Judgment Vijay Manohar Sahai, J.—The board has been revised, no one appears for the appellant, though Mr. Dhirendra Mehta appearing for Respondent No. 1, Mr. Hardik Raval appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Ms. Krina Calla, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent No. 2, are present. 2. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the order dated 8th December 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 14902 of 2010, by which the Special Civil Application was dismissed for the reasons mentioned in Paragraph No. 4.1 of the judgment dated 8th December 2010, which is extracted below: “4.1. Besides, the petitioner has chosen not to challenge order of Collector dated21st July 2009 and approached Collector by another application, which again came to be rejected and thereafter, he approached the Officer on Special Duty-Joint Secretary in the government. The object of motivating force of the petitioner seems to be, to see that the Respondent No. 1 is restrained from putting up construction on the land in question. Once the application was considered by the Collector and was rejected by order dated 21st July 2009, the petitioner could have proceed with the Appeal, reserving his right to raise this issue by challenging the order in Appeal. But, that would not have advanced the object of the petitioner, that is to restrain Respondent No. 1 by putting hurdles in the way of putting up construction and therefore, the petitioner is resorting to all these proceedings with a view to see that the Respondent No. 1 is restrained from putting up construction.” 3. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge nor it requires any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Letters Patent appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.