The PTCL Act does not apply to land where unauthorised occupation has been duly regularised.

The subject land was initially under unauthorised occupation and that occupation was regularised in 1977–78.

A portion of the land was conveyed by registered sale deed in 1997.

Resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner in 2016–17, and the Assistant Commissioner ordered resumption.

The Deputy Commissioner affirmed that order.

The Assistant Commissioner’s order was dated 2 April 2025 and the Deputy Commissioner’s order 6 February 2026.

1. Whether the resumption orders could be sustained when the authorities had not considered the alleged 19-year delay and laches in initiating proceedings.

2. Whether the PTCL Act applied to land whose unauthorised occupation had been regularised.

Where unauthorised occupation of land has been duly regularised, the provisions of the PTCL Act are not attracted.

Laches should be treated as a primary consideration in proceedings to resume land and restoration action brought after significant delay may be barred by laches.

The authorities ordered resumption without addressing the substantial delay between the 1997 sale and the initiation of proceedings in 2016–17, or the petitioners’ specific contention that the delay was unreasonable and unexplained.

The Court considered those matters material, particularly because rights in the land had been dealt with under a registered sale deed.

It further held that the authorities’ failure to consider delay and laches, together with the regularisation of the occupation, meant that the resumption orders could not be sustained.

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