ORDER : 1. The present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.12.2021 in Special Civil Application No. 15632 of 2020. 2. The brief background of the facts are that the land bearing sub-plot No. 25 was originally jointly possessed by respondent Nos. 5 to 8 herein who applied for grant of permission to put up construction on the said sub-plot by filing necessary application. The said application was filed before respondent No. 1-corporation somewhere in the month of January, 2018. According to appellants, without seeking any consent, respondent Nos. 5 to 8 sold the said sub-plot No. 25 to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by execution of a Deed of Conveyance on 17.07.2019, which was registered before the competent authority bearing registration No. 9396. 2.1 It is the case of the appellants that they are joint owners of Final Plots No. 249, 281 to 286, admeasuring 35122 sq. yards, located within the revenue limits of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (Paldi). Inter se revenue disputes are going on between the appellants and respondent No. 2-society wherein at one point of time, on 30.10.2017, the Mamlatdar was pleased to pass an order for deletion of name of respondent No. 2-society and name of Saurashtra Housing Society was mutated in the second right column. It is the case of the appellants that though there is no locus either to the so-called members of respondent No. 2 - society for making an application for grant of permission before respondent No. 1, same was made. According to appellants, the application seeking permission for development was not filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and said application will have to be made either by the developer or the owner as the case may be under the provisions of Comprehensive General Development Control Regulations (CGDCR) and the competent authority while dealing with such kind of applications is expected to bear in mind the aspect as to whether co-owner of the property has given any consent or not. Though under the extant regulations, namely, CGDCR, the owner will have to make such application, the application, which was preferred in the month of January, 2018, was filed by erstwhile owners i.e. respondent Nos. 5 to 8. 2.2 The appellants have submitted that after the Deed of Conveyance on 17.07.2019, the respondent Nos. Though under the extant regulations, namely, CGDCR, the owner will have to make such application, the application, which was preferred in the month of January, 2018, was filed by erstwhile owners i.e. respondent Nos. 5 to 8. 2.2 The appellants have submitted that after the Deed of Conveyance on 17.07.2019, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were required to prefer another application seeking development of sub-plot No. 25 and then by making certain allegations on the society, a grievance is raised that respondent No. 1 has entertained the application and passed an order on 23.10.2020 whereby development permission for sub-plot No. 25 came to be granted in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and it is this order, passed by respondent No. 1, which was made subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 15632 of 2020. Said writ application came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge who by oral order dated 14.12.2021 was pleased to dismiss the petition and it is this order which is now the subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeal insofar as it relates to Special Civil Application No. 15632 of 2020. 3. Initially, Letters Patent Appeal was filed by H. L. Patel Advocates, but later on, Mr. D.K. Puj, learned advocate has appeared on instructions from the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 105 of 2022 and accordingly, we heard Mr. D.K. Puj, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellants. 4. Mr. D.K. Puj, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellants - original petitioners has vehemently contended that it was the joint ownership of the plot, the development permission could not have been granted by respondent No. 2 ignoring the ownership rights which are seriously in controversy. It has further been contended that under the provisions of CGDCR, the owner of the land is required to apply for development permission and there is no material to indicate the said aspect of ownership of sub-plot No. 25. Undisputedly, the subject land is center of controversy and series of proceedings are pending with respect to title and ownership of it and as such, the litigation going on between the parties could not have been ignored by granting development permission and same having not been appreciated by learned Single Judge, the order deserves to be corrected. 4.1 Mr. Puj, learned advocate has further submitted that respondent Nos. 4.1 Mr. Puj, learned advocate has further submitted that respondent Nos. 5 to 8 have sold the sub-plot No. 25 to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 undisputedly on 17.07.2019 and as such on the basis of earlier application submitted prior to such deed could not have been entertained and straightway authority has erroneously extended the development permission on 23.10.2020 in favour of respondent Nos. 3. He would also submit supplementary application was submitted by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who is said to have purchased the land in question. All these issues having not been gone into by the learned Single Judge in their proper prospective, the order under challenge deserves to be corrected. 4.2 Mr. Puj, learned advocate has further submitted that by virtue of Clause 3.6.3.2 read with 4.3.1 of the CGDCR, the development permission ought to have been sought by the owner or developer of the property and sub-plot No. 25 having been divested in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, corporation could not have issued straightway development permission on pending application more particularly when series of litigations are pending between the parties. It is also contended that even the name of society was deleted from the revenue record on 22.12.2017 and as such, society i.e. respondent No. 2 was not empowered to affix the signature on any document proclaiming itself to be the owner of subject property and on the basis of illegal documents, attempts have been made by respondent No. 2-society with respondent Nos. 5 to 8 to secure the development permission from corporation and these aspects though having been pointed out, the learned Single Judge has not properly construed the same and as such, it is desirable in the interest of justice to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and grant the relief as prayed for in the petition. 4.3 Mr. Puj, learned advocate has further submitted that even the administrator was appointed under Section 81 of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act on 27.01.2020 but surprisingly respondent No. 2-society for the reasons best known had not handed over the charge to the administrator and this aspect has also been suppressed from the authority which granted the development permission. 4.3 Mr. Puj, learned advocate has further submitted that even the administrator was appointed under Section 81 of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act on 27.01.2020 but surprisingly respondent No. 2-society for the reasons best known had not handed over the charge to the administrator and this aspect has also been suppressed from the authority which granted the development permission. The entire stand of the appellants has not been properly construed by the learned Single Judge and by a brief order, petition came to be dismissed which deserves to be interfered with in the interest of justice. Accordingly, Mr. Puj, learned advocate has requested to allow the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. No other submissions have been made. 5. Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellants and having gone through the detailed order which has been passed by respondent No. 1 as well as by the learned Single Judge, few summary of details deserve consideration. Hence, we deem it proper to quote hereunder. 6. Prima-facie perusal of the order which is passed by learned Single Judge gives a clear impression that while disposing of the petition, the contentions raised by respective sides have been taken note of and after perusal of the same, a conclusion has been arrived at that no case is made out by the petitioners and as such it is not possible for us to construe said order as being perverse in any manner as canvassed. On the contrary, it appears that after extending full opportunity to both the sides, a detailed order has been passed after due consideration of relevant material. Hence, we are of the opinion that order under challenge is neither suffering from any vice of non application of mind or perversity. 7. Apart from aforesaid aspect, it is not in dispute that respondent society was the beneficiary of a perpetual lease granted by one Desai Jhaverbhai and the lease deed specifically has indicated that land could be utilized for putting up construction of houses by making sub-plots. Based upon such lease deeds, the society appears to have developed the land by making sub-plots and transferred various plots to its members for the purpose of putting up of construction of residential bungalows. Based upon such lease deeds, the society appears to have developed the land by making sub-plots and transferred various plots to its members for the purpose of putting up of construction of residential bungalows. Learned Single Judge has also considered the fact that there appears to be some controversy with regard to change of name of the Society and its mutation in revenue record and the controversy about the same was the subject matter of challenge by the society in RTS Appeal No. 101 of 2018 in which the order of Mamlatdar came to be quashed. Be that as it may, from the overall submissions and the contentions raised by learned advocates appearing for the respective sides, it born out from the order of learned Single Judge that only objection was with regard to the claim of ownership on the basis of Will executed by some of the original owners and based upon same, petitioners are claiming their right. However, the undisputed position is that litigations are pending with regard to the same as has been taken note of by the learned Single Judge as well as by the original authority which granted development permission. 8. In addition to this, undisputedly revenue record has been mutated and name of Saurashtra Co-operative Housing Society was substituted to that of Saurashtra Housing Society. This issue or aspect has been gone into by the learned Single Judge as well as by the respondent authority while dealing with issue of development permission sitting in appeal, we would not like to substitute the findings. A further fact also came to be noticed by the learned Single Judge that even share certificates and the revenue record also stands in the name of private respondents and undisputedly these private respondents were members of the society. Not only that it was also pointed out by the learned advocate, during the course of hearing of main petition, that original petitioner himself is a member of society and still wanted to object for grant of development permission. The learned Single Judge has balanced his view on the basis of documents namely on the one hand petitioners were not having any documents relating to their ownership as compared to the respondents who were already armed with the share certificates and as such based upon same, the learned Single Judge found that development permission granted to the private respondent cannot be faulted. 9. In continuance of aforesaid observations made by the learned Single Judge, we have also perused the order dated 23.10.2020 passed by respondent corporation whereby the development permission has been granted with respect to subplot No. 25 and the reasons indicated therein would clearly suggest that authority while exercising such discretion has granted adequate opportunity to represent and while passing the said order at length about development permission has also examined the relevant provisions of CGDCR. 10. It further appears from the reading of the said order that with regard to the ownership rights some litigations are pending before various forum and it is granted only after obtaining undertaking from the applicants that such development permission would be subject to the outcome of the said litigation either at the end of Government or at the end of competent Court where the proceedings are pending and such specific undertaking was a condition incorporated in the development permission itself. Said order would also indicate that objectors to the said development permission have also been heard and only after considering the detailed objection and after verifying the status of the society and its administration, permission has been granted. Said order would also indicate that objectors to the said development permission have also been heard and only after considering the detailed objection and after verifying the status of the society and its administration, permission has been granted. While dealing with said application, it was also noticed by the respondent authority that in the permanenet lease the name of Saurashtra Co-operative Housing Society Limited was continuing which was also mentioned in the Rajachithi and as such after considering all the material and precisely in consonance with the relevant provisions of the CGDCR, the development permission has been granted and it was rightly held by the respondent authority that to examine the issues relating to administration of society or the ownership rights, the corporation has no authority to examine and as such, with a view to provide an adequate safeguard, a condition was also incorporated that such development permission is subject to outcome of the proceedings which are pending before the State authority as well as before the competent Court and same would be binding upon the applicants and as such on conjoint reading of this order itself suggest that same was passed in due exercise of its statutory function and keeping in view the parameters of relevant CGDCR and with appropriate condition such order came to be passed which was rightly examined by the learned Single Judge and we see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the petition. 11. When the order appears to be on consideration of due material and after granting adequate opportunity, we see no reason to substitute the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. At this stage, we are mind full of the proposition in respect of exercise of appellate jurisdiction precisely under Letters Patent, the Hon'ble Apex Court has propounded that in the absence of any material irregularity or perversity, even if another view is possible or better view is possible then also in the absence of any distinguishable material, the view cannot be substituted and as such, we deem it proper to quote hereunder the relevant observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Management of Narendra and Company Private Limited vs. Workmen of Narendra and Company, (2016) 3 SCC 340 : “5. Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records and come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January, 1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding without any further material before the Division Bench. The appellate bench ought to have noticed that the statement of MW-3 is itself part of the evidence before the Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.” 12. At this stage, we may also observe that it is well settled position of law that revenue entries would not create any right, title or interest and the ownership issue cannot be examined by the respondent corporation and it is for the competent court to deal with the same. In the instant case proceedings relating to title pending as projected by the parties before the Court. Hence, unless and until, a patent error is reflected, even extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be exercised under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as has been held in the case of Meena Chaudhary vs. Commissioner of Delhi Police and Others, (2015) 2 SCC 145 . The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder: “15. We do not wish to go into the minute details as to who was at fault which resulted in the dismissal of the Appellant's Suit No. 51/2008, inasmuch as we feel that the various disputed questions of fact which arise for consideration in these appeals can be appropriately examined by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi if the said Suit is revived and disposed of on merits. Since in our considered opinion, the said course would be an appropriate course to put an end to the long drawn litigation as between the Appellant and Respondent No. 4, we are convinced that the Appellant can be granted liberty to get the Suit revived by filing an appropriate application before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in which event, the said Court can be directed to revive the proceedings taking into account the pendency of these appeals in which the Appellant was rigorously seeking for the redressal of her grievances. In this context, we take into account the fact that the Appellant was duly paid the arrears of interim maintenance ordered by the Division Bench in the impugned order, in all a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- which was duly paid by Respondent No. 4 along with the sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses.” 13. Hence, conjoint effect of aforesaid proposition and consideration of relevant material in the context of observations made by the learned Single Judge, we are satisfied that order passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as it relates to Special Civil Application No. 15632 of 2020 is concerned, it does not require any interference. Accordingly appeal being meritless, we deem it proper to dismiss the same by affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.12.2022 in Special Civil Application No. 15632 of 2020 with no order as to cost. 14. Civil Application No. 1 of 2022 stand consigned to records.