Regularization and inordinate delay preclude resumption under the PTCL Act.

The subject land had been in unauthorised occupation and was regularised by official memorandum dated 1 March 1985.

In 2006, members of the original grantee’s family sold portions of the land to respondent No. 6, who sold it to the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 1 December 2007.

Persons claiming to be the grantee’s grandchildren initiated resumption proceedings in 2014.

The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim, but the Deputy Commissioner set aside that decision and directed resumption.

The petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s order directing resumption could be sustained when the resumption proceedings were initiated eight years after the 2006 sales.

2. Whether proceedings under the PTCL Act could be initiated in respect of land whose unauthorised occupation had been regularised.

3. Whether the grantee’s family could seek resumption after having themselves dealt with the property.

The Court considered the PTCL Act and the principles governing delay and laches in proceedings seeking restoration or resumption of granted land.

It noted the Division Bench’s clarification that laches are a primary consideration in resumption proceedings and that a restoration claim brought after significant delay may be barred by laches.

The Court held that the applicants waited until 2014 to seek resumption, although the relevant sales took place in 2006, and found the eight-year delay sufficient to support the Assistant Commissioner’s rejection of the claim.

It further reasoned that the land had been regularised after unauthorised occupation, so proceedings under the PTCL Act would not arise in the circumstances of the case.

The grantee’s family had also dealt with the property, which weighed against their later claim for resumption.

The Court therefore found the Deputy Commissioner’s decision legally unsustainable.

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