Read why SC reversed Karnataka HC’s decision directing HMT & Defence Ministry to return acquired land to landowner’s successors

Supreme Court: In a batch of civil appeals by HMT Ltd. and Union of India and its officials in its Defence department, against the decision of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, directing the present appellants/ respondents in writ appeal to vacate and handover the identified land to the present respondents/writ petitioners or, in the alternative, the Union of India and to 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, the Division Bench of Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar*, JJ. set aside the impugned decision, noting that the respondents/writ petitioners cleverly withheld the details to maintain their claim against the Union of India and its Defence department, the original respondents in the writ petition.

Genesis

The genesis of the matter lay in a property, which was requisitioned by the Ministry of Defence under the provisions of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (‘the Act of 1952’). The prayer of the respondents herein was to direct the appellants herein 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. In the impugned decision, the respondents therein 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 present respondents, legal heirs and successors of the land owner submitted that the land was lying fallow and was not being used for any purpose and, therefore, the appellants 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 several requests to the respondents to hand over vacant possession of the land were made or, in the alternative, pay rental compensation according to the present market rate of the produce that they would get on reasonable assessment.

Analysis and Decision

Perusing full records, the Court noted that the Ministry of Defence requisitioned portion of the land belonging to A in 1941. The Ministry then released Ac. 4-22 Guntas out of the requisitioned area in favour of the landowner in 1953. The landowner sold this extent of Ac. 4-22 Guntas in Survey Nos. 21 and 22 of Jarakabande Kaval Village to B. Thereafter, by Notification dated 30-06-1958, the Government of Mysore acquired the land sold to B, 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. 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.

Further, the Court noted that, earlier, 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 landowner in favour of B; 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 land owner.

The Court mentioned that the respondents/writ petitioners did not disclose any of these relevant facts in their writ petition and deliberately chose to suppress not only the sale but also the crucial fact that the land so sold was returned by the Ministry of Defence in 1953. Though the Division Bench was apprised of the sale in favour of B, the fact that this sale pertained to the returned land was not within its knowledge, as is clear from the impugned judgment.

The Court relied on K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited, (2008) 12 SCC 481, wherein, it was 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.

On the aspect of delay of the writ petition, the Court pointed out that 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 Ministry 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. The Court stated that- 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.