Point of Law: Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with order passed by learned Single Judge in Captioned Special Civil Application appellants beg to prefer present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act on the following rounds and those which may be urged at the time of hearing of present Appeal

JUDGMENT :

VINEET KOTHARI, J.

1. This Intra Court Appeal has been filed against the Order and Judgement of learned Single Judge dated 21.2.2011 dismissing the Special Civil Application No. 14239 of 2010 filed by the Appellant-Patel Nathabhai Ranchhodbhai, Bedipara, Ranchhodnagar Society, Rajkot and Labhuben S.Korat, D/o Ranchhodbhai vs. (1) State of Gujarat, (2) The Rajkot Urban Development Authority (3) The Town Planning Officer, Rajkot, (4) Collector and Private Respondent No.5 Ishwarbhai Savjibhai Patel (6) Hasmukbhai Savjibhai Patel (7) Kishorbhai Savjibhai Patel. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner with the following observations:

“9. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the present petition, which has been filed in the year 2010, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the development permission granted by respondent no. 2 dated 07/10/2005 sanctioning the lay out plan in favour of respondent no. 5. Thus, as such there is a delay of five years in preferring the present petition challenging the development permission dated 07/10/2005. It appears that after the development permission dated 07/10/2005 and sanctioning of the lay out plan, respondents nos. 5 to 7 have submitted the application for Non Agricultural Use Permission for industrial use as per the sanction lay out plan in which affidavits of the petitioners to grant Non Agricultural Use Permission in favour of respondent no. 5 with respect to the entire land in question have been submitted. Thereafter, after the Non Agricultural Use Permission has been granted by the appropriate authority the lands in question have been transferred in favour of third parties and it is stated that approximately more than 14 industrial units are located on the land in question. It also appears that when the application was submitted for development permission in the year 2005 with respect to the proposed Final Plots Form No. 4 was signed by the present petitioners. Even affidavits were duly signed by petitioner no. 1, which was duly affirmed on 31/05/2005 and the same was also attached to the said application and only thereafter and after the draft Town Planning Scheme was sanctioned by the State Government under which it was proposed to allot Final Plot No. 3/1 and 3/2 admeasuring 1,834 sq meters and 20,847 sq meters jointly in lieu of original land bearing Revenue Survey No. 28/1 to 28/4 the development permission has been granted on 07/10/2005 and the lay out plan has been sanctioned, and, therefore, it appears that the petitioners have consented to the said development permission of the entire land and thereafter, after a period of five years the petitioners have raised the objections against the development permission dated 07/10/2005. It appears that for the first time the petitioners have raised the objections in the month of October, 2010 and, therefore, now it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the development permission dated 07/10/2005. ”

2. The learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr.Harshit Tolia has urged before us that the Town Planning Authority had erred in granting the Development Permission on 7.10.2005 and that deserves to be cancelled because the Consolidation of the agricultural land belonging to the Petitioner-Patel Nathabhai Ranchhodbhai and land belonging to Respondent No.5 Ishwarbhai Savjibhai Patel total admeasuring to 36523 sq. mtrs bearing Revenue Survey No.28/1 to 28/4 situated in village Vavdi, Taluka & District Rajkot was without any consent of the Petitioner and the proposed Final Plot No.3/1 and 3/2 admeasuring 1834 sq.mtrs and 28,847 sq.mtrs jointly in favour of Respondent No.5 and the present petitioner-Appellant cannot be sustained and he submitted that the said permission was also under the signatures of the authority who purportedly did not even hold that office on the particular date. He als