.

Resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner in 2021; the Assistant Commissioner ordered resumption on 29 December 2022, and the Deputy Commissioner upheld that order on 15 February 2024.

The grantee’s legal representatives challenged both orders, contending, among other things, that proceedings commenced after an unreasonable delay of approximately 28 years.

1. Whether the resumption orders could be sustained when proceedings were initiated approximately 28 years after the 1993 sale, without the authorities addressing delay and laches.

2. Whether the impugned orders should be quashed and the petitioners’ name restored in the revenue records.

The Court applied the doctrine of delay and laches, holding that the authorities must consider whether restoration or resumption proceedings should proceed when initiated after a significant delay, particularly where rights have been settled in the meantime.

It referred to a Division Bench’s clarification that laches is a primary consideration in land-resumption proceedings and that a restoration action brought after significant delay may be barred by laches.

The Court found that the sale occurred in 1993 and that resumption proceedings were initiated only in 2021.

Although both revenue authorities ordered or affirmed resumption, neither addressed the approximately 28-year delay or the petitioners’ contention that the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable lapse of time.

Given that the land rights had been settled by the 1993 sale deed, the failure to consider delay and laches left the orders legally unsustainable.

It directed the concerned authority to restore the petitioners’ name in the revenue records relating to the subject land.