PTCL resumption is unavailable for Inams-granted land where no alienation restriction applied.

In 1958, Sy. No. 22/1, measuring 1 acre 17 guntas at Thammenahalli Village, was granted to Bodappa under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. The property was subsequently transferred through several transactions and gifted by the eleventh respondent, the petitioner’s father, to the petitioner in 2006.

In 2011, the fourth respondent, claiming to be Bodappa’s legal heir, sought resumption under the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim, finding that the grant was under the Inams Abolition Act and that the Act did not restrict alienation. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioner challenged the remand order.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s order remanding the resumption proceedings could be sustained when the land was granted under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954

2. Whether the land could be resumed under the PTCL Act on the ground that its alienation violated that Act

The Court applied the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, on the basis that it imposed no restriction on alienation of the granted land.

It also considered the PTCL Act, invoked by the fourth respondent to seek resumption, and held that a PTCL violation warranting resumption did not arise on these facts.

The grant under the Inams Abolition Act was undisputed. Because that Act did not restrict alienation, the Court concluded that the successive transfers could not, on the stated basis, constitute a violation warranting resumption under the PTCL Act.

Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner’s remand order was unsustainable, and the Assistant Commissioner’s rejection of the resumption claim was upheld.

It upheld the Assistant Commissioner’s order and directed the concerned authority to restore the petitioner’s name in the revenue records relating to the land.