Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The learned counsel appearing for the purchaser, on the other hand, contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner could not be found fault with, in view of the inordinate delay of 20 years in initiating the resumption proceedings.

NC: 2025:KHC:15313

17. It was also contended that the proceedings for resumption under the PTCL Act could not be invoked more than once. It was contended that once an application for resumption was filed and allowed, restoring the lands to the grantee, the grantee could not take advantage of the PTCL Act and once again sell the land, seek cancellation of the sale deed and then its resumption.

18. In light of the submission canvassed by the Learned Counsel, the following questions would arise for consideration in this petition.

i. Whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner, refusing to resume the land on the ground that resumption proceedings had been initiated belatedly, is correct; and ii. When once the granted lands have been resumed and restored to the grantee under the provisions of the PTCL Act, can the provisions of the PTCL Act be invoked for a second NC: 2025:KHC:15313 time to annul a sale made after restoration of the lands in favour of the grantee?

- 24 -

NC: 2025:KHC:15313

42. The question that however arises now is whether these provisions could be invoked for a second time, after the lands have been resumed and restored to the grantee.

43. As already noticed above, a grantee who had alienated the land in contravention of the terms of the grant is enabled by the provisions of the PTCL Act to get the land back, notwithstanding that he had lost it by his own act. Such a grantee is conscious and aware of the fact that there is an enactment which seeks to protect him and his granted land. He is, as a consequence, also aware that he could not have sold the land. He would also therefore be aware of the fact that he cannot sell the land which has been restored to him by virtue of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. In short, the grantee, by invoking the provisions of the Act and getting back his land, is also clearly aware of the fact that the PTCL Act prohibits himself from alienating said

- 29 -

NC: 2025:KHC:15313 to the benefits of the Act, would also be bound by the restrictive clauses in the Act and is liable for the consequences of disregarding the provisions of the PTCL Act.

48. The provisions of the PTCL Act were not meant to grant a licence to grantees to sell the lands that were resumed in their favour and once again seek restoration. In other words, a grantee who is aware of the beneficial provisions of the PTCL Act is also presumed to be aware of the restrictive clauses in the same Act which curtails his benefit in dealing with the resumed land. A grantee cannot abuse a remedial statute to perpetuate an illegality and, at the same time, secure a process which legitimizes his illegal act repeatedly. The Act was designed to help the weak and downtrodden and not abuse their weakness in order to unjustly enrich themselves.