Supreme Court dismisses appeal due to delay & misleading conduct; upholds handover of built-up area.

The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court due to the appellant's delay in filing the writ petition and special leave petition, unsatisfactory explanations for the delay, and misleading conduct. The Court noted the appellant's inaction in obtaining possession of the acquired land, the development and rehabilitation of slum dwellers on the land, and the appellant's suppression of material facts. The appellant's prayer for a mandamus to deliver possession was rejected, and the High Court's order directing the handover of built-up area free of cost was upheld, emphasizing the appellant's agreement to the arrangement.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the writ petition and special leave petition.
2. Non-delivery of possession of acquired land.
3. Development and rehabilitation of slum dwellers on the acquired land.
4. Allegations of suppression of material facts and misleading statements by the appellant.
5. Prayer for mandamus to deliver possession of the acquired land.
6. Entitlement to built-up area free of cost.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Writ Petition and Special Leave Petition:
The appellant filed the writ petition almost three decades after the award for land acquisition was pronounced and sought intervention from the Supreme Court after a delay of 401 days. The appellant's explanation for the delay was found to be unsatisfactory and misleading. The Court noted that the appellant's senior management was aware of the High Court's order long before it claimed to have known, as evidenced by the correspondence exchanged between the appellant's officers and respondent No.5. The Court held that the appellant's conduct in seeking intervention with unclean hands warranted rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay.

2. Non-Delivery of Possession of Acquired Land:
The appellant sought a mandamus to direct the respondents to hand over vacant possession of the acquired land. The land was occupied by slum dwellers, and despite numerous correspondences between the appellant and various government functionaries, possession was not delivered. The Court noted the appellant's inaction between 1998 and 2006 and the subsequent developments, including the approval of a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and the construction of buildings for slum dwellers.

3. Development and Rehabilitation of Slum Dwellers on the Acquired Land:
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai sanctioned the redevelopment of the plot for the rehabilitation of 495 slum dwellers, who formed a cooperative housing society. The society entered into a development agreement with respondent No.5, who completed the construction of rehabilitation buildings and handed over 600 units to the slum dwellers. The Court observed that the appellant's delay and inaction contributed to the situation where the land was developed and occupied by slum dwellers.

4. Allegations of Suppression of Material Facts and Misleading Statements by the Appellant:
The Court found that the appellant deliberately withheld material facts and made misleading statements in its application for condonation of delay. The appellant's senior management was aware of the High Court's order and the correspondence regarding the built-up area to be provided by respondent No.5. The Court emphasized that a party seeking relief must disclose all material facts and not mislead the Court.

5. Prayer for Mandamus to Deliver Possession of the Acquired Land:
The Court rejected the appellant's prayer for a mandamus to deliver possession of the acquired land, citing the appellant's delay and the developments that had taken place in the intervening period. The Court noted that the appellant had not filed a petition for review of the High Court's order and had virtually agreed to accept the built-up area free of cost.

6. Entitlement to Built-Up Area Free of Cost:
The High Court directed respondent No.5 to hand over 1706 sq. meters of built-up area to the appellant free of cost. The appellant's counsel and officers had exchanged correspondence with respondent No.5 regarding the construction and handover of the built-up area. The Court held that the appellant could not now challenge the High Court's order, as it had agreed to the arrangement and engaged in discussions for the execution of a separate MOU for the built-up area.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed as barred by time and also on merits. The Court found that the appellant had not approached with clean hands, had delayed seeking relief, and had engaged in misleading conduct. The Court emphasized the importance of disclosing all material facts and acting promptly when seeking judicial intervention.

---