Supreme Court of India
Hmt Ltd vs Rukmini on 24 September, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Sanjay Kumar
2024 INSC 728 Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos. ………… & …………. of 2024
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 30584-85 of 2019)
HMT Ltd. … Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rukmini and others … Respondents
with
Civil Appeal No. ……………… of 2024
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13035 of 2020)
and
Civil Appeal No. ……………… of 2024
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No. …………… of 2024)
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 17543 of 2020)
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Leave granted.
2.
Signature Not Verified By judgment dated 05.09.2019, a Division Bench of the High
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2024.09.24
Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, allowed Writ Appeal No. 17584 of 2011 and
14:22:29 IST
Reason:
reversed the order dated 24.05.2010 passed by a learned Judge
1
dismissing Writ Petition No. 16553 of 2006. The Division Bench directed
HMT Ltd., respondent No. 4 in the writ appeal, to vacate and handover the
identified land, admeasuring Ac. 4-21½ Guntas in Survey Nos. 21 and 22 of
Jarakabande Kaval Village, Bangalore North Taluk, to the appellants/writ
petitioners or, in the alternative, the Union of India and officials of its
Defence department, along with HMT Ltd., respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the
writ appeal, were held jointly and severally liable to pay the current
guidance value of the land, as fixed by the State Government for
non-agricultural land in square feet. In addition thereto, they were also held
liable to pay rental compensation, calculated from 02.03.1973 till the date
of payment along with simple interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the
date the writ petition was filed. The Division Bench ordered that in the event
its directions were not complied with, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the appeal
would be jointly and severally liable to pay rental compensation from
02.03.1973 with simple interest thereon @ 6% per annum till the land was
redelivered to the appellants/writ petitioners. The Division Bench concluded
by stating that this would be an equitable remedy given the facts and
circumstances of the case. Thereafter, by order dated 13.09.2019, passed
upon an application filed by the appellants/writ petitioners, the Division
Bench corrected certain errors in its judgment dated 05.09.2019.
2
3. These two orders are subjected to challenge by HMT Ltd., on
the one hand, and by the Union of India and its officials in its Defence
department, on the other. By interim order dated 10.01.2020 passed in the
SLPs filed by HMT Ltd., this Court stayed the operation of the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court. An order to the same effect
was passed on 29.10.2020 in the first SLP filed by the Union of India and
its officials in the Defence department.
4. The prayer of the respondents herein, viz., the petitioners in
Writ Petition No. 16553 of 2006, was to direct the respondents therein to
pay rental compensation from 1973 till date and to continue to pay the
same till the unacquired portion of their land was delivered to them; to
direct delivery of the unacquired portion of their land, being an extent of
Ac. 2-11 Guntas in Survey No. 21 and Ac. 2-26 Guntas in Survey No. 22 of
Jarakabande Kaval Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. By the
order dated 24.05.2010, a learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court
noted that the writ petition was filed forty-six years after the acquisition and
held that the disputed questions of fact that were raised could not be gone
into in a writ petition after that length of time. The learned Judge
accordingly held that no interference was called for and dismissed the writ
petition on the ground of delay and laches. Aggrieved by this order, the
3
unsuccessful writ petitioners filed Writ Appeal No. 17584 of 2011, resulting
in the impugned judgment and order in their favour which, in turn, led to
filing of the present appeals.
5. The case of the respondents/writ petitioners, as set out in W.P
No. 16553 of 2006, was as follows: –
They were the heirs and successors-in-interest of Putta
Narasamma, w/o of late Papaiah Naidu. Putta Narasamma was the owner
and possessor of Ac. 4-01 Guntas in Survey No. 21 and Ac. 6-34 Guntas in
Survey No. 22 of Jarakabande Kaval, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk. This land was requisitioned by the Ministry of Defence under the
provisions of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,
1952 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1952’), and Putta Narasamma was paid crop
compensation of ₹650 per year. In the year 1973, the Union of India
acquired Ac. 5-38 Guntas out of the total extent of Ac. 10-35 Guntas. The
acquisition was initiated in 1971 and the final Notification was issued on
02.03.1973 under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1952. The acquired land was
Ac. 1-30 Guntas out of Ac. 4-01 Guntas in Survey No. 21 and Ac. 4-08
Guntas in Survey No. 22, leaving Ac. 2-26 Guntas therein. The balance
land, being Ac. 2-11 Guntas in Survey No. 21 and Ac. 2-26 Guntas in
Survey No. 22 of the village continued to be covered by the Act of 1952.
4
Putta Narasamma died on 08.10.1992 and they, as heirs, were her
successors-in-interest. They were entitled to receive rental compensation
from the year 1973 and also to the possession of the land, if the Defence
department did not require it. According to them, the land was lying fallow
and was not being used for any purpose and, therefore, the respondents
were under an obligation to redeliver it to them and also pay the rental
compensation up to the date of handing over possession. They claimed to
have made several requests to the respondents to hand over vacant
possession of the land or, in the alternative, pay rental compensation
according to present market rate of the produce that they would get on
reasonable assessment but the respondents turned a deaf ear. Notice
dated 01.08.2006 was issued to the respondents but no reply was received
thereto. They accordingly prayed for the reliefs referred to hereinabove.
6. It is relevant to note that this writ petition was initially filed only
against the Union of India and its officials in the Defence department but
other parties, including HMT Ltd., thereafter came to be impleaded therein.
Perusal of the order dated 24.05.2010 passed by the learned Judge,
dismissing this writ petition, manifests that the following points were taken
note of: The land in question, admeasuring Ac. 10-35 Guntas in Survey
Nos. 21 and 22 of Jarakabande Kaval Village was requisitioned way back
5
in the year 1941. The proposal to acquire part of this land was initiated in
1971 and, ultimately, by Notification dated 02.03.1973, Ac. 1-30 Guntas in
Survey No. 21 and Ac. 4-08 Guntas in Survey No. 22 came to be acquired
under the Act of 1952. The learned Judge also noted that, as per the
objections filed by HMT Ltd., the acquisition in its favour was made in the
year 1958. This acquisition was in respect of Ac. 3-16 Guntas in Survey No.
21 and Ac. 1-06 Guntas in Survey No. 22, and HMT Ltd. took possession
thereof and constructed a compound wall. The learned Judge, therefore,
opined that the Union of India and HMT Ltd. were in possession of the
respective portions of land acquired in their favour, and were in possession
thereof since then, but the writ petitioners did not raise their little finger till
the year 2006 when they filed the writ petition. It is in these circumstances
that the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay
and laches.
7. Significantly, the complete picture, in so far as the facts of the
matter are concerned, was not presented before the High Court. It would
be appropriate, at this stage, to note the full facts, as they have emerged
now: An extent of Ac. 14-39½ Guntas of land was originally purchased by
late Papaiah Naidu. Under registered Sale Deed dated 11.07.1932, he had
purchased an extent of Ac. 7-17 Guntas in Survey No. 21 and Ac. 7-22½
6
Guntas in Survey No. 22 of Jarakabande Kaval Village. The Ministry of
Defence requisitioned Ac. 10-35 Guntas out of the land belonging to
Papaiah Naidu on 30.01.1941. The Ministry of Defence is then stated to
have released Ac. 4-22 Guntas out of the requisitioned area of Ac. 10-35
Guntas in favour of the landowner in 1953. No document has been
produced in proof of such release but this fact stood admitted by Putta
Narasamma herself. By registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.
5932/54-55 dated 12.03.1955, Putta Narasamma sold this extent of
Ac. 4-22 Guntas in Survey Nos. 21 and 22 of Jarakabande Kaval Village to
Mohd. Ghouse. In this Sale Deed, Putta Narasamma categorically stated
that their lands in Survey Nos. 21 and 22 were acquired earlier by the
Military but out of the same, Ac. 4-22 Guntas of land was released in their
favour on 14.10.1953, under Reg. 56/53-54, and that the same was being
sold to Mohd. Ghouse. It appears that Ac. 0-27 Guntas was then acquired
by the Ministry of Defence on 24.02.1954. Thereafter, by Notification dated
30.06.1958, the Government of Mysore acquired the land sold by Putta
Narasamma to Mohd. Ghouse, in exercise of powers under the Mysore
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This acquisition was for the expansion of HMT
Ltd.’s existing infrastructure at Jalahalli. This Notification specifically
referred to the fact that the acquired land was in the possession of Mohd
7
Ghouse and was an extent of Ac. 3-16 Guntas in Survey No. 21 (part) and
Ac. 1-06 Guntas in Survey No. 22 (part) of Jarakabande Kaval Village,
Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District. Possession of
this acquired land was stated to have been delivered to HMT Ltd. on
11.08.1961. Then, on 02.03.1973, the Ministry of Defence acquired
Ac. 5-38 Guntas, out of the land that was originally requisitioned in 1941
which still remained with them. This acquisition was in exercise of power
under the Act of 1952. Thereafter, HMT Ltd. sold about Ac. 3-39 Guntas out
of the Ac. 4-22 Guntas acquired for its benefit in favour of Dollars
Construction and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. under registered Sale Deed dated
16.09.2004. The balance land left in the possession of HMT Ltd. out of the
acquired extent was, therefore. about Ac. 0-23 Guntas.
8. Pertinent to note, by letter dated 14.08.1957, the Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore District, informed the Secretary to the
Government of Mysore, Commerce and Industry Department, Bangalore,
that HMT Ltd. had applied for acquisition of land in Survey Nos. 21 and 22
of Jarakabande Kaval Village for its expansion; that Survey Nos. 21 and 22
were under Military occupation but out of the same, Ac. 4-22 Guntas had
been released and one Mohd. Ghouse had purchased the same from the
owner of the land. This letter, therefore, confirmed the recital by Putta
8
Narasamma in her Sale Deed executed in favour of Mohd. Ghouse. In
effect, the land acquired for HMT Ltd. was the land sold to Mohd. Ghouse.
9. It appears that Writ Appeal No. 17584 of 2011 was allowed in
the first instance by order dated 28.06.2012. The Ministry of Defence
sought review thereof but failed. Aggrieved thereby, it approached this
Court and was given liberty to file another review petition before the High
Court. Thereupon, the Ministry of Defence filed Review Petition No. 4 of
2014 before the High Court. By order dated 30.03.2016, the review petition
was allowed and the High Court framed three issues for consideration. The
first issue related to the actual area in the occupation of the respondents,
keeping in view the land originally requisitioned for defence purposes. The
second issue was as to lawful occupation by the respondents and the
extent of land in their possession. The third issue was as to the exact
extent of land which was required to be released by the Union of India to
the writ petitioners. It may be noted that, at this stage, the Union of India
was supporting the respondents/writ petitioners, being under the
impression that HMT Ltd. was in possession of area in excess of what had
been acquired for its benefit. It was only thereafter that the Union of India
and its officials of the Defence department changed their stance, in the light
of the facts that came to light vis-à-vis the sale of land by Putta
9
Narasamma in favour of Mohd. Ghouse; the acquisition thereof by the
Government of Mysore for the benefit of HMT Ltd.; and the fact that the
land so acquired for HMT Ltd.’s benefit was not out of the balance land in
the possession of the Putta Narasamma.
10. Most noteworthy is the glaring fact that the respondents/writ
petitioners did not disclose any of these very relevant facts in their writ
petition. No mention was made in the writ petition of the sale by Putta
Narasamma in favour of Mohd. Ghouse or the fact that the land sold was
the extent of land released by the Ministry of Defence out of the
requisitioned original extent of Ac. 10-35 Guntas. It is also pertinent to note
that the respondents/writ petitioners themselves had filed Arbitration Case
No. 120/2015 (new)/179/2008 (old) before the Arbitral Tribunal in
Bangalore. This arbitration pertained to enhancement of compensation for
the extent of Ac. 5-38 Guntas acquired by the Ministry of Defence. Smt.
Rukmini, respondent No. 1/writ petitioner No. 1, appeared as PW1 before
the Arbitral Tribunal and stated that the lands in Survey Nos. 21 and 22 of
Jarakabande Kaval Village were requisitioned by the Defence of India in
the year 1941 and were subsequently acquired to the extent of Ac. 5-38
Guntas. She further stated that the remaining land was sold by the
claimants’ grandmother to one Mohd. Ghouse. Therefore, it is clear that the
10
respondents/writ petitioners were well aware of the sale by Putta
Narasamma in favour of Mohd. Ghouse but deliberately chose to suppress
not only the sale but also the crucial fact that the land so sold was that
returned by the Ministry of Defence in 1953. Though the Division Bench
was apprised of the sale in favour of Mohd. Ghouse, the fact that this sale
pertained to the returned land was not within its knowledge, as is clear from
the impugned judgment. The reason for the willful suppression of this most
relevant fact is not far to gather. Once the Ministry of Defence returned an
extent of Ac. 4-22 Guntas in the year 1953; acquired Ac. 0-27 Guntas in
1954; and then acquired the extent of Ac. 5-38 Guntas under the provisions
of the Act of 1952, adding up to Ac. 11.07 Guntas, in excess of the total
extent of the requisitioned land, the question of Ac. 4-22 Guntas still being
with the Union of India and its Defence department did not arise.
11. The respondents/writ petitioners cleverly withheld the
aforestated details so as to maintain their claim against the Union of India
and its Defence department, the original respondents in the writ petition.
The litigation however took a different turn with the impleadment of HMT
Ltd., but it appears that no steps were taken to amend the prayer in the writ
petition which remained focused only on the original respondents therein.
The case then proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the land
11
acquired for HMT Ltd.’s benefit was from the balance area of land left with
Putta Narasamma, after the requisitioning of Ac. 10-35 Guntas. In any
event, once that mistaken assumption falls to the ground in the light of the
fact that Putta Narasamma sold the returned extent of Ac. 4-22 Guntas to
Mohd. Ghouse and it was that extent of land which was acquired by the
Government of Mysore for the benefit of HMT Ltd.’s expansion in Jalahalli,
the case of the respondents/writ petitioners also falls to the ground.
12. In K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and
others1, this Court observed that the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary
and the prerogative Writs mentioned therein are issued for doing
substantial justice. This Court, therefore, held that it would be of utmost
necessity that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with
clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing
or suppressing anything and seek appropriate relief. It was further held that
if there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the
petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition should be dismissed
at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The aforestated
principle would apply on all fours to the case on hand, given the clear lack
of bonafides on the part of the respondents/writ petitioners, as is
1
(2008) 12 SCC 481
12
demonstrable from their deliberate suppression of relevant particulars,
which were adverse to the claim that they sought to project in their writ
petition. The filing of the writ petition was, therefore, nothing short of an
abuse of process and did not warrant examination on merits. They were
liable to be non-suited on this short ground.
13. That apart, even as per the respondents/writ petitioners’ own
reckoning and as per their writ averments, their cause of action arose in the
year 1973, when the Union of India and the Defence department allegedly
stopped paying rental compensation. However, it was only in the year 2006
that they chose to file a writ petition. A writ petition should be preferred
within reasonable time, the reasonableness of which would depend on the
facts and circumstances of the case and the relief prayed for. Notably,
delay by the authorities, at times, may constitute a cause of action in itself.
This would be especially true in a case of a live and continuing cause of
action or in the event of failure to perform a mandatory statutory duty. It is,
however, equally true that there can be cases where delay and laches
would be fatal and can result in the dismissal of the writ petition. For
example, when there is an implied acceptance or the issue/dispute
becomes stale/dead or there is a change/alteration in position or if
third-party rights have been created. The above instances are illustrative
13
and are, by no means, exhaustive. A plea of delay and laches would not be
merely technical when facts are in dispute as, over time, evidence may
dissipate and materials, including Government files, may become
increasingly difficult to trace. Further, individuals with knowledge of the
case may move on or become unavailable. The situation is exacerbated for
Government servants, as they face transfers and superannuation. Further,
such deserving dismissals on delay and laches serve a larger purpose, as
time would not be spent unnecessarily on stale and nebulous disputes,
enabling Courts/Tribunals to deal with and decide active pressing cases.
14. Presently, as noted above, the respondents/writ petitioners
repeatedly changed their stands and manoeuvred their position to suit their
advantage. HMT Ltd. and the Union of India were initially handicapped and
were unable to ascertain the facts and locate files, evidence and material.
The Union of India was unable to produce the record relating to the release
of Ac. 4-22 Guntas in the year 1953. At one point, the Union of India even
supported the respondents/writ petitioners and changed its stance only
after relevant facts came to light. HMT Ltd. was, however, able to cull out
material to dent the oscillating and innovative stands of the respondents/
writ petitioners. The irrefutable fact remains that the respondents/writ
petitioners slept over the matter for decades together which, in itself,
14
indicates lack of merit. They should have, therefore, been prevented from
raising issues that were stale and forgotten.
15. It is in this context that this Court, in Syed Maqbool Ali vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2, observed that an aggrieved person
should approach the High Court diligently. Delay in filing a writ petition can
result in prejudice, as parties’ position and status may change. Courts do,
in cases of such delay, insist that the party concerned should have a good
and satisfactory explanation for it. It is only on being satisfied that other
factors would not outweigh grant of relief, can the weighty objection of
delay and laches be rejected. In other words, a Constitutional Court should
be convinced that the case warrants exercise of jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution. In State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar 3, a
3-Judge Bench of this Court had observed that the grant of relief by a
Constitutional Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, without
considering blameworthy conduct, such as delay and laches, would be
unsustainable even if such relief was granted for the alleged deprivation of
a legal right. Discretionary relief, in such circumstances, can only be
obtained upon fully satisfying the Court that the delay was justified and
explainable.
2
(2011) 15 SCC 383
3
(1995) 4 SCC 683
15
16. Though the respondents/writ petitioners would now seek to
place reliance on some internal correspondence of the Ministry of Defence,
Union of India, and the survey maps drawn up pursuant to the orders of the
High Court, we are of the opinion that these documents do not merit
consideration. Such orders were passed in ignorance of the full facts of the
case and the patent lack of bonafides on the part of the respondents/writ
petitioners. Further, the correspondence now produced would necessarily
have to be examined in the context of its genesis and foundation and
cannot be relied upon, at this stage, without proper proof.
17. In any event, the issues that arose in the context of what has
emerged in this case clearly demonstrate that several disputed questions of
fact would come up, which could not have been adjudicated by the High
Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Thus, viewed in any light, W.P. No. 16553 of 2006 filed by the
respondents/writ petitioners ought not to have been entertained. The
judgment dated 05.09.2019 and the order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, allowing the
said writ petition, therefore, cannot be sustained on grounds more than
one.
16
18. The appeals are accordingly allowed and, in consequence, Writ
Petition No. 16553 of 2006 filed by the respondents/writ petitioners shall
stand dismissed in its entirety.
Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.
Though eminently deserving, we refrain from mulcting the
respondents/writ petitioners with punitive and exemplary costs.
………………………..,J
(SANJIV KHANNA)
………………………..,J
(SANJAY KUMAR)
September 24, 2024;
New Delhi.
17