PTCL resumption proceedings initiated after 14 years are unsustainable for delay and laches.

The petitioners challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 18 July 2024 and the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 2 September 2022 concerning land in Survey No. 149/2.

The land formed part of a grant of two acres to Shaarappa. In 1992, Narayanappa, the original grantee’s grandson, executed a registered sale deed for 10 guntas; a further 30 guntas was allegedly sold by Munikrishnappa, whose relationship to the grantee was disputed. Respondent No. 4 later purchased the property in 2006.

Resumption proceedings were initiated in 2006. The Assistant Commissioner initially allowed the claim in 2016; the Deputy Commissioner set that order aside and remanded the matter in 2021. On remand, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the claim in 2022, and the Deputy Commissioner affirmed that decision in 2024.

1. Whether the authorities’ rejection of the resumption claim concerning Survey No. 149/2 warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227, given that the proceedings were initiated 14 years after the 1992 sale.

2. Whether the petitioners’ contention that the alleged sale of 30 guntas was made by a person outside the original grantee’s family could be determined in the writ proceedings.

The Court considered the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act (PTCL Act), but did not identify a particular provision.

It applied the principles of delay and laches to resumption proceedings, observing that a claim brought after significant delay may be barred by laches, and referred to an unnamed Division Bench decision for the proposition that laches is a primary consideration in resuming granted lands. The judgment does not name that decision or set out a fuller test.

The Court noted that a member of the original grantee’s family had executed a registered sale deed for 10 guntas in 1992, while resumption proceedings were not initiated until 2006.

It held that the disputed contention about the separate sale of 30 guntas by Munikrishnappa raised questions of fact and law unsuitable for determination in the writ petition.

In light of the 14-year delay and the registered transaction by a family member, the Court found no basis to disturb the authorities’ rejection of the claim.

Any interim order was discharged, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.