S.B.SINHA, V.S.SIRPURKAR
Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. —
Leave granted.
1. Whether suppression of a material fact would entail allowing of an application for condonation of 2205 days delay in filing a review application is the core question involved herein.
2. Appellants were owners of various tracts of lands situated in the town of Vadodara. 10,807 sq. meters of land in survey Nos. 345, 347/1 and 267 in Mazalapur were declared as surplus land under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (for short “the Act”) by the competent authority. An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by an Order dated 4.1.1988 by the appellate authority, stating ;
“As discussed above, no contention of the appellant is acceptable and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Competent Authority and therefore the following order is passed.
The appeal of the appellant is dismissed. The impugned order dated 12/07/1984 passed by the competent authority is confirmed.
The injunction orders passed by this office is vacated.
The order be informed to the parties.”
3. All contentions raised by the appellants were considered therein. It was allowed to attain finality.
4. Notification under Section 10
None of the cases provided in the list are identified as overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as "bad law." The case *Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat* (2008) 12 SCC 353 is consistently cited as a prevailing precedent throughout the provided excerpts.
### CATEGORY: Followed/Relied Upon
The vast majority of the provided excerpts cite *Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat* (2008) 12 SCC 353 as a governing authority, relying on its principles regarding fraud, dispossession, and the effect of subsequent procedures.
* **Ranganayakamma VS K. S. Prakash (D) by L. Rs. - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 933, STATE OF U. P. VS DAYA SAGAR - 2010 0 Supreme(All) 3892, Babulal Data VS Intellectual Property Appellate Board - 2014 0 Supreme(Guj) 869, Vidhyadhar Sunda VS State - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 353, Rambha Narayana Murthy VS Nimmagadda Eswara Venkata Narasimha Rao - 2016 0 Supreme(AP) 648, VALUE ADVISORY SERVICES VS ZTE CORPORATION - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 1961, Padma Shamrao Patil VS President Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1141, Showkat Ahmad Mir VS Union of India - 2018 0 Supreme(J&K) 982, Ghousai Begum VS Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District - 2018 0 Supreme(AP) 793, Yadav Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. VS J. D. Gandhi Constructions - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 352, Yadav Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. VS J. d. Gandhi Constructions - Bombay (2022), BARVALA NAGAR PALIKA VS RAIYABEN KALUBHAI GALECHAL - 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 516, Niranjan Toppo VS Union of India through Directorate General, CRPF, Ministry of Home Affairs - 2023 0 Supreme(Jhk) 360, Maheshbhai Ramanbhai Patel VS Karmajyot Co-Operative Hosg. Society Ltd - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 1855, Shalini Saincher vs Sayeeda Abood - 2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 1443:** These entries explicitly reference *Ganpatbhai* as legal authority to support arguments, reiterate principles of law (specifically regarding fraud), or provide historical case law background. The language used (e.g., "reliance is placed on," "reiterated," "law laid down by") indicates that the case remains a positive, followed authority.
### CATEGORY: Cited as Contextual Support
* **Institute Of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences VS Govt. of NCT of Delhi - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 746, Aijaz Ahmad Malik VS State Of J&K - 2013 0 Supreme(J&K) 597, VIMAL JAIN VS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 3200, Sant Kumar Netam VS Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi - 2020 0 Supreme(Chh) 426:** These cases reference *Ganpatbhai* to define the scope of issues being analyzed. For example, VIMAL JAIN VS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 3200 notes that the Supreme Court was "called upon to consider a somewhat similar scenario," using the precedent to interpret the facts of the current matter rather than being challenged or invalidated.
* **Prabhakara Kammath VS Tahasildar, Devikulam Taluk - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 878:** This entry contains a discussion regarding "assigned land" and the "absence of production of any evidence by the State." It does not mention a specific case title or explicit judicial treatment pattern. It is categorized here as uncertain because the legal relationship to the other cases in the list cannot be definitively determined from the snippet provided.
* **State Of Haryana VS M. P. Mohla - 2006 9 Supreme 31:** This entry discusses the impact of a judgment in a general sense ("The effect of a judgment may have to be considered afresh..."). It does not reference a specific case or a treatment pattern for a primary precedent. It is categorized as uncertain as it appears to be a general legal observation rather than a treatment record for a specific case.
* **Jambuveni VS Leelavathy - 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 30:** This snippet lists several cases including *Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki*. However, due to the fragmented nature of the text (e.g., "(xv) T."), the specific legal context of the citation regarding the State Road Transport Corporation is ambiguous.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.