Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Judgment That Directed HMT & Union To Return Land Acquired By Them In Bengaluru
The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which directed HMT Ltd. and Union of India to either return land in Bangalore's Jarakabande Kaval village to heirs of a previous owner from whom it was requisitioned in 1941 or to compensate them by paying the present market value.The Court noted that the writ petition filed in the Karnataka High Court in 2006 was barred by...
The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which directed HMT Ltd. and Union of India to either return land in Bangalore's Jarakabande Kaval village to heirs of a previous owner from whom it was requisitioned in 1941 or to compensate them by paying the present market value.
The Court noted that the writ petition filed in the Karnataka High Court in 2006 was barred by delay and laches. The Court also noted that the petitioner had suppressed several crucial facts.
Though the cause of action for the petition arose in 1973 when they claimed the Defence Department stopped paying rental compensation, but they waited until 2006—more than three decades later—to file the writ petition before the HC.
“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”, a bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar held.
The case involved approximately 10 acres of land owned by one Putta Narasamma in the Jarakabande Kaval village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. In 1941, the land was requisitioned by the Ministry of Defence during World War II under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, for defence purposes. Later, in 1973, about 5 acres of the land were permanently acquired by the government. However, a portion of the requisitioned land was released back to Narasamma in 1953.
Narasamma's heirs filed a writ petition in 2006 seeking compensation for the land that had been requisitioned in 1941 but not fully acquired. They claimed that the remaining portion of the land was lying unused by the Defence Department and should either be returned or compensated at present market rates. They also sought rental compensation from 1973, when the land was acquired, until the date of redelivery or payment.
HMT Ltd. argued it had legally acquired parts of the land in 1958, built a compound wall, and had been in possession since then.
The single judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition in 2010, noting that the claim was brought over 40 years after the land was acquired and thus barred by delay and laches.
In the intra court appeal, the HC Division Bench reversed the single judge's decision and directed HMT Ltd. to either vacate and hand over the land to the respondents or compensate them at the current market rate for non-agricultural land. The court also imposed a 6 percent annual interest on rental compensation due from 1973 to the date of payment.
Thus, HMT Ltd. and the Union of India challenged the judgment in the present appeal.
Before the Supreme Court, new facts emerged that had been suppressed during the writ petition and the High Court appeal.
The Supreme Court noted that Narasamma had sold a portion of the land—specifically the 4 acres and 22 guntas released by the Defence Department in 1953—to Mohammad Ghouse. Further, the land sold to Ghouse had been acquired by the State of Mysore in 1958 for the expansion of HMT Ltd., which had been in possession of the land since then. Thus, the land for HMT Ltd.'s benefit was not out of the balance land in the possession of the Putta Narasamma.
The respondents had concealed this information in their writ petition, which was critical to understanding the rightful ownership of the disputed land, the Court noted.
“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”, the Court stated.
The Court observed that they did not disclose the sale to Ghouse or the subsequent acquisition for HMT Ltd. in 1958. The respondets' claim was predicated on the false assertion that the land acquired by HMT Ltd. was still part of the original requisitioned land, the Court highlighted. Due to the omission and the intentional suppression of facts, the filing of the writ petition was an abuse of process and did not warrant examination on merits, the Court held, adding that the respondents were liable to be non-suited on this short ground.
“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 case then proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the land 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”, the Court held.
The Supreme Court also upheld the HC Single Judge's reasoning that the petition was barred by delay and laches. Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Karnataka HC's Division Bench.
Case no. – Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 30584-85 of 2019
Case Title – HMT Ltd. v. Smt. Rukmini and Ors.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 743