ORDER :

1. The present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.12.2021 in Special Civil Application No. 15632 of 2020.

2. The brief background of the facts are that the land bearing sub-plot No. 25 was originally jointly possessed by respondent Nos. 5 to 8 herein who applied for grant of permission to put up construction on the said sub-plot by filing necessary application. The said application was filed before respondent No. 1-corporation somewhere in the month of January, 2018. According to appellants, without seeking any consent, respondent Nos. 5 to 8 sold the said sub-plot No. 25 to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by execution of a Deed of Conveyance on 17.07.2019, which was registered before the competent authority bearing registration No. 9396.

2.1 It is the case of the appellants that they are joint owners of Final Plots No. 249, 281 to 286, admeasuring 35122 sq. yards, located within the revenue limits of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (Paldi). Inter se revenue disputes are going on between the appellants and respondent No. 2-society wherein at one point of time, on 30.10.2017, the Mamlatdar was pleased to pass an order for deletion of name of respondent No. 2-society and name of Saurashtra Housing Society was mutated in the second right column. It is the case of the appellants that though there is no locus either to the so-called members of respondent No. 2 - society for making an application for grant of permission before respondent No. 1, same was made. According to appellants, the application seeking permission for development was not filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and said application will have to be made either by the developer or the owner as the case may be under the provisions of Comprehensive General Development Control Regulations (CGDCR) and the competent authority while dealing with such kind of applications is expected to bear in mind the aspect as to whether co-owner of the property has given any consent or not. Though under the extant regulations, namely, CGDCR, the owner will have to make such application, the application, which was preferred in the month of January, 2018, was filed by erstwhile owners i.e. respondent Nos. 5 to 8.

2.2 The appellants have submitted that after the Deed of Conveyance on 17.07.2019, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were required to prefer another application seeking development of sub-plot No. 25 and then by making certain allegations on the society, a grievance is raised that respondent No. 1 has entertained the application and passed an order on 23.10.2020 whereby development permission for sub-plot No. 25 came to be granted in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and it is this order, passed by respondent No. 1, which was made subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 15632 of 2020. Said writ application came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge who by oral order dated 14.12.2021 was pleased to dismiss the petition and it is this order which is now the subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeal insofar as it relates to Special Civil Application No. 15632 of 2020.

3. Initially, Letters Patent Appeal was filed by H. L. Patel Advocates, but later on, Mr. D.K. Puj, learned advocate has appeared on instructions from the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 105 of 2022 and accordingly, we heard Mr. D.K. Puj, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellants.

4. Mr. D.K. Puj, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellants - original petitioners has vehemently contended that it was the joint ownership of the plot, the development permission could not have been granted by respondent No. 2 ignoring the ownership rights which are seriously in controversy. It has further been contended that under the provisions of CGDCR, the owner of the land is required to apply for development permission and there is no material to indicate the said aspect of ownership of sub-plot No. 25. Undisputedly, the sub