JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.01.2020, passed by the Additional Development Commissioner, Gandhinagar, and further for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Appellate Committee, District Panchayat, Surat. 2. The facts in brief are as under:- 2.1 The petitioner, acquired land bearing City Survey No. 386 in the year 1986 and thereafter in the year 1995 through a registered Sale Deed purchased City Survey No.387. According to the petitioner both plots merged into one as plot admeasuring 431.43 sq. Mtrs. It was given a new City Survey no. 386. The revenue records show the Entry as 3/327 and 3/328. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that before the Gram Panchayat, Olpad, the petitioner filed an application on 15.11.2016 seeking permission to construct a five storeyed building consisting of commercial as well as residential premises. The Gram Panchayat, Olpad, granted such permission by a resolution dated 23.11.2016, for the purposes of such construction. The petitioner, pursuant to the permission, carried out such construction and sold certain shops by executing the registered sale deed. 2.3 The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.6, on 19.06.2018, preferrred an appeal being Appeal Application no. 18 of 2018 to the Appellate Committee, District Panchayat, Surat, challenging the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Olpad, dated 15.11.2016 and the permission granted to the petitioner dated 23.11.2016. The Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat allowed the appeal and by the order impugned dated 25.07.2019, cancelled the permission granted in favour of the petitioner dated 23.11.2016. 2.4 Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred a Revision Application being Revision Application No. 45 of 2019 before the learned Addl. Development Commissioner, Gandhinagar, who by the impugned order, remanded the proceedings to the Appellate Committee opining that it was not correct for the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat to cancel the permission in its entirety. However, it observed while remanding the matter and partly allowing the revision that the Appellate Committee should reconsider the resolution dated 15.11.2016, the building permission dated 23.11.2016 be reconsidered in accordance with the resolution of the Government dated 28.02.1989 and the permission be amended accordingly. However, it observed while remanding the matter and partly allowing the revision that the Appellate Committee should reconsider the resolution dated 15.11.2016, the building permission dated 23.11.2016 be reconsidered in accordance with the resolution of the Government dated 28.02.1989 and the permission be amended accordingly. The authority further directed that it is open for the Panchayat to consider the question of the additional construction according to the law and give appropriate directions. These orders are under challenge before this Court. 3. Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit as under: 3.1 Drawing the attention of the Court to the resolution dated 15.11.2016, and the application seeking permission, it was ul Mr.Buch’s submission that the resolution was passed by the Olpad Gram Panchayat with a specific condition. The permission was esentially in accordance with law for construction of one plus four floor that is a five storeyed building keeping in mind the location on the road and the fact that the building was abutting the road. Plans were furnished to the Olpad Gram Panchayat with the building permission and therefore there was no reason for the District Panchayat’s Appellate Committee to cancel the permission 3.2 Mr. Buch, learned advocate, would submit that an application at the hands of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 was an attempt to settle personal scores in view of the fact that in the year 2018 the respondent No. 6 had filed a Special Civil Suit No. 98 of 2018 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat, which was pending, wherein, when the plaintiff had sought an injunction restraining the petitioner’s construction of the subject premises, he had failed. 3.3 Mr. Buch, learned advocate, would also invite the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 242 of the Gujarat Panchayat’s Act,1993, and submit that in accordance with the provisions of Section 242, the Appeal had to be filed before the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat within 30 days from the date of the resolution. In the facts of the case, the resolution was dated 15.11.2016, whereas the appeal was filed on 19.06.2018, beyond a period of 30 days and was belated by more than a year. In the facts of the case, the resolution was dated 15.11.2016, whereas the appeal was filed on 19.06.2018, beyond a period of 30 days and was belated by more than a year. The appeal was entertained without filing an application for condonation of delay and therefore the appeal clearly was time barred and could not have been entertained by the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat on merits. For the purposes of this submission, Mr.Buch, relied on a decision in the case of Alpeshbhai Natvarlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2009 (3) GLH 372 . Reliance was placed on para 12 of the decision to support his contention that any decision which has been taken without condoning the delay is a decision bad in law and without jurisdiction. 3.4 Mr. Buch, learned advocate, would also submit that the order of the District Development Officer entirely cancelling the permission dated 23.11.2016 was also bad in law. He would invite the attention of the Court to the earlier order granting stay in favour of respondent No.6 and the stay being subsequently lifted wherein, a spot inspection during the pendency of the appeal was made on 17.01.2019. Inviting the attention to the communication dated 17.01.2019, Mr.Buch, learned advocate, would submit that the observations made during the Spot Inspection would obviously indicate that it was the opinion of the inspecting authority that there was no illegal encroachment and the construction was in accordance with the plans. 3.5 Inviting the attention of the Court to the resolution dated 28.02.1989, emphasis was made by Mr. Buch, learned advocate, that if the preface of the Circular / Resolution dated 28.02.1989 is read, it specifically was in context of non agricultural land being put to use for residential premises, under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and had nothing to do with building permissions and therefore the District Development Officer had misconceived and misinterpreted the circular dated 28.02.1989. 3.6 Mr.Buch, learned advocate, would also submit that the fact that the appeal at the hands of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 was motivated and malafide is evident from the fact that even respondents No. 5 and 6 had constructed a five storeyed building in the name of Susva Appartments at Kaziwad for which no action was taken by the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat and it was the petitioner who was singled out. 5 and 6 was motivated and malafide is evident from the fact that even respondents No. 5 and 6 had constructed a five storeyed building in the name of Susva Appartments at Kaziwad for which no action was taken by the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat and it was the petitioner who was singled out. By the District Panchayat’s Appellate Committee in entirely cancelling the permission. He would submit that the Addl. Development Commissioner in remanding the matter committed an error in holding that the resolution dated 15.11.2016 be modified to read in terms of the Circular dated 28.02.1989 and for the construction carried out in excess of such circular, consequential action be taken on remand. The order of remand therefore though purportedly appears to be a simple remand, in fact, modifies / cancels the permission which was legally granted to the petitioner. 4. Mr.Mukesh Patel, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 extensively argued before the Court and made the following submissions: 4.1 Mr.Patel, learned advocate, would submit that it was apparent on reading the memo of the appeal that it was only when the copies of the resolution were made available by the competent authorities on 19.05.2018 under the RTI Act, that the respondents were made aware of the permissions granted in favour of the petitioner and therefore within 30 days of having come to know this, on 19.06.2018 an appeal was filed before the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat. He would submit that despite several attempts made by the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 by addressing communications dated 21.06.2018, 22.06.2018, 26.06.2018, the construction work did not stop and continued. In fact, even after the interim order passed by this Court on 16.12.2020, the petitioner has blatantly committed breach not only of the interim order but also gave an undertaking which is not in compliance with the undertaking that the Court had asked for. 4.2 Mr. Patel, learned advocate, would extensively rely on the order of the Division Bench passed in the Letters Patent Appeal wherein the interim order dated 16.12.2020 was challenged. He would submit that even before the Appellate Bench, a mis-statement was made. 4.2 Mr. Patel, learned advocate, would extensively rely on the order of the Division Bench passed in the Letters Patent Appeal wherein the interim order dated 16.12.2020 was challenged. He would submit that even before the Appellate Bench, a mis-statement was made. Inviting the attention to paragraph 7 of the order dated 18.02.2021 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 13 of 2021, what was sought to be projected was that the petitioner had finished the work on the ground plus three floors and therefore had sought permission of the Division Bench to use the same. It was in this context that the Division Bench granted permission only for the purposes of usage of three floors and made it clear that it will be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. 4.3 Written submissions have also been filed by Mr.Patel, learned advocate, extensively submitting that the Gram Panchayat was misled in to granting permission inasmuch as plans were submitted only for Survey No. 386 whereas no plans were submitted for Survey no. 387. There was no adequate parking space provided and the construction blatantly was contrary to the permission. He would submit that the permission was only for a residential premises, whereas the petitioner had made commercial construse and sold shops which was not in consoncance with the permission that the Panchayat had given. As far as the civil suit is concerned, it was the contention of Mr.Patel, learned advocate, that the civil suit had no relation to the pending proceedings because it was a civil suit for right to the property. Mr.Patel, learned advocate, would also submit that the constructions were carried out without complying with the resolution or compliance of the G.D.C.R and the order of the Addl. Development Commissioner was only that of remanding the matter, and therefore, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the order passed which is under challenge. 5. Considering the facts on hand, what appears to be the position is that the petitioner, a resident of the Olpad Gram Panchayat and the owner of land at City Survey No. 386 and 387, applied for permission to construct a building with ground plus five floors. Such permission was granted by the Olpad Gram Panchayat on 15.11.2016. The building permission is on record which is dated 23.11.2016. Such permission was granted by the Olpad Gram Panchayat on 15.11.2016. The building permission is on record which is dated 23.11.2016. Several conditions have been put in the building permission so granted. Some of the conditions are that the construction should be completed within a year and that for the purposes of drainage etc., permission of Roads & Building Department should be necessary. 6. The respondents Nos. 5 and 6 challenged the resolution dated 15.11.2016 and the building permission dated 23.11.2016 before the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat, Surat. The resolution dated 15.11.2016 was challenged by filing an appeal on 19.06.2018. Perusal of the Appeal memo would indicate that a statement is made in the appeal memo that it was only when the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were made aware of this resolution on 19.05.2018 that the appeal was filed on 19.06.2018. The appeal therefore in the perception of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 was within time. A specific contention was raised by the petitioner by filing a detailed reply objecting to the appeal being entertained on the ground of it being time barred. The memo of the appeal and the reply so filed by the petitioner are on record. A contention in the appeal memo made on behalf of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 would indicate that it was only on 19.05.2018 that when they applied, the Gram Panchayat gave them the copies of the resolution and the building permission, and therefore, the appeal was immediately filed on 19.06.2018. 7. The second aspect that needs to be observed is that the order of the District Development Officer dated 25.07.2019 when read records the contentions of the parties in question. Reading the order would indicate that the case has been briefly discussed in as much as reference is made to the resolution of the gram panchayat dated 15.11.2016 and the fact that the appeal is filed on 19.06.2018. Reference is also made to the instance where, the apppellate authority had pending the appeal injuncted the petitioner from constructions which interim injunction was subsequently vacated. 8. While reading the reasoning of the Appellate Committee, it is apparent that it has placed reliance on circular dated 28.02.1989 of the State, which refers to Rule 6 of the said resolution. Reference is also made to the instance where, the apppellate authority had pending the appeal injuncted the petitioner from constructions which interim injunction was subsequently vacated. 8. While reading the reasoning of the Appellate Committee, it is apparent that it has placed reliance on circular dated 28.02.1989 of the State, which refers to Rule 6 of the said resolution. Relying on Rule 6, the District Panchayat Appellate Committee came to the conclusion that as per this rule, the maximum height of the building would be 12 meters and the construction would be ground plus three floors. According to the District Panchayat’s Appellate Committee, when this Circular / resolution read with rule 6 is kept in mind, the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Olpad, dated 15.11.2016 granting permission to construct ground plus five floors was not in consonance with this resolution and therefore the development permission as well as the resolution was set aside in its entirety. 9. The order in revision would indicate that the Addl. Development Commissioner, reiterating the fact of the resolution dated 28.02.1989 opined that the construction of ground plus three floors was in consonance with the rules and the circular dated 28.02.1989, therefore, the Appellate Authority’s order cancelling the permission in its entirety was erroneous. At best, the Appellate Committee ought to have considered to take action for construction of the additional floors and not cancel the entire permission. With these observations, the Addl. Commissioner remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to consider the same in accordance with the observations made therein. 10. Reading both these orders makes it apparent that a few question have remained unanswered which are as under: (1) The resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Olpad, was dated 15.11.2016. Undisputedly, the appeal was filed on 19.06.2018. It was filed way beyond the time prescribed under Section 242 of the Gujarat Panchayat’s Act, which specifically states that an appeal shall lie to the District Panchayat against an order or decision of a Village Panchayat. The appeal shall be made within a period of 30 days from the order or decision. Undisputedly, the appeal was filed on 19.06.2018. It was filed way beyond the time prescribed under Section 242 of the Gujarat Panchayat’s Act, which specifically states that an appeal shall lie to the District Panchayat against an order or decision of a Village Panchayat. The appeal shall be made within a period of 30 days from the order or decision. Reading the order of the Appellate Committee, it is apparent that the Appellate Committee has entertained the appeal beyond the period of limitation without there being an order condoning delay or inviting an application seeking reasons why the appeal was filed beyond time except a bald statement in the memo of the appeal that the appeal was within time as copies were given to respondents Nos. 5 and 6 on 19.05.2018 and therefore the appeal was filed on 19.06.2018. Nothing except this statement has come on record to explain as to why after November 2016 the respondents 5 and 6 waited for over a period of one year to file the appeal in question. The District Panchayat’s Appellate Committee ought to have examined whether the appeal filed at the hands of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 deserved to be entertained when filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. No application seeking condonation of delay was also filed before the Appellate Committee. (2) The second question that remained unanswered is interpretation of the resolution dated 28.02.1989. Reading the resolution dated 28.02.1989, it appeas that it is in context of the use of non agricultural land for the purposes of residential construction. It is a resolution under Section 65(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The submission of Mr.Buch, learned advocate, is that it does not apply to the facts of the case because the construction was within the vicinity of the Gram Panchayat, Olpad, which is almost an urban aglomeration or the resolution was not in context of a land being put to use for constructions. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for respondents has reservations in such an interpretation. He would rely on the resolution and submit that the order of the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat and that of the Addl. Commissioner remanding the matter in consonance with the resolution are just and proper. 11. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for respondents has reservations in such an interpretation. He would rely on the resolution and submit that the order of the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat and that of the Addl. Commissioner remanding the matter in consonance with the resolution are just and proper. 11. The order of the Appellate Committee when read sans reasons on both the issues of delay and the applicability of the resolution dated 28.02.1989, no submission on the applicability of the resolution has ever been made by the learned counsel for the Olpad Gram Panchayat, who obviously supports the resolution of giving such permission or the counsel for the District Development Officer, who would support the order passed by the District Development Officer cancelling the permission and the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 15.11.2016. Reading the order of the Addl. Development Commissioner, the only exercise that the Addl. Development Commissioner has carried out briefly is to observe that the construction that was made according to the resolution dated 28.02.1989 be regularized and as far as the excess construction, namely of the two additional floors, action be taken in accordance with law. 12. The twin issues of whether the appeal could be entertained beyond the period of limitation without an application seeking condonation delay and reasons why the appeal was filed beyond time and also whether the resolution of 28.02.1989 was applicable have not been considered by the District Development Officer or the Addl. Development Commissioner. 13 For all these reasons therefore, the orders under challenge dated 25.07.2019 and 17.01.2020 are quashed and set aside. The Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat, Surat, is directed to reconsider the entire issue with regard to the resolution dated 15.11.2016 and the development permission dated 23.11.2016, in accordance with law keeping the observations made hereinabove with regard to the provisions of Section 242 of the Gujarat Panchayat’s Act, 1993, and also keeping into consideration the applicability otherwise of the resolution / circular of the State Government dated 28.02.1989. Since the order is without reasons, a reasoned order shall be passed by the District Development Officer of the Panchayat on both these issues, namely on the question of entertaining the appeal beyond the prescribed period and the applicability of the Resolution dated 28.02.1989. Since the order is without reasons, a reasoned order shall be passed by the District Development Officer of the Panchayat on both these issues, namely on the question of entertaining the appeal beyond the prescribed period and the applicability of the Resolution dated 28.02.1989. The entire exercise shall be completed by the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Until the exercise is completed, the petitioner shall continue to abide by the order of the Division Bench dated 18.02.2021 especially the observations made therein in paragraph 7 and 8 of the order. The petitioner shall not carry out any construction of any nature of floor 4 and 5 and put the building to use beyond the third floor, till the issue is decided by the District Development Officer. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms with a direction that during the pendency of the exercise before the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat, Olpad, the petitioner shall not undertake any exercise of occupying and/or constructing beyond the third floor or carrying out any civil work on the construction beyond the three floors as observed by the Division Bench in the Letter Patent Appeal No. 13 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no orders as to costs. In view of disposal of the main matter, civil application (for stay) does not survive and stands disposed of, accordingly.