The court ruled that jurisdictions must reflect adherence to statutory procedures, emphasizing the need for transparency and honesty by litigants in judicial proceedings.

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellants - original petitioners against the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 21.10.2019 in Special Civil Application No.13578 of 2019.

2. The background on which the present appeal has arisen is that the appellants - petitioners have filed the petition for challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 17.7.2019 in purported exercise of the power under S.70 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act , 1976 ('the Act' for short). By invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction, the appellants raised the grievance that originally, the development permission and layout plan were sanctioned for the Scheme of 50 residential tenements, proposed on the land bearing consolidated Final Plot No.2+6+ (12+13) / 1 of the said Town Planning Scheme allotted in lieu of the land bearing Survey Nos.497/1, 498 / P, 500/1, 500/2, 500/3 and 508 / P of Village Thaltej, subject to submission of NA permission for the land bearing original plot under S.65 of the Land Revenue Code. Sanctioned letter dated 18.2.2006 was attached to the petition. It was pointed out that NA permission was issued with respect to Survey Nos.500/1, 500/2, 500/3, over which the layout was also sanctioned and the development permission was issued originally to put up the construction of 13 tenements. Later on, upon revised layout plan being submitted, the authority had sanctioned 48 residential tenements proposed on the land bearing Final Plot, as indicated above, on condition that existing work to be removed. The said revised layout which was sanctioned dated 27.6.2011 is reflecting on compilation at page 49.

3. It was further the case of the appellants - petitioners that the members of the appellant society purchased tenements constructed on the land with NA permission of the said Scheme by registered sale documents in the year 2008 and became owner. It was also submitted that while sanctioning the revised layout plan for 48 residential tenements, proposed on land bearing the said final plot allotted in lieu of the said original plot with proportionate part of Final Plot No.2 allotted in lieu of the land bearing Survey Nos.498 / P denoted as “land without NA”, marked with hash and issued revised development permission for carrying out the construction of 25 tenements proposed on the land with NA permission with a special conditions that no development permission is granted for any construction in land marked with hash in the layout plan and secondly, the development permission is granted subject to removal of construction of tenement No.B / 1, B / 28, B / 29, B / 30 and B / 31 marked with 'existing work to be removed'. It was the case of the appellants - original petitioners that by way of registered sale deeds executed during 2011-2014, the appellants became co - owner of the common plot and are in possession thereof since the common plot has been vested in the appellant society. After sanction of the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.37 / A (Thaltej), the Town Planning Officer (TPO) was appointed to sub-divide the Town Planning Scheme into preliminary scheme and a final scheme and thereafter process went on. Initially, within a period of 20 days, according to the appellants, no objections were received against the action of sub-division of Final Plot No.2, but then despite the fact that in view of S.51 of the Act, there is no power to enlarge the time, still the objections which were received after 500 days almost, the authority processed the further steps but by that time, accordi