JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J. 1. Present appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed against the oral judgment dated 19.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 13255 of 2022. 2. The brief background of facts are that present appellant-original petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 13255 of 2022 is engaged in the activity of desalinating sea water and extracting salt and is carrying allied activities. The appellant was granted land bearing Traverse Survey No. 155/1 paiki admeasuring 18000 sq. mtrs. at Village Kidana, Taluka Gandhidham, District Kutch and the allotment was made pursuant to order dated 29.07.2008. Such grant has also been mutated in the revenue records in favour of the appellant and by drawing panchnama, physical possession of the land was also entrusted to the appellant by Circle Officer on 22.08.2008. Pursuant to such allotment, plans were got approved and within the prescribed time, construction as per the plan was also made. Having verified the said fact of construction and compliance of stipulations attached thereof with the competent authority, even had issued completion certificate on 20.10.2009, and this entire fact has been mutated even in the revenue records. 2.1. It is the case of the appellant that opponent no. 1 then issued a show cause notice on 15.07.2010 and simultaneously issued an order of demolition on 09.08.2010, alleging that construction made by the appellant was not legal nor in consonance with the permission granted and when the present appellant did not comply with the said order of demolition, a reference was made being Reference No. 62 of 2011 in view of Section 12(1) of Gandhidham (Development and Control on Erection of Buildings) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The said reference was prepared and presented on 04.05.2011 by opponent no. 1 before Principal District Judge, Kutch-Bhuj. The said reference was for constitution of Board of Appeal in view of Section 19 of the Act and having received the notice thereof, appellant filed his detailed reply on 25.05.2022. By objecting against such reference supportive documents having been attached by the appellant along with reply to contest the reference and it was specifically contended that detailed mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the Act is to be observed which having not been done, reference deserves to be dismissed. 2.2. By objecting against such reference supportive documents having been attached by the appellant along with reply to contest the reference and it was specifically contended that detailed mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the Act is to be observed which having not been done, reference deserves to be dismissed. 2.2. It is the case of the appellant that, Board of Appeal then existing disposed of the reference by issuing certain directions by relying upon concession made by the appellant and without examining the merit. In fact, appellant has not made any concession of whatsoever nature at any stage of hearing. In fact, appellant had contested the reference by filing exhaustive reply and attached all documents, but still the Board of Appeal, disposed of the reference vide order dated 04.06.2022, as a result of which, the present appellant approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 13255 of 2022. 2.3. The learned Single Judge upon hearing the parties has dismissed the petition by order dated 19.07.2022 and it is this order passed by the learned Single Judge which is made the subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeal before us. 3. Initially, after hearing the learned advocate appearing for the appellant, this Court issued notice and considering the contentions and stand taken by respondent, this Court granted interim relief in terms of paragraph 8 (C) in Civil Application 1 of 2022 and same is extracted here-under for immediate reference: (1) Heard Mr. C.J. Vin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. (2) Issue Notice returnable by 25.08.2022. (3) The learned Single Judge while dismissing the Special Civil Application has observed that Special Civil Application No. 12820 of 2022 which was filed challenging the order dated 04.06.2022 was withdrawn by the petitioner which prima-facie is erroneous inasmuch as the appellant herein was not the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 12820 of 2022 and neither he was a party to the said proceedings. (4) It is submitted by Mr. Vin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant herein was not a party in Special Civil Application No. 12820 of 2022 and no concession was made in the said Special Civil Application which came to be disposed of vide order dated 13.07.2022. (4) It is submitted by Mr. Vin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant herein was not a party in Special Civil Application No. 12820 of 2022 and no concession was made in the said Special Civil Application which came to be disposed of vide order dated 13.07.2022. He would also submit that even in the order which came to be passed by the second respondent herein on 04.06.2022, no statement was made by the present appellant. However, learned Single Judge seems to have been swayed by the concession made by another party to the same proceedings as a ground for not entertaining the petition. (5) Hence, we are of the considered view that the interim prayer sought for in paragraph 8(C) in Civil Application No. 1 of 2022 deserves to be granted and accordingly, adinterim order as prayed for in paragraph 8(C) is hereby granted. (6) Relist this matter on 25.08.2022. Direct service is permitted. 4. Mr. C.J. Vin, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not in consonance with the record and the stand taken by the appellant. In fact, according to Mr. Vin, learned advocate, the learned Single Judge while passing the order impugned has observed that Special Civil Application No. 12820 of 2022 was filed challenging the order dated 04.06.2022, which was withdrawn by the petitioner, but in fact, the present appellant was not the petitioner in the said petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 12820 of 2022 and the appellant was not even a party to the said petition and as such, giving of concession does not arise. Mr. Vin has further submitted that even when the order was passed by the authority on 04.06.2022, no statement was made nor any concession was made by the appellant. However, the learned Single Judge appears to have been carried away by the observations made by respondent no. 2 and as such, according to learned advocate Mr. Vin, there appears to be a clear error in exercising discretion by the learned Single Judge. In fact, a reference which has been made in paragraph 5 is not by the appellant, nor the appellant was a party to the said proceedings and as such, by projecting such stand, a request is made to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4.1. In fact, a reference which has been made in paragraph 5 is not by the appellant, nor the appellant was a party to the said proceedings and as such, by projecting such stand, a request is made to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4.1. Additionally it is submitted that permissions have been granted and construction has been put up in consonance with the stipulations and there appears to be no irregularity of any nature which would have permitted the authority to ignore while disposing of the reference. On the contrary, the owners/occupiers were permitted to submit lay-out and building plans, approved by the authorized engineer as can be seen from the order dated 04.06.2022, reflecting on page 47 and as such, to give concession is out of place. Learned advocate Mr. Vin has categorically submitted an additional affidavit pointing out that one Surya Salt Private Ltd., had filed Special Civil Application 12820 of 2022, which has nothing to do with the present appellant and to justify that, a case status report of said Special Civil Application was produced along with said additional affidavit. The cause of action in both the petitions are stated to be altogether different and the proceedings before opponent no. 2 was relating to two different properties and there is no similarity in both the said petitions and as such, learned advocate Mr. Vin has contended that learned Single Judge ought not to have disposed of his petition by relying upon the said petition i.e. Special Civil Application 12802 of 2022. Hence, learned advocate Mr. Vin has requested this Court to set aside the impugned order and seek for restoration of Special Civil Application 13255 of 2022 to its file for adjudication on merits. 5. Pursuant to the notice having been issued, Mr. Nikhilesh J. Shah, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the respondents and has fairly conceded to the said submissions of learned advocate Mr. Vin and has made no submissions on merits and left it to the discretion of the Court. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has not even chosen to oppose the petition by filing any appropriate reply and as such, the stand of the appellant has remained uncontroverted. It is in this background, both the learned advocates have requested the Court to dispose of the present Letters Patent Appeal. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has not even chosen to oppose the petition by filing any appropriate reply and as such, the stand of the appellant has remained uncontroverted. It is in this background, both the learned advocates have requested the Court to dispose of the present Letters Patent Appeal. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the stand taken by the appellant in the context of the relevant record produced before us, we may observe hereunder: 6.1. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge as indicated in paragraph 5 and 6, to a substantial extent reliance is placed on disposal of petition being Special Civil Application 12820 of 2022 for disposing of Special Civil Application 13255 of 2022 and it has been observed that the present appellant who is the owner and occupier of Survey No. 155/1, cannot challenge the order after giving concession before the Board. It has been observed that by keeping faith on the statement made before the Board, observations were made permitting the owners/applicants to submit the lay-out and building plans approved by the authorized engineer on or before 30.06.2022, which the present appellant was supposed to comply and it is in this background, petition filed by present appellant came to be disposed of. 6.2. In view of this, when categorical statement is made by learned advocate Mr. Vin that there was no concession given by the present appellant, nor the appellant is connected with the said petition i.e. Special Civil Application 12820 of 2022 and has submitted that appellant has no concern with disposal of said petition, we are unable to understand as to how concession so given would be binding on present appellant who had filed Special Civil Application 13255 of 2022. To verify the said aspect, we have perused the case status of said Special Civil Application 12820 of 2022 and the same appears to have been filed by one Surya Salt Private Limited which petition, came to be withdrawn by the concerned learned advocate and the present appellant appears to be not a party to the said petition. 6.3. To verify the said aspect, we have perused the case status of said Special Civil Application 12820 of 2022 and the same appears to have been filed by one Surya Salt Private Limited which petition, came to be withdrawn by the concerned learned advocate and the present appellant appears to be not a party to the said petition. 6.3. In addition to this, we have also perused the additional affidavit filed by present appellant and noted the contents of it in which also, a categorical stand has been taken by the present appellant that appellant has nothing to do with said petition and both petitions are standing on different situation, parties are different and cause of action of both the petitions are also different and different properties were the subject matter of both petitions even before opponent no. 2 as well and there is absolutely no similarity except the date and content in the order passed by opponent no. 2. The said assertion made on oath are contained in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 and we deem it proper to incorporate hereunder: “4. Surya Salt Private Limited was aggrieved by order dated 04.06.2022 passed by opponent no. 2 in Board Reference No. 39 of 2011 and challenged it by way of Special Civil Application No. 12820 of 2022. The petitioner opted to withdraw Special Civil Application No. 12820 of 2022. Accordingly, the learned Lawyer withdrew Special Civil Application No. 12820 of 2022 upon instruction of the petitioner. Copy of order dated 13.07.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 12820 of 2022 is produced herewith and is marked as Annexure-AA-5 to this additional affidavit. Case status of Special Civil Application No. 12820 of 2022 is produced herewith and is marked as Annexure-AA-6 to this additional affidavit. 5. I say with great respect that I have not given any concession or consent for submission to the jurisdiction of opponent no. 1 as is observed by the opponent No. 2 in its order dated 04.06.2022. I adhere to my contest against the exercise undertaken by opponent no. 1 as well as decision of opponent no. 2 as well as the order of learned Single Judge. 6. It may be observed from the case status of both the petitions that petitioners are different, Board References bear different number and filed against different parties. I adhere to my contest against the exercise undertaken by opponent no. 1 as well as decision of opponent no. 2 as well as the order of learned Single Judge. 6. It may be observed from the case status of both the petitions that petitioners are different, Board References bear different number and filed against different parties. Causes of action in both the petitions are different. Proceedings before opponent no. 2 related to two different properties. I say with great respect that there is no similarity in Special Civil Application No. 13255 of 2022 filed by appellant and Special Civil Application No. 12820 of 2022 filed by Surya Salt Private Limited, except the date and content in the order dated 04.06.2022 of opponent no. 2.” 6.4. Based upon the aforesaid stand taken by learned advocate for the appellant, even from the beginning i.e. when we passed an order on 04.08.2022, it was a clear assertion that no concession was made by the present appellant before opponent no. 2 and even during the course of reference. On the contrary reference was opposed by the present appellant filing detailed reply along with attached documents. Hence, when that be so, the assertion ought to have been examined by the learned Single Judge in its true perspective and disposal of the petition filed by the appellant on the basis of concession made in different petition, as stated above is an error, which requires to be corrected. 6.5 At this stage, we may clearly point out that pursuant to the notice having been issued, learned advocate Mr. Nikhilesh Shah appeared on behalf of respondent authorities and today, when the matter is taken up, learned advocate has fairly submitted the stand taken by the appellant about dissimilarity of both petitions appears to be just and as such, without offering much resistance, he has left it to the discretion of the Court. Hence, we are of the view that assertion made by the appellant has remained uncontroverted, and as such, we deem it proper to correct the error that has crept in the order under challenge. 7. Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the main matter, we deem it proper to pass the following: ORDER: (i) Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. 7. Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the main matter, we deem it proper to pass the following: ORDER: (i) Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application 13255 of 2022 is set aside the and as a consequence thereof, Special Civil Application is ordered to be restored to file with a request to the learned Single Judge to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. (iii) Since petition is restored to its file, whatever, interim order granted earlier shall continue till the hearing of main petition on merits or till it is vacated or varied whichever is earlier. (iv) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits and same shall be examined independently and in accordance with law. (v) Pending applications if any, stands consigned to records.