PTCL Resumption Proceedings Initiated After 19 Years Are Barred by Laches

The land was granted to Sannakanchigaiah in 1977 and sold by him to Revannasiddaiah in 2003. Revannasiddaiah later agreed to sell the land to petitioner No. 1; after his death, petitioner No. 1 sued his legal representatives for specific performance, and the suit ended in a compromise agreeing to execute a sale deed in petitioner No. 1’s favour.

In 2022, members of the grantee’s family sought resumption under the PTCL Act, alleging an unlawful transfer. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application, and the Deputy Commissioner confirmed that decision. The petitioners challenged both orders by writ petition.

The Court applied the PTCL Act and the principle that delay and laches are relevant to proceedings seeking resumption of granted land.

It stated that a Division Bench had clarified that laches should be treated as a primary consideration in resumption proceedings and that restoration action brought after significant delay may be barred by laches. The judgment does not identify the Division Bench decision by name or citation.

Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 relied on Section 5 of the Act and argued that no limitation period applied, but the Court did not set out or analyse the provision’s text.

The Court found that the grantee’s family initiated resumption proceedings in 2022, 19 years after the 2003 sale.

Applying the stated principle that laches is a primary consideration in resumption proceedings, it held that this delay was inordinate and that the authorities had overlooked it. The Court therefore found the Assistant Commissioner’s and Deputy Commissioner’s orders legally unsustainable.

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