On September 5, 2019, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court reversed a prior ruling regarding a land dispute involving HMT Ltd. and the Union of India, impacting the heirs of Putta Narasamma, the original landowner. The court directed HMT Ltd. to vacate approximately 4.5 acres of land in Jarakabande Kaval Village, Bengaluru, and established financial liabilities for both HMT Ltd. and the Union of India for rental compensation dating back to 1973.

The land in question was initially requisitioned by the Ministry of Defence in 1941 and subsequently acquired in 1973. The original owners, including Putta Narasamma, claimed that parts of their land were not utilized and sought compensation and possession of the remaining land. The earlier ruling in May 2010 had dismissed their claims on the grounds of significant delay, stating that the petition had been filed 46 years post-acquisition.

The Division Bench found merit in the appeal filed by the heirs of Putta Narasamma, criticizing HMT Ltd. and the Defence department for their failure to comply with previous legal obligations. They determined that the original landowners were entitled to rental compensation and that the delay in addressing their claims was unjustified.

However, upon reviewing the case, it became evident that crucial details were omitted by the petitioners. For instance, it was revealed that Putta Narasamma had sold a portion of the land to Mohd. Ghouse in 1955, which had previously been returned by the Ministry of Defence. This vital piece of information was not disclosed in the original writ petition, leading the court to question the integrity of the claims made by the petitioners.

The Supreme Court noted that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary and requires parties to come with "clean hands." The court emphasized the importance of full disclosure in legal proceedings and identified the suppression of facts as a significant reason for dismissing the writ petition.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of promptness in filing writ petitions, asserting that significant delays could lead to the dismissal of claims due to stale evidence and changing circumstances.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals from HMT Ltd. and the Union of India, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. The ruling underscored the importance of transparency in legal claims and the challenges posed by delay in asserting rights over property. The case serves as a reminder of the judicial system's reliance on accurate representations of fact and the obligation of petitioners to disclose all relevant information.