Resumption proceedings initiated after a 17-year delay are unsustainable for laches.

The subject land was granted to respondent No. 5, Sri Linganna, who sold 38 guntas to Sri Narayanappa by sale deed dated 26 April 1995.

Resumption proceedings were initiated in 2012.

The grantee’s family later filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the claim, and the Assistant Commissioner closed the proceedings.

The Assistant Commissioner subsequently restored the proceedings and allowed the claim; the Deputy Commissioner affirmed that decision.

The petitioners challenged both orders by writ petition.

1. Whether resumption proceedings initiated nearly 17 years after the alienation were liable to be set aside for delay and laches.

2. Whether the Assistant Commissioner could restore proceedings that had been closed following the grantee’s family’s withdrawal memo, at the instance of a third party, and whether the resulting orders could stand.

The Court applied the principles of delay and laches, observing that they are a primary consideration in proceedings to resume granted land and that restoration action brought after significant delay may be barred by laches.

It also held that proceedings closed after withdrawal of the claim could not be restored at a third party’s instance without a legally sustainable basis.

The judgment refers to a Division Bench’s clarification on laches but does not identify the decision or cite a specific statutory provision.

The Court found that the land had been alienated in 1995 but resumption proceedings began only in 2012, a delay of nearly 17 years.

It considered that delay significant in the circumstances.

The Court also noted that the grantee’s family had sought withdrawal and that the Assistant Commissioner had closed the proceedings before later restoring them at a third party’s instance without a sustainable legal basis.

Further, Linganna himself had executed the sale deed concerning the property.

On these grounds, the Court held that the Assistant Commissioner’s and Deputy Commissioner’s orders could not be sustained.

It quashed the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 28 July 2021 and the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 15 November 2023, and directed the competent authority to restore the petitioners’ name in the revenue records relating to the subject land.