GANPATBHAI MAHIJIBHAI SOLANKI versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 938 · Decided: 04-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 938 
A 
GANPATBHAI MAHIJIBHAI SOLANKI 
t 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 2008) 
B 
MARCH 4, 2008 
(S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) 
, 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
c 
Condonation of delay - Surplus land - Appeal against, 
dismissed by appellate authority in 1988 - Allotment of 
surplus land to weaker section of society - Another appeal 
filed by original landowners in 1995 was partly allowed by 
appellate authority - Filing of suits by original owner of land 
seeking interim injunction against State from taking 
D possession of suit land - Dismissed by trial Court on ground . 
of suppressing material fact and for misleading the Court -
f 
Affirmed by High Court - Correctness of - On appeal, Held: 
Fraud vitiate all solemn acts - When an order is obtained by 
committing fraud on court, even the principles of natural justice 
E need not be complied with for setting aside the order- In case 
of conflicting interest, the Court may adjust equities, but under 
no circumstances it should refuse to consider merit of the case 
when its attention was drawn about suppression of material 
facts/commission of fraud on Court - While considering 
F condonation of delay, the principle of the administration of 
~ 
justice need to be followed - In terms thereof, legal process 
r' 
should be finite - Re-opening a case after a delay of 
considerable period of time runs counter to the principle -
However, in exercise of power under Article 136 of the 
G Constitution, it would not be appropriate for the Supreme Court 
to interfere with the impugned order - Principles of 
administration of justice - requirements of - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Article 136 - Scope of - Urban Land Ceiling 
Act, 1976 with repealing Act of 1999. 
~ 
H 
938 
GANPATBHAI MAHIJIBHAI SOLANKI v. STATE OF 
939 
GUJARAT & ORS. 
The question which arose for consideration in this A 
appeal was as to whether suppression of a material fact 
would entail allowing of an application for condonation 
of delay in filing a review petition. 
Appellant contended that the High Court committed B 
a serious error in passing the impugned judgments, by 
reason whereof not only 2205 days delay has been 
condoned, but a litigation is sought to be revived which 
would end in futility having regard to the conduct of the 
State and the subsequent events. 
c 
Respondent submitted that the appellant had 
committed a fraud on the Court as it had suppressed the 
material fact about passing of appellate order dated 
4.1.1988 while preferring another appeal after 11 years of 
the passing of the original order dated 12.7.1984. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:. 1.1 Th.is Court is not oblivious of the fact that 
the authorities of the State have made a complete goof 
up with the situation. By its action, it allowed subsequent E 
events to happen. (Para - 13) [945-B] 
1.2 It is a well settled principle that fraud vitiates all 
solemn acts. If an order is obtained by reason of 
' 
commission of fraud, even the principles of natural justice 
are not required to be complied with for setting aside the 
F 
y 
same. (Para - 13) [945-C, DJ 
T Vijendradas and Another Vs. M. Subramanian & 
~ 
Others 2007 (12) SCALE 1 - relied on. 
1.3 If there is a conflicting interest, the Court may G 
adjust equities but under no circumstance it should refuse 
to consider the merit of the matter, when its attention is 
drawn that suppression of material facts has taken place 
or commission of fraud on Court has been committed. 
The courts, for the aforementioned purpose may have to H 
940 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 3 S.C.R. 
A consider the respective rights of the parties. The State 
t 
has a constitutional duty/obligation to comply with the 
principle of social justice as adumbrated under Section 
23 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and take the decision to 
their logical conclusion. (Para - 14) (945-G; 946-A, BJ 
B 
2.1 In the instant case, the allottees have acquired a 
statutory right. Only because the State was not aware of 
+ .. 
the factual position and/or the legal implication of the 
provisions under the Repealed Act which led to withdrawal 
c 
of the writ petition from the High Court, the same by itself 
may not be sufficient to deprive the allottees from their 
legal right to hold the said land. (Para - 15) (946-B, C] 
2.2 The Court of Appeal in the case of Smith Vs. 
Kvaerner Cementation Foundations Ltd condoned the delay 
D on the ground that the a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.