Resumption under PTCL Act is a serious intrusion on property rights — it demands strict proof, not presumptions: Karnataka HC

“Confiscation Can’t Rest on Conjecture”, In a decisive judgment reasserting the primacy of evidence over assumption in land rights litigation, the High Court of Karnataka held that proceedings under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act) cannot be sustained unless the foundational elements of a "grant" and its conditions are conclusively proved through authentic records.

Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha set aside the resumption of 5 acres and 11 guntas of land ordered by the Assistant Commissioner and restored the appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner, who had earlier rejected the resumption for lack of documentary support.

“A land sale in 1951 cannot be undone in 1997 without original records proving grant — delay and speculation are no substitute for law”

At the heart of the controversy was the question of whether the subject land in Survey No. 27 of Doddasagarahalli Village was originally granted to a Scheduled Caste individual, one Sri Thimmaiah, in 1938 with restrictions on alienation. The respondents—claiming to be his legal heirs—sought resumption and re-grant of the land under the PTCL Act, alleging illegal sale in 1951 to private purchasers in violation of the grant conditions.

However, the Court noted in clear terms,

“There is no original document on record which would establish that the subject land was granted to the original grantee... Both assumptions — that it was a grant, and that it carried a bar on alienation — are unsupported by any authentic record.”

The Court further pointed out that even though the Assistant Commissioner admitted the absence of grant records in 1998, his successor inexplicably proceeded in 2000 to resume the land “on the basis of documents available on record” without ever specifying what those documents were.

“Darkhast Register shows sale by public auction, not grant — such land doesn’t attract PTCL Act”

The clinching blow to the respondents' case came when the appellants produced a certified copy of the Darkhast Register dated 17.03.1938, which demonstrated that the land had been sold in a public auction to Thimmaiah, rather than being granted free of cost or at concessional rates, as is the prerequisite for invoking the PTCL Act.

The Bench unequivocally held that

“Land sold in auction does not attract PTCL Act — proceedings for resumption are not maintainable where the land was not granted but purchased.”

It was also noted that government records corroborated the auction nature of the transaction, thereby excluding the operation of Section 4(1) of the Act, which prohibits alienation of granted lands.

“Delay of 46 years in seeking resumption renders the claim legally unsustainable — equity demands finality”

Apart from the evidentiary void, the Court severely criticized the inordinate delay in invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act. The original sale occurred in 1951, and the resumption was sought only in 1997, a gap of 46 years.

The Court emphasized,

“The application to set aside the sale after a lapse of 46 years was not maintainable... a resumption order cannot be passed in the absence of conclusive evidence, and certainly not decades later.”

It also drew attention to the fact that the purchasers and their successors had been in undisturbed possession for several decades, had improved the land, and that khata and revenue records stood in their name. The principle of laches and delay, though not statutorily codified in the PTCL Act, was invoked as a compelling ground for rejection.

“Single Judge’s order based on assumptions, not adjudication — resumption order can’t stand on presumption of caste or grant”

Setting aside the 2004 judgment of the Single Judge, the Division Bench held that the learned Judge had "proceeded on the assumption that the grant in favour of a member of Bovi community stood proved", even though no such record was on file.

The Court observed with clarity that

“The learned Single Judge had not addressed the principal question of whether such findings could be made in the absence of any authentic record… The impugned order is plainly unsustainable.”

It stressed that the PTCL Act, being in the nature of confiscatory legislation, requires rigorous scrutiny and high evidentiary threshold before stripping a citizen of land rights.

“A whisper of grant cannot trigger a confiscation — the law demands proof, not presumption”

Reinstating the Deputy Commissioner’s decision dated 15.10.2001, which had rightly set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order of resumption passed on 26.09.2000, the High Court concluded:

“A resumption under PTCL Act cannot be ordered in the absence of grant records or conclusive proof of conditions of inalienability… assumptions are no substitute for statutory requirements.”

In doing so, the Court reaffirmed a crucial safeguard in property law: the protection of bona fide title holders from expropriation without due process and proof, especially in cases where generations have passed since the impugned transaction.

Date of Decision: 30 January 2026