The Supreme Court of India has underscored the importance of filing writ petitions with full disclosure and within a reasonable timeframe. In its judgment delivered by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, the Court dismissed a writ petition that had been delayed by decades, emphasizing that “delay and laches can lead to dismissal without considering the merits.”
The decision came in the case of HMT Ltd. v. Smt. Rukmini & Others (Civil Appeal Nos. [Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 30584-85 of 2019]). The apex court overturned the Karnataka High Court’s 2019 ruling, which had directed HMT Ltd. and the Union of India to either return disputed land in Bangalore or pay compensation to the petitioners.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned land in Jarakabande Kaval Village, Bangalore, that had been requisitioned by the Ministry of Defence in 1941 under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The land in question originally belonged to Putta Narasamma, the predecessor of the petitioners. In 1973, part of the land was formally acquired by the government, but the petitioners claimed that portions of the land remained unacquired and that they were owed compensation from 1973 onwards.
In 2006, over three decades after the alleged cessation of rental payments, the heirs of Narasamma filed a writ petition demanding either the return of the unacquired land or compensation. The Karnataka High Court initially dismissed the writ petition in 2010 on grounds of delay and laches but reversed its decision in 2019, ordering HMT Ltd. and the Union of India to pay compensation.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Delay and Laches: The Court dealt extensively with the issue of delay in filing the writ petition. The petitioners approached the court 46 years after the alleged cause of action arose, which the Supreme Court deemed unreasonable.
2. Concealment of Facts: The petitioners were found to have failed to disclose critical facts, including the sale of part of the disputed land to a third party, Mohd. Ghouse, in 1955. This omission was deemed a deliberate attempt to mislead the court.
3. Bonafides of the Petitioners: The Supreme Court reiterated that writ petitioners must come to court with “clean hands” and full disclosure of material facts. The Court cited its earlier judgment in K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., emphasizing that lack of transparency or suppression of facts could result in outright dismissal of the petition.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of HMT Ltd. and the Union of India, setting aside the 2019 Karnataka High Court order. The bench concluded that the petitioners’ conduct, marked by deliberate suppression of facts and substantial delay, amounted to an abuse of the judicial process.
Quoting from its judgment, the Court stated, “A writ petition should be filed with full disclosure of relevant facts, and when there is unreasonable delay, such petitions should be dismissed without even considering the merits.”
The Court also observed that delay and laches, especially when exceeding several decades, could result in loss of evidence and key documentation, making it difficult for respondents to defend their case. It added that such petitions should not be entertained as they consume valuable judicial time that could be spent on more pressing disputes.
The appeals filed by HMT Ltd. and the Union of India were upheld, and the writ petition filed by the respondents was dismissed in its entirety. The Court, however, refrained from imposing punitive costs on the petitioners, despite finding them guilty of misleading the court.
