Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 818

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
HMT Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rukmini and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 10805 & 10806 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 30584-85 of 2019), Civil Appeal No.10807 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13035 of 2020) and Civil Appeal No. 10808 of 2024 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22413 of 2024) (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 17543 of 2020)
Decided on : 24-09-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mr. Samyak Jain, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar Lal, AOR Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Mohd Akhil, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Adv. Mr. Manish, Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanyam, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. S. Naganand, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raghavendra Srivatsa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok Bannidinni, AOR Mr. M. R. Vijayakumar, Adv. Mr. Balaji G. Naidu, Adv. Mr. Balaji Naidu, Adv. Mr. S. G. Prashanth Murthy, Adv. Mr. Mallikarjun S. Mylar, Adv. Mr. Joseph Chaluvaraj, Adv. Mr. Sandeep R, Adv. Ms. Betsara Mylliemngap, Adv. Mr. K. V. Muthu Kumar, AOR Ms. Sarita Kanwar, Adv. Mr. Raghavendra Srivatsa, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Balaji Naidu, Adv. Mr. A. Manjunatha, Adv. Mr. S.G. Prashanthmurthy, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Babu V J, Adv. Mr. Pramodh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv. Mr. C T Venkatesh Reddy, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Mohd Akhil, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Adv. Mr. Manish, Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanyam, Adv. Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mr. Samyak Jain, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar Lal, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction – Writ petition should be preferred within reasonable time – Constitutional Court should be convinced that case warrants exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution.

Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Invocation of – Writ petition should be preferred within reasonable time, reasonableness of which would depend on facts and circumstances of case and relief prayed for – Delay by 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 – However, there can be cases where delay and laches would be fatal and can result in dismissal of writ petition – 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 – Respondents/writ petitioners repeatedly changed their stands and manoeuvred their position to suit their advantage – They slept over the matter for decades together which, in itself, indicates lack of merit – They should have been prevented from raising issues that were stale and forgotten – Constitutional Court should be convinced that case warrants exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution – Several disputed questions of fact would come up which could not have been adjudicated by High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution – Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
By Judgment dated 05.09.2019, a Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka, allowed Writ Appeal No. 17584 of 2011 and reversed order dated 24.05.2010 passed by a Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 16553 of 2006. Division Bench directed HMT Ltd., to vacate and handover identified land to appellants/writ petitioners or, in alternative, Union of India and officials of its Defence department, along with HMT Ltd., respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in writ appeal, were held jointly and severally liable to pay current guidance value of land, as fixed by State Government for non-agricultural land in square feet.
Findings of Court:
Writ Petition No. 16553 of 2006 filed by the respondents/writ petitioners dismissed in its entirety.
Result : Writ Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR, J

1. Leave granted.

2. By judgment dated 05.09.2019, a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, allowed Writ Appeal No. 17584 of 2011 and reversed the order dated 24.05.2010 passed by a learned Judge 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.

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 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 o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document