Resumption of granted land after a 25-year delay is unsustainable when authorities ignore laches.

The dispute concerned two granted parcels. Sy.No.51/P2, later Sy.No.57, measuring 3 acres, was granted to Andavan in 1978 and sold by registered deed in 1996.

Resumption proceedings began in 2019; the Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim, but the Deputy Commissioner partly allowed the appeal and ordered resumption.

Sy.No.51/P3, later Sy.No.58, measuring 2 acres 31 guntas, was granted to Amasamma in 1978 and sold in 2013.

In proceedings begun in 2019, the Deputy Commissioner ordered its resumption to the Government after finding that Amasamma had died unmarried and without issue.

Pushpa challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order, relying, among other things, on delay in initiating the proceedings.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s resumption order concerning Sy.No.51/P2 (new Sy.No.57) could stand despite the approximately 25-year interval between the 1996 sale and commencement of proceedings in 2019.

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the resumption order concerning Sy.No.51/P3 (new Sy.No.58), where the Deputy Commissioner found that the grantee had died unmarried and without issue, and the applicants’ status as her legal representatives involved disputed facts.

The Court considered the principles governing resumption under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act (PTCL Act), including the significance of delay and laches in restoration proceedings.

It stated that laches should be treated as a primary consideration and that restoration action brought after significant delay may be barred by laches.

The judgment does not identify a specific statutory provision or cite the Division Bench decision from which it drew that principle.

For Sy.No.51/P2, the Deputy Commissioner ordered resumption without adequately addressing the nearly 25-year delay after the registered sale or the petitioner’s laches objection.

Because the delay was a material consideration and the land rights had been settled by the 1996 sale deed, the resumption order could not be sustained for that parcel.

For Sy.No.51/P3, the Deputy Commissioner’s finding that the grantee had died unmarried and without issue supported resumption in favour of the Government.

Whether the applicants were the grantee’s legal representatives raised disputed questions of fact unsuitable for determination in writ proceedings; the Court therefore found no ground to interfere as to that parcel.

The Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 7 January 2025 was quashed only insofar as it related to Sy.No.51/P2 (new Sy.No.57), measuring 3 acres, and the authorities were directed to restore the petitioner’s name in the revenue records for that parcel.

The order concerning Sy.No.51/P3 (new Sy.No.58), measuring 2 acres 31 guntas, was left undisturbed.