PTCL resumption orders are unsustainable when authorities disregard prior regularisation and inordinate delay.

The subject land was initially in unauthorised occupation, but an Official Memorandum dated 11 September 1978 regularised the occupation and possession.

Transactions concerning the land took place in 2003; resumption proceedings were initiated in 2021–2022.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered resumption on 16 March 2023, and the Deputy Commissioner confirmed that order on 5 December 2024.

The petitioner sought certiorari to quash both orders.

Whether the authorities could order resumption under the PTCL Act without properly considering the legal effect of the 1978 regularisation of the land.

Whether the resumption proceedings, initiated many years after the 2003 transactions, were liable to fail for inordinate delay and laches.

The Court considered the PTCL Act in light of the principle that delay and laches are relevant in proceedings seeking restoration or resumption of granted lands; proceedings initiated after an inordinate lapse of time may fail on that ground.

It also held that authorities must consider the legal effect of an earlier regularisation before mechanically initiating proceedings for resumption.

The Court found that the 1978 Official Memorandum had regularised the occupation and possession, and that transactions involving the property had occurred in 2003, yet resumption proceedings were not initiated until 2021–2022.

The Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner had failed to adequately address either the effect of the regularisation or the substantial delay before ordering resumption.

In those circumstances, the orders could not be sustained.

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