2008 (3) TMI 724 - SC - Indian Laws

Court Dismisses Appeal Over 2205-Day Delay; Appellant Accused of Misleading Court Under Urban Land Ceiling Act.

Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki Versus State of Gujarat & Ors

The HC dismissed the appellant's appeal, refusing to condone a 2205-day delay in filing a review application. The appellant was accused of suppressing ... Huge of Delay 2205 days in filing a review application - Whether suppression of a material fact would entail allowing of an application for condonation - HELD THAT:- We are 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 events to happen, viz. sales of the lands have taken up, constructions have come up, but the question which arises for our consideration is as to whether even in such a situation, this Court would allow a suppression of fact to prevail. It is now 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 same. 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 1999 Act which led to withdrawal 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. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the merit of the matter as also the question in regard to adjustment of equities may be considered by the High Court. We, for the foregoing in exercise of our jurisdiction in Article 136 of the Constitution of India refuse to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Issues Involved:1. Whether suppression of a material fact warrants condonation of a 2205-day delay in filing a review application.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Suppression of Material Fact and Condonation of Delay- The case involves the owners of surplus lands under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, where various legal proceedings were initiated.- The appellant's appeal was dismissed in 1988, leading to further notifications and actions under the Act.- Subsequent litigations, appeals, and orders were passed, including possession being taken over and allotments made to weaker sections of society.- The appellant was accused of suppressing facts and misleading the court in subsequent legal actions.- The Act was repealed in 1999, leading to withdrawal of certain petitions by the State.- The High Court allowed an application to recall an order, which was upheld in a Letters Patent Appeal.- The appellant argued against the condonation of delay, citing subsequent events and the conduct of the State.- The respondent contended that the appellant committed fraud by suppressing the appellate order and misleading authorities.- The court highlighted the principle that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and emphasized the importance of not allowing suppression of facts to prevail.- The judgment referred to legal precedents regarding fraud practiced on the court and the consequences of such actions.- The court stressed the need to uphold the object and purport of statutes and consider equities while ensuring justice and compliance with social justice principles.- The statutory rights of allottees were recognized, despite the State's lack of awareness of legal implications post the Act's repeal.- An extraordinary situation was acknowledged, suggesting the need for an extraordinary order.- The court referred to a case where delay was condoned due to the denial of the right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal.- Ultimately, the court refused to interfere with the impugned judgment, dismissing the appeal with costs.This detailed analysis covers the core issue of suppression of material facts and the condonation of delay in the context of the legal proceedings and actions taken under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976.