PTCL resumption after decades-long delay is unsustainable when authorities fail to consider laches.

The land was granted in 1965 and sold under a registered sale deed in 1966.

Resumption proceedings under the PTCL Act were initiated in 2015–16, nearly 50 years after the sale.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered resumption to the Government.

On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the grantee’s family’s appeal, dismissed the purchaser’s appeal, and directed resumption to the grantee’s family.

The High Court noted that the Assistant Commissioner’s order was dated 6 December 2023 and the Deputy Commissioner’s order was dated 7 February 2025.

1. Whether the resumption orders could be sustained when the proceedings were initiated nearly 50 years after the 1966 sale, without addressing delay and laches.

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

The Court considered the PTCL Act in the context of the alleged violation that prompted resumption, but the judgment does not identify a specific provision of the Act.

It applied the principle of laches, observing that delay is a primary consideration in proceedings for restoration or resumption and that action brought after significant delay may be barred by laches.

The Court referred to a Division Bench’s clarification of that principle, but did not identify the decision by name or citation.

The Court noted that the sale occurred in 1966, while resumption proceedings began only in 2015–16.

Although the authorities ordered resumption, they failed to consider whether the nearly 50-year delay was unreasonable, or to address the petitioners’ laches contention, despite rights having been settled by the registered sale deed.

Because delay was a relevant consideration under the governing principle, that omission rendered the orders legally unsustainable.

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