JUDGMENT : V.M. Pancholi, J. 1. The appellant-applicant-original respondent No. 9 has filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11.3.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Application No. 12037 of 2015, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Civil Application filed by the present appellant. 2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under: 2.1. The present respondent No. 1 to 5-original petitioners have filed the petition being Special Civil Application No. 17126 of 2015 challenging the development permission issued by the respondent-authorities with regard to the development of the land bearing revenue survey Nos. 174, 176 and 181 (Final Plot No. 37+46 as per draft T.P. Scheme No. 7, Sargasan-Kudasan-Por, village Sargasan, District Gandhinagar). The petitioners have also prayed that construction carried out by the original respondent No. 9-present appellant be demolished. The petitioners have also prayed that direction be issued to the respondent-authorities to allot final plots as per revenue records by making appropriate change in Form 'F' prepared under T.P. Scheme No. 7 (Sargasan-Kudasan-Por). 2.2. The learned Single Judge, at the time of issuance of notice on 20.10.2015, directed to maintain status-quo with respect to the subject matter land. Thereafter, the present appellant filed Civil Application No. 12037 of 2015 for vacating the interim relief. Therefore, learned Single Judge modified the earlier order of ad-interim relief and observed that the order of status-quo is to be maintained qua the area comprising of revenue survey No. 176 and original survey No. 181, Mouje Sargasan which is included in the area of Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (Sargasan-Kudasan-Por). 2.3. The aforesaid order was challenged by filing Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1450 of 2015 and 1451 of 2015 and the Division Bench, by an order dated 17.2.2016, disposed off the said appeal with request to the learned Single Judge to decide the application for vacating the interim relief, preferably on or before 8.3.2016. 2.4. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, by the impugned order dismissed the Civil Application for vacating interim relief filed by the present appellant and therefore the present appeal is filed. 3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mihir Thakore appearing with learned advocate Mr. Parthiv Shah for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. A.J. Yajnik for respondent No. 1, learned advocate Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, learned AGP Mr. 3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mihir Thakore appearing with learned advocate Mr. Parthiv Shah for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. A.J. Yajnik for respondent No. 1, learned advocate Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, learned AGP Mr. Jayswal for respondent Nos. 6, 8 to 11, learned advocate Mr. Chhaya for respondent No. 7 and learned advocate Mr. J.M. Patel for respondent No. 13. 3.1. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Thakore contended that the original petitioners have no locus standi to file the petition challenging the development permission granted in favour of the present appellant. It is submitted that respondent No. 13 filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2000 before learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar for grant of probate as she is legal heir and representative of one deceased Hirabhai Becharbhai who died intestate. The said application came to be rejected by an order dated 16.1.2006. Thereafter, she preferred Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 64 of 2006 before the District Court, Gandhinagar. The said appeal came to be allowed by an order dated 30.7.2008 and against the said order, Second Appeal No. 121 of 2010 is filed by one Dineshbhai Dhulabhai and three others before this Court. The said appeal is admitted and in Civil Application for stay, this Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo of the portion of the land in dispute till final disposal. 3.2. Learned counsel thereafter submitted that some other persons of Chamar community including the original petitioner No. 5 filed Special Civil Application No. 7492 of 2009 challenging the order passed by District Court in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 64 of 2006 passed on 30.7.2008. However, learned Single Judge, by an order dated 16.11.2009 dismissed the said petition by observing that there is a remedy available by way of second appeal against the order passed by the District Court and the concerned petitioners have to submit an appropriate application for leave to prefer appeal and if the said application is granted, then and then only the petitioners can prefer appeal. 3.3. 3.3. At this stage, it is submitted that the petitioner No. 5-petitioner No. 1 of the petition being Special Civil Application No. 7492 of 2009 or other petitioners did not file any application for leave to appeal and none of the present petitioners are party in the Second Appeal which is pending before this Court and therefore the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition, in spite of that the learned Single Judge has granted interim relief in their favour which is required to be vacated and therefore the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside. 3.4. Learned senior counsel thereafter submitted that the appellant has purchased four different blocks from different owners, the details of which are as under: Sr. No. Original Owner Block/Survey No. Date of Sale Deed 1 Pramukhbhai Dayabhai Patel 406/2/1 F.P. No. 128/1 03/12/13 2 Harishbhai Prahladbhai Patel and others 184 F.P. No. 56 06/12/13 3 Mangaldas Atmaram Patel 398/1 F.P. No. 104 06/12/13 4 Shrirang Corporation, Through its partners 392 F.P. No. 95 03/12/13 The revenue survey numbers as referred hereinabove are given different final plot numbers in T.P. Scheme No. 7. The appellant approached the Town Planning Officer who has after, deduction of 35% from all the blocks of survey numbers, allotted Final Plot Nos. 56/95/104 and 128/1 together as the appellant was interested in developing the said lands together. Final Plot Nos. 56, 95, 104 and 128/1 were given survey/block Nos. 147/1 to 178 and therefore the appellant being interested in developing the said lands approached all the land owners and they were also consulted by the appellant. All the land owners agreed to hand over the possession as per T.P. Scheme No. 7. Learned counsel has referred to the details given in table in paragraph 5 of the application. It is contended that after getting the affidavits of all the surrounding members and after undertaking the required process, the possession of the lands were handed over by the applicant to the Town Planning Officer, part of T.P. Scheme No. 7 (cluster where the Final Plot of the appellant is situated). All the owners have handed over the possession of the revenue survey number and also have received their final plots as per their respective boundaries. 3.5. All the owners have handed over the possession of the revenue survey number and also have received their final plots as per their respective boundaries. 3.5. Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter submitted that the revenue authority granted development permission on 26.8.2014 in favour of the appellant qua survey/block Nos. 406/1, 398/1, 184 and 392 which were given Final Plot Nos. 95, 104, 128/1 and 56. Thereafter, revised development permission was also received from respondent No. 7 on 9.12.2014. At this stage, it is contended that as per the revised development permission received by the appellant, the appellant had started the construction as per the approved plan and after a period of more than eleven months and after substantial construction is carried out, the present respondent No. 1 to 5-original petitioners filed the present petition before this Court and this Court has granted order of status-quo. (Learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioners belong to Chamar community and it is their case that the land in question was allotted to them by the government. However, the said land was wrongly granted in favour of the respondent No. 13 and therefore when the order was passed by the District Court in favour of respondent No. 13-Revaben, some of the persons of Chamar community have filed Second Appeal before this Court which is pending. However, neither the petitioners are party to the said proceedings nor the present appellant or the respondent-authorities are party to the said proceedings. 3.6. Learned counsel at this stage without prejudice to the rights of the appellant submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to file an undertaking before this Court that if this Court permits the appellant to carry out the construction, the appellant will not claim any equity nor he will create any third party rights in the land in dispute and ultimately if this Court passes an order against the appellant at the time of final disposal of the petition, the appellant will demolish/remove the construction from the land which is in dispute. 3.7. Learned counsel therefore submitted that neither the petitioners have prima facie case nor any balance of convenience in their favour. 3.7. Learned counsel therefore submitted that neither the petitioners have prima facie case nor any balance of convenience in their favour. On the contrary, the present appellant has invested huge amount and carried out the construction and after period of eleven months, with ulterior motive the petition is filed and therefore if the interim order/status-quo is not vacated, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss which will not be compensated in terms of money and therefore the present appeal be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Pandya appearing for the original petitioners submitted that the petitioners belong to Chamar community. In such capacity, they are claiming the right in respect of the land in question. Second appeal filed by some of the members of the Chamar community is pending before this Court wherein this Court has granted status-quo qua the land in dispute. The petitioners, are therefore, having locus standi to file petition. It is contended that the respondent-authorities, having anticipation of sanction of preliminary scheme, granted development permission in favour of the appellant. It is further contended that Final Plot Nos. 95 + 104 + 128/1 + 56 include the land bearing revenue survey Nos. 176 and 181 as per the draft scheme. It is submitted that the scheme is at draft stage and therefore when the same is not finally sanctioned by the government, the respondent ought not to have granted development permission in favour of the appellant. Therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly protected the rights of the parties by passing the impugned order and therefore the present appeal be dismissed. Learned advocate has placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. Modinagar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. V/s. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2006(3) GLR page 2020. 2. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And another V/s. Ahmedabad Green Belt Khedut Mandal and others, reported in (2014)7 SCC 357 . 3. Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran V/s. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd., and others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 705 . 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. V/s. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2006(3) GLR page 2020. 2. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And another V/s. Ahmedabad Green Belt Khedut Mandal and others, reported in (2014)7 SCC 357 . 3. Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran V/s. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd., and others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 705 . 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Yajnik appearing for one of the original petitioners submitted that this Court may pass appropriate order permitting the appellant to carry out further construction on giving undertaking before this Court that in case the decision is given against the appellant, he will remove the construction and he will not create any third party right, whereas learned advocate Mr. J.M. Patel appearing for the respondent No. 13 mainly contended that when the ownership dispute is pending in second appeal and when the main petition is pending before the learned Single Judge, learned Single Judge has rightly granted interim order in favour of the petitioners and therefore this appeal be disposed off with a direction to the learned Single Judge to hear and dispose off the main petition as expeditiously as possible. 5. We have considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates for the parties. We have also gone through the material produced on record and the decision upon which reliance is placed upon by learned advocates. It emerges from the record that the petitioners are not party to the proceedings before this Court in Second Appeal No. 121 of 2010 which is pending. The case of the petitioners is based upon the fact that they are members of Chamar community in whose favour the land was granted. However, the fact remains that the land in question was regranted in favour of respondent No. 13-Revaben. The District Court passed an order in favour of respondents No. 13 against which some of the members of the Chamar community have filed second appeal before this Court. Thus, in the petition pending before the learned Single Judge, the question with regard to locus standi of the present petitioners is yet to be decided finally. It is not in dispute that the appellant has purchased different parcels of land from different owners, the details of which is referred to hereinabove. Thus, in the petition pending before the learned Single Judge, the question with regard to locus standi of the present petitioners is yet to be decided finally. It is not in dispute that the appellant has purchased different parcels of land from different owners, the details of which is referred to hereinabove. The T.P. Scheme No. 7 though is at draft stage, the concerned land owners have given their undertaking in favour of the appellant and the possession of the land is also given to the appellant. The Town Planning Officer has followed the procedure and after deduction of 35% of land granted certain final plots to the appellant. From the map produced before us, it is clear that in most of the portion of Final Plot Nos. 56, 95, 104 and 128/1, the petitioners have no right or interest in the same. From the record, it is thus clear that in most of the portion of the land for which development permission is given, the petitioners are not having any interest. 6. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the petition is still pending before the learned Single Judge and all the contentions taken by the learned advocates for the parties will be gone into in detail at the time of final hearing of the petition. However, while granting interim relief, the factors with regard to prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss which will be caused to the parties can be looked into. In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that there is no prima facie case in favour of the original petitioners and balance of convenience is, on the contrary, in favour of the present appellant and if interim relief is not vacated, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss. Thus, when the appellant has invested huge amount and started construction and after a period of eleven months, the petition was filed before this Court, we are of the opinion that the appellant can be permitted to carry out the further construction on certain conditions. The appellant has shown willingness to file an undertaking before this Court. 7. Thus, when the appellant has invested huge amount and started construction and after a period of eleven months, the petition was filed before this Court, we are of the opinion that the appellant can be permitted to carry out the further construction on certain conditions. The appellant has shown willingness to file an undertaking before this Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the order impugned granting interim relief in favour of the original petitioners is set aside with a direction to the appellant to file an undertaking before the Registry of this Court to the effect that the appellant will not claim any equity on the basis of the order permitting him to carry out the construction nor he will create any third party right on the land in dispute and if ultimately the order is passed against the appellant and in favour of the original petitioners, then the appellant will remove the construction from the land in dispute. The appellant shall file such undertaking within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the order. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction. In view of the order passed in the appeal, no orders are required to be passed in the civil applications. Accordingly, the same are disposed of. Looking to the dispute involved in the petition, learned Single Judge is requested to hear and finally dispose off the petition as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of this order.