JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9250/1999 by which the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the said Special Civil Application and has directed the appellants herein-Surat Municipal Corporation and Another to deliver actual, physical possession of the area of land of 1164.67 sq. meter of Final Plot No. 47/A and 197.19 sq. meter of Final Plot No. 47/B, total admeasuring 1361.86 sq. meter to the original petitioner, the original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nut-shell are as under:- "2.1 That the land bearing Survey No. 363/1 and 363/2 admeasuring 34702 sq. meter of land situated at Katargam, Surat was included in the Town Planning Scheme No. 4 (Ashwinikumar-Navagam). That a draft scheme under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as "Town Planning Act") came to be published on 18.03.1967. The aforesaid land bearing survey Nos. 363/1 and 363/2 admeasuring 34702 sq. meter was given Original Plot No. 47. That the preliminary town planning scheme came to be sanctioned vide notification dated 12.12.1980. Under the finalized town planning scheme, in lieu of O.P. No. 47 admeasuring 34702 sq. meter and after making compulsory deduction under the provisions of the Town Planning Act, the original owners were allotted Final Plot No. 47/A admeasuring 22730 sq. meter and Final Plot No. 47/B admeasuring 3892 sq. meter total admeasuring 26622 sq. meter. It appears that thereafter the original land owner-original petitioner was handed over the possession of Final Plot No. 47/A and 47/B after following due procedure as required under the provisions of the Town Planning Act and the Rules. Not only that the original owner/original petitioner also issued and signed the possession receipt having obtained the peaceful and vacant possession of both F.P Nos. 47/A and 47/B. That even the original land owner-petitioner also submitted the plan and applied for development permission with respect to F.P. No. 47/A admeasuring 22575 sq. meter. Not only that but the construction of residential units have been made on the basis of development permission on 15.04.1983 for the F.P. No. 47/A admeasuring 22575 sq. meter. Even the plans were submitted and development permission was sought for F.P. No. 47/B admeasuring 3892 sq. meter. Not only that but the construction of residential units have been made on the basis of development permission on 15.04.1983 for the F.P. No. 47/A admeasuring 22575 sq. meter. Even the plans were submitted and development permission was sought for F.P. No. 47/B admeasuring 3892 sq. meter for construction of building for the purpose of Community Hall and even the development permission was granted on 07.10.1991 and immediately thereafter the Community Hall has been constructed on the said F.P. No. 47/B admeasuring 3892 sq. meter of land. That thereafter after a period of approximately 20 years of sanction of the preliminary scheme and handing over the vacant possession of F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B, the original petitioners-original land owners preferred the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 9293/1999 before this Court for an appropriate writ, direction and order directing the original respondents to hand over the full vacant and peaceful possession of F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B total admeasuring 26622 sq. meter situated at Katargam, Surat alleging inter alia that the town planning scheme has not been fully implemented and the respondent authorities have failed and neglected to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of F.P. No. 47/A and 47/B total admeasuring 26622 sq. meter. 2.2 The aforesaid petition was vehemently opposed by the appropriate authority-original respondents by filing the affidavit in reply. It was specifically submitted that the original petitioner has been handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of the land bearing F.P. Nos. 47/1 and 47/B total admeasuring 26622 sq. meter. It was also further submitted that the town planning scheme had become final as far as back in the year 1980 and immediately thereafter after following due procedure as required under the provisions of the Town Planning Act and the Rules, the original petitioners has been handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of the F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B total admeasuring 26622 sq. meter. It was submitted that at the relevant time the possession receipt was also issued and signed by the original land owner having acknowledged the receipt of the possession of the F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B total admeasuring 26622 sq. meter. 47/A and 47/B total admeasuring 26622 sq. meter. It was submitted that at the relevant time the possession receipt was also issued and signed by the original land owner having acknowledged the receipt of the possession of the F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B total admeasuring 26622 sq. meter. It was also submitted that even on the basis of the area mentioned in 'F' form, the original petitioner submitted the plans and applied for the development permission in the year 1983-1991 and made full consideration of residential units/community hall respectively on the land bearing F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B. Therefore, it was submitted that after the period of 20 years thereafter it was not open for the original petitioner to make a grievance that the petitioner has not been handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of the F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B total admeasuring 26622 sq. meter. That by impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge has though held that the petitioner is not entitled to recover the possession of 26682/26622 sq. meter of land of F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants herein-original respondents to deliver the actual, physical possession of the area of land of 1164.67 sq. meter of F.P. No. 47/A and 197.19 sq. meter of F.P. No. 47/B total admeasuring 1361.86 sq. meter being the remaining land of the aforesaid Final Plots. 2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal." 3. Shri Prashant G. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Shri Dhaval Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Single Judge has materially erred in granting the reliefs in a petition which was filed belatedly i.e. after a period of 20 years in which a grievance was made after a period of 20 years that he has not been handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of the land bearing F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B total admeasuring 26622 sq. meter. 47/A and 47/B total admeasuring 26622 sq. meter. 3.1 It is further submitted by Shri Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that while observing that on the ground of delay the petition cannot be rejected as on number of occasions the petitioner made request/grievances to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B and thereafter when there was no response the petition has been preferred. It is submitted by Shri Desai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that nothing is on record to show any such request/demand/ grievances raised by the original petitioner that he has not been handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B. It is submitted that therefore as such the learned Single Judge materially erred in entertaining the petition and granting a relief in a petition which was filed after a period of 20 years from the finalized of town planning scheme. 3.2 It is further submitted by Shri Desai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that as such the original petitioner filed the aforesaid petition before the learned Single Judge making a grievance that he has not been handed over the possession of F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B at all and a grievance was raised that he has not been handed over any area of the land i.e. F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B. It is submitted that as such not only the original petitioner was handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of the F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B, in fact thereafter in the year 1983 he submitted the plans and applied for the development permission for construction of the residential unit in F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B admeasuring 26622 sq. meter, which was got sanctioned/granted and the residential units were constructed on the F.P. Nos. 47/A. It is submitted that not only that but with respect to F.P. No. 47/B also, plans were submitted of F.P. No. 47/B admeasuring 3892 sq. meter for construction of Community Hall and the development permission was granted by the competent authority of F.P. No. 47/B admeasuring 3892 sq. meter and even the Community Hall was also immediately constructed. It is submitted that all the aforesaid facts were suppressed by the original petitioner in the main petition. meter for construction of Community Hall and the development permission was granted by the competent authority of F.P. No. 47/B admeasuring 3892 sq. meter and even the Community Hall was also immediately constructed. It is submitted that all the aforesaid facts were suppressed by the original petitioner in the main petition. It is submitted that therefore when there was suppression of the material fact on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief much less any discretionary relief in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that therefore the learned Single Judge has materially erred in granting relief in the aforesaid petition. 3.3 It is further submitted that even otherwise the learned Single Judge has materially erred in relying upon the map of DILR which was vehemently disputed by the Corporation and the appropriate authority. It is submitted that as such there are disputed questions of fact which are emerging from different reports prepared by different authorities pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. It is submitted that therefore when there are serious disputed questions of fact the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed the authorities directing them to hand over the possession of F.P. No. 47/A admeasuring 1164.67 sq. meter, which infact on the spot is not available. Making above submissions it is requested to allow the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri K.K. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioners. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case when the original land owner-original petitioner was allotted F.P. No. 47/A and 47/B total admeasuring 26622 sq. meter under the provisions of the Town Planning Act, it was the duty of the appropriate authority to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B total admeasuring 26622 sq. meter. It is submitted that thereafter when it was found that the original petitioner has been handed over the lesser area of F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B to the extent of 26622 sq. meter and thereafter when the learned Single Judge has passed an impugned order relying upon the report of the DILR, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error. 47/A and 47/B to the extent of 26622 sq. meter and thereafter when the learned Single Judge has passed an impugned order relying upon the report of the DILR, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error. 4.1 It is submitted that as such it is the duty of the appropriate authority-appellants herein to implement the town planning scheme which has become final by handing over the peaceful and vacant possession of F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B total admeasuring 26622 sq. meter which were allotted to him in lieu of O.P. No. 47 admeasuring 34702 sq. meter. It is submitted that therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that when the original petitioner approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 9250/1999 he made a grievance that he has not been handed over the possession of F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B at all and therefore, he prayed for the relief directing the original respondents to implement the town planning scheme and to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B total admeasuring 26622 sq. meter at that stage and in the petition the original petitioner did not disclose that as such after the town planning scheme was finalized and he was handed over the possession of F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B. Infact he applied for the development permission by submitting the plans with respect to the F.P. Nos. 47/A admeasuring 22575 sq. meter in the year 1983 for construction of residential units and even the residential units were constructed in the said F.P. No. 47/A. He also did not disclose that even with respect to F.P. No. 47/B admeasuring 3892 sq. meter in the year 1991 the plans were submitted for F.P. No. 47/B admeasuring 3892 sq. meter and the development permission was sought for construction of Community Hall and the development permission was granted to him for F.P. No. 47/B admeasuring 3892 sq. meter for construction of Community Hall and infact Community Hall was constructed. meter in the year 1991 the plans were submitted for F.P. No. 47/B admeasuring 3892 sq. meter and the development permission was sought for construction of Community Hall and the development permission was granted to him for F.P. No. 47/B admeasuring 3892 sq. meter for construction of Community Hall and infact Community Hall was constructed. The aforesaid material facts were suppressed by the petitioner which disentitles him for any discretionary relief in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have refused to grant any relief to the original petitioner on the ground of suppression of material fact by the petitioner and not disclosing the correct facts before the Court. 5.1 Even otherwise the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the petition after a period of 20 years of sanctioning the town planning scheme and handing over the possession of F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B to the original petitioner. Considering the fact that in the year 1983 when the original petitioner applied for development permission and submitted the plans for F.P. No. 47/A admeasuring 22575 sq. meter, meaning thereby he was already handed over the possession of F.P. No. 47/A otherwise he would not have applied for the development permission and he could not have put up any construction of residential units in the said F.P. No. 47/A. It is also required to be noted that nothing is on record that at any point of time after 1980 till the petitioner filed the petition in the 1990, he made any grievance before any authority that he has not been handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B and/or he has not been handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of the entire F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B admeasuring 26622 sq. meter. It is required to be noted that the learned Single Judge has over-ruled the objection raised by the respondents that the petition may not be entertained as the same is belated and/or the same may not be entertained on the ground of delay by observing that earlier the petitioner made various grievances despite repeated requests and were not taking any action and therefore, the petition may not be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. However, it is required to be noted as observed hereinabove that nothing is on record that at any point of time prior to filing of the petition, any request much less repeated requests were made to any authority making any grievance. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in not dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches. 5.2 Even otherwise there are disputed questions of fact with respect to the measurement of F.P. Nos. 47/A and 47/B, which is evident from the reports submitted by different authorities prepared pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as this Court. Under the circumstances, as there were disputed questions of fact/serious disputed questions of fact, the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the petition and ought not to have granted the relief in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage it is required to be noted that in the year 1983 the very petitioner submitted the plans and applied for the development permission for construction of residential units on F.P. No. 47/A showing the description and measurement of the land of 22575 sq. meter and the development permission was granted for the entire F.P. No. 47/A admeasuring 22575 sq. meter and as such the construction of residential units in the entire F.P. No. 47/A. Similarly, with respect to F.P. No. 47/B admeasuring 3892 sq. meter, plans were submitted and development permission was sought showing the measurement of the F.P. No. 47/B as 3892 sq. meter, in the year 1991 and the development permission was granted for construction of the Community Hall for F.P. No. 47/B admeasuring 3892 sq. meter and thereafter the Community Hall was already constructed. 5.3 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, present Letters Patent Appeal succeeds. Impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9250/1999 is hereby quashed and set aside. Present Letters Patent Appeal is allowed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal Allowed.