The Deputy Commissioner Cannot Remand PTCL Act Matters to the Tahsildar for Adjudication.

The subject land was granted to the original grantee in 1952. The grantee’s family dealt with the property in 1996, and the petitioner company purchased it in 2023.

Resumption proceedings were initiated in 2017. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the claim, but the Deputy Commissioner set aside that order and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar.

The petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order, contending that the remand was beyond the Tahsildar’s jurisdiction and that the proceedings were delayed.

Whether the Deputy Commissioner could remand a proceeding under the PTCL Act to the Tahsildar for adjudication

Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s order was sustainable despite the substantial delay in initiating resumption proceedings.

Section 5 of the PTCL Act empowers the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner to deal with proceedings under the Act; the Tahsildar is not a competent authority to adjudicate issues falling within that statutory framework.

The Court also considered the effect of substantial delay and laches in initiating resumption proceedings, holding that the Deputy Commissioner ought to have addressed the 21-year interval between the 1996 dealing with the property and the commencement of proceedings.

No precedent was cited.

The Deputy Commissioner remanded the matter to the Tahsildar even though Section 5 assigns adjudicatory authority under the PTCL Act to the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. The remand was therefore jurisdictionally improper.

Further, the proceedings were initiated 21 years after the family dealt with the property, and the Deputy Commissioner failed to consider the significance of that delay. The Court consequently found the remand order legally unsustainable.

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