JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.01.2020, passed by the Additional Development Commissioner, Gandhinagar, and further for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Appellate Committee, District Panchayat, Surat.

2. The facts in brief are as under:-

2.1 The petitioner, acquired land bearing City Survey No. 386 in the year 1986 and thereafter in the year 1995 through a registered Sale Deed purchased City Survey No.387. According to the petitioner both plots merged into one as plot admeasuring 431.43 sq. Mtrs. It was given a new City Survey no. 386. The revenue records show the Entry as 3/327 and 3/328.

2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that before the Gram Panchayat, Olpad, the petitioner filed an application on 15.11.2016 seeking permission to construct a five storeyed building consisting of commercial as well as residential premises. The Gram Panchayat, Olpad, granted such permission by a resolution dated 23.11.2016, for the purposes of such construction. The petitioner, pursuant to the permission, carried out such construction and sold certain shops by executing the registered sale deed.

2.3 The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.6, on 19.06.2018, preferrred an appeal being Appeal Application no. 18 of 2018 to the Appellate Committee, District Panchayat, Surat, challenging the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Olpad, dated 15.11.2016 and the permission granted to the petitioner dated 23.11.2016. The Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat allowed the appeal and by the order impugned dated 25.07.2019, cancelled the permission granted in favour of the petitioner dated 23.11.2016.

2.4 Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred a Revision Application being Revision Application No. 45 of 2019 before the learned Addl. Development Commissioner, Gandhinagar, who by the impugned order, remanded the proceedings to the Appellate Committee opining that it was not correct for the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat to cancel the permission in its entirety. However, it observed while remanding the matter and partly allowing the revision that the Appellate Committee should reconsider the resolution dated 15.11.2016, the building permission dated 23.11.2016 be reconsidered in accordance with the resolution of the Government dated 28.02.1989 and the permission be amended accordingly. The authority further directed that it is open for the Panchayat to consider the question of the additional construction according to the law and give appropriate directions. These orders are under challenge before this Court.

3. Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit as under:

3.1 Drawing the attention of the Court to the resolution dated 15.11.2016, and the application seeking permission, it was ul Mr.Buch’s submission that the resolution was passed by the Olpad Gram Panchayat with a specific condition. The permission was esentially in accordance with law for construction of one plus four floor that is a five storeyed building keeping in mind the location on the road and the fact that the building was abutting the road. Plans were furnished to the Olpad Gram Panchayat with the building permission and therefore there was no reason for the District Panchayat’s Appellate Committee to cancel the permission

3.2 Mr. Buch, learned advocate, would submit that an application at the hands of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 was an attempt to settle personal scores in view of the fact that in the year 2018 the respondent No. 6 had filed a Special Civil Suit No. 98 of 2018 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat, which was pending, wherein, when the plaintiff had sought an injunction restraining the petitioner’s construction of the subject premises, he had failed.

3.3 Mr. Buch, learned advocate, would also invite the attention of the Court to the provisions