The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal by HMT Ltd., dismissing the writ petition filed by the heirs of Putta Narasamma after several decades. The Court found that the petitioners had concealed material facts regarding the sale of the disputed land and waited for over 30 years to file the petition. The land in question was requisitioned for military purposes and later acquired by the Ministry of Defence. HMT Ltd. acquired a portion of the land, and the petitioners sought compensation and possession of the remainder. However, due to delay, laches, and suppression of facts, the Court ruled in favor of HMT Ltd. and dismissed the petition.

1. Background of the Case
The land in question, owned by the petitioners' predecessor, was requisitioned by the Ministry of Defence under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The Union of India acquired portions of this land in 1973, and HMT Ltd. also acquired some portions in 1958 for industrial expansion.

2. Petitioners' Claims
The petitioners sought rental compensation from 1973 and the return of the remaining unacquired land. They claimed the Defence Department had stopped paying compensation and requested possession of the unutilized land.

3. High Court Proceedings
Initially, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition due to the 46-year delay in filing and the disputed facts. However, the Division Bench reversed this decision and ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing HMT Ltd. to either vacate the land or pay compensation.

4. Key Issues

• The petitioners did not disclose that their predecessor had sold portions of the land in 1955.
• HMT Ltd. had acquired the land lawfully, and the petitioners' claims of ongoing possession were inaccurate.
• The petition was filed in 2006, decades after the acquisition, raising issues of delay, laches, and evidentiary challenges.

5. Supreme Court's Judgment
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, holding that the petitioners had concealed critical facts and that their delay in approaching the court was unjustified. The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of suppression of material facts and significant delay.

Legal Provisions Discussed

• Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952: The land requisition and subsequent acquisitions by the Ministry of Defence were governed under this Act.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The Court emphasized the equitable nature of writ jurisdiction, stating that petitioners must approach the court with clean hands and disclose all material facts.

Ratio Decidendi

• Delay and Laches: The petitioners filed the writ after a delay of several decades, without a valid explanation, making their claims stale.
• Suppression of Facts: The deliberate withholding of key facts regarding the sale of the disputed land undermined their case.
• Extraordinary Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction requires petitioners to act diligently and transparently.

Subjects:

• Land Acquisition
• Delay and Laches
• Suppression of Facts
• Requisition and Acquisition Act
• Article 226 Jurisdiction