JUDGMENT : R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. Both these Letters Patent Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the original petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos.10689 of 2016 and 12992 of 2016, aggrieved by the common CAV judgment dated 5.6.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The grievances made and issues considered by the learned Single Judge in both the Special Civil Applications are against the grant of construction permission (Raja Chitthi) dated 3.3.2015 for putting up construction of the building for commercial use on the plot bearing City Survey No. 3285 of Shahpur Ward No. 2, Gamtal, Ahmedabad. The commencement of construction and permission granted are covered by the provisions of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. 3. Special Civil Application No. 10689 of 2016 was filed with the prayers, which read as under: “(A) A writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the order/decision dated 23.5.2016 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the Rajachitthi/commencement letter dt.3.3.2015 issued by the respondent authority as well as the approval of maps (Annexure A and B Colly) and be pleased to direct the respondents to strictly comply with the provisions of law/GDCR, taking care of all the rights of the petitioner including qua the basic amenities and the respondents may kindly be directed to remove the illegal construction carried out by the respondent No. 5 on city survey No. 3285, more particularly on eastern northern side thereof & in violation of GDCR. (B) Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of the petition the respondent No. 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to initiate immediate action to get stop further construction on land city survey No. 3285 and to initiate action for removal of illegal construction carried out by the respondent No. 5 on City Survey No. 3285 and the respondent authorities may kindly be restrained from revising and granting any further permission to the respondent No. 5 in any manner, and the respondent No. 5 may also kindly be restrained from making further construction on the basis of the alleged commencement letter dated 3.3.2015 in the manner detrimental & damaging to the essential amenities & structure as well as the rights of the petitioner, and also be restrained from creating any third party interest qua the construction, in the interest of justice. (C) Pending admission, hearing this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased get the site situation inspected through independent agency acquainted having technical knowledge with regard to construction on the laws pertaining to it, in the interest of justice. (D).........” 4. Special Civil Application No. 12992 of 2016 was filed with the prayers, which read as under: “(A) A writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the approval of maps and Rajachitthi/commencement letter dated 3.3.2015 issued by the respondent authority (Annexure A Colly) and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to strictly comply with the provisions of law/GDCR, taking care of all the rights of the petitioner including qua the basic amenities and the respondents may kindly be directed to remove the illegal construction carried out by the respondent No. 6 on the basis of the commencement letter/rajachitthi dated 3.3.2015 on city survey No. 3285 & adjacent land in violation of GDCR, AMASR Act and provisions of other laws relating to construction. (B) Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of the petition the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to initiate immediate action to stop further activities & construction on the basis of the commencement letter/ rajachitthi in question dated 3.3.2015 qua/on land city survey No. 3285 and adjacent land thereto and be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from revising and granting any further permission to the respondent No. 6 in any manner and the respondent No. 6 may also kindly be restrained from making further construction on the basis of the alleged commencement letter dated 3.3.2015, in the manner detrimental & damaging to the essential amenities & structure as well as the rights of the petitioner, and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to initiate action for removal of illegal construction carried out by the respondent No. 6, in the interest of justice. (C) Pending admission, hearing this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased get the site situation inspected through independent agency acquainted having technical knowledge with regard to construction on the laws pertaining to it, in the interest of justice. (D).........” 5. The appellant in Special Civil Application No. 10689 of 2016 has its property of hotel known as Hotel Royal Highness (earlier known as “Hotel Roopali”) on eastern side of the plot in question. The original petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 12992 of 2016 has been in occupation of the land admeasuring 2236 sq. mtrs. of City Survey No. 3293/1 on the western side of the plot in question. The development permission (Raja Chitthi) is granted for putting up constructions on 3.3.2015 in favour of the 5th respondent in first Special Civil Application No. 10689 of 2016, who is the 6th respondent in second Special Civil Application No. 12992 of 2016. The original petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 6741 of 2016 was agitating against the grant of construction permission. On the ground that no opportunity was given before the grant of permission, earlier he approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 19034 of 2015 and in view of the directions issued by this Court, after hearing the parties, order dated 23.5.2016 was passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, which was also challenged by the original petitioner. On the ground that no opportunity was given before the grant of permission, earlier he approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 19034 of 2015 and in view of the directions issued by this Court, after hearing the parties, order dated 23.5.2016 was passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, which was also challenged by the original petitioner. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner, in the impugned order, has recorded that the development permission granted is in conformity with the General Development Control Regulations (“the GDCR”) and rejected the objections raised by the petitioner against the development permission. 6. The challenge to the grant of development permission and subsequent order dated 23.5.2016 by which, objections raised by the original petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 10689 of 2016 were rejected, was mainly on the ground that, the development could not be permitted on the land in question, as formation of the plot by amalgamation of City Survey Nos. 3291/1, 3291/2, 3282 and 3285 to 3290 was not permissible under the provisions of the GDCR. It was also the grievance of the petitioner that, development permission was given without keeping margin, open to sky space etc. It is alleged that, as much as development permission is granted without leaving required margin and open to sky space etc., the rights of the petitioner to get light and air are violated and public safety and public health are also affected. It is the allegation of the petitioner that, development permission is granted mechanically, without application of mind, contrary to the provisions of GDCR and also contravening the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. 7. As the learned Single Judge has discussed the objects of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 in the common judgment, in detail, and also extracted the relevant Regulations from the GDCR, as such, we will not extract such definitions and GDCR again in this judgment, for the purpose of disposal of these appeals. It is not in dispute that Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) has made Comprehensive Development Plan 2021 (Second Revised), which includes Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation area. The GDCR is prepared in exercise of powers under section 12(m) read with Section 13 of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. It is not in dispute that Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) has made Comprehensive Development Plan 2021 (Second Revised), which includes Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation area. The GDCR is prepared in exercise of powers under section 12(m) read with Section 13 of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. Regulation 2 of the GDCR contains definitions of building, building unit, unit builtup area, gamtal, ground coverage, local area plan, margin, open space, etc. Regulation 9 of the GDCR deals with use and different zones. Regulation 9.1 defines the concept of zones. Regulation 9.1.1, which is relevant for the purpose of disposal of the appeals, relates to zone titled as Core Walled City (CW). 8. In the present cases, the contesting respondent/developer purchased the plot in question on 18.6.2014 from its previous owner of amalgamated plot and applied for development permission wherein, he has stated that, land in question is within the limits of Village Shahpur, Ward-Shahpur and its zone is shown as Gamtal (before D.P. 2021) and Gamtal- Core Walled City (after D.P.2021). It is not disputed by any of the parties that, area of Shahpur is covered under the Development Plan 2021, as such, the Comprehensive Development Plan 2021 applies and the application filed by the developer for development permission for the land in question is dealt with as per the GDCR. When the original petitioner was agitating his rights, alleging that, he was not given any opportunity to raise objections and the permission was granted mechanically, contrary to GDCR, pursuant to directions issued by this Court in earlier petition filed by him, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner vide his order dated 23.5.2016 has held that, construction put up by the developer is as per the plan and same is within the Core Walled City. He has also specifically held that Regulation 10 of GDCR applies and thus, rejected the objections. 9. We have heard Mr. Deven Parikh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M.A. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 889 of 2017, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Zubin Bharda, learned advocate for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 910 of 2017, Mr. Prashant Desai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Satyam Chhaya, learned advocate for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Mr. Nirupam Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the developer. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Zubin Bharda, learned advocate for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 910 of 2017, Mr. Prashant Desai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Satyam Chhaya, learned advocate for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Mr. Nirupam Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the developer. 10. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Deven Parikh, has submitted that the development permission granted by the authorities in respect of the land in question is in clear violation of the mandatory requirements of keeping margin, fire safety margins and open to sky space. As the constructions are made based on such plan, which itself is granted in violation of GDCR, it has affected the light and ventilation of the appellant. It is submitted that, in view of the construction, it has become impossible for the appellant to repair the drainage of the appellant building, in the event of any such need. It is submitted that, the requirement of keeping margin all around the building for the development will apply to all the zones. It is submitted that, if the land in question is considered to be within the Core Walled City also, open to sky space is to be left, as provided in Regulation 10. Learned Senior Counsel, taking us to various definition clauses, as defined under GDCR and further various Regulations of GDCR, has submitted that, under Regulation 24, strict compliance of fire safety requirements for all buildings in all zones is to be observed and as per Regulation 24.3, marginal space adjacent to the building as open to sky is required to be left. It is stated that, as per the Regulations, only 65% of the ground coverage for the building is permissible and remaining 35% open space is meant to cover margin space and opentosky space, as required under the GDCR. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that, from the view point of public safety also, the rights of adjoining owners are to be protected and authorities cannot permit any construction on the land in question, contrary to the provisions of GDCR. It is submitted that even before permission is granted and plans are approved, the respondent/developer has started constructions and the respondent authorities have not furnished the information in spite of repeated representations and in the meanwhile, the developer has completed construction of building. It is submitted that even before permission is granted and plans are approved, the respondent/developer has started constructions and the respondent authorities have not furnished the information in spite of repeated representations and in the meanwhile, the developer has completed construction of building. It is submitted that, as the development permission itself is contrary to GDCR, all constructions, which are put up based on such illegal permission, are required to be pulled down. 11. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing with learned advocate, Mr. Zubin Bharda for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 910 of 2017 submitted that, City Survey No. 3285 is formed by amalgamating other plots bearing different City Survey numbers, which is not permissible for development in Core Walled City Zone. However, contrary to the Regulations, the plan is sanctioned for amalgamated plot, which has resulted in permitting illegal constructions. By referring to Regulation 10.2 applicable to Core Walled City, it is submitted that even if amalgamation is permitted, in such cases, 10% of the land shall be kept open on roadside. It is submitted that permission granted is also in violation of such Regulations. Learned Senior Counsel has contended that, in all cases, all around, open space is required to be left towards margin, as such, the permission granted and construction put up, pursuant to such permission are illegal and are required to be pulled down. 12. Mr. Prashant Desai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Satyam Chhaya, learned advocate appearing for the Corporation has submitted that, permission granted to the developer is strictly in accordance with the provisions made in GDCR. It is submitted that there are no violations of any kind of the provisions of GDCR and construction is permitted by keeping in mind various requirements as provided in GDCR for grant of development permission. It is submitted that, when development permission was sought, after purchase of the land by the developer, permission was asked for in connection with one City Survey No. 3285, but not by amalgamating different plots. It is stated that, amalgamation of the City Survey numbers had already taken place, which has become final and in absence of challenge to that proceedings, it is not open for the appellants to plead that development permission is not permissible, amalgamated plots. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. It is stated that, amalgamation of the City Survey numbers had already taken place, which has become final and in absence of challenge to that proceedings, it is not open for the appellants to plead that development permission is not permissible, amalgamated plots. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Desai that, as the land in question falls within the Zone of Core Walled City, the development within the Core Walled City is permissible only in accordance with Regulation 10. It is submitted that, Regulation 10 does not provide for keeping margin within the plot. It is submitted that, the provision for keeping margin is rightly not there for development in Core Walled City as, in most of the areas of Core Walled City, the buildings touch each other, as such, it may not be possible to provide any margin for putting up constructions. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that, if there is no specific provision for providing margin for adjacent building in Regulation 10, it cannot be said that permission granted is in violation of Regulations. Even with regard to fire safety norms, it is contended that, due care has been taken to comply with safety provisions and only after approval from the competent authority for fire safety, development permission is granted. With regard to the grievances of the appellants that, their right to have ingress and egress or to get light, air, ventilation, etc. relates to the easementary right and the same will not make development permission illegal, so long as the same is in conformity with the Regulations and the constructions made are in accordance with the plan. Even with regard to allegation of the Ancient Monuments Act, it is stated that no objection certificate is granted in favour of developer by the competent authority under the Ancient Monuments Act and without questioning such NOC and without impleading any of the parties under the said Act, it is not open to plead vaguely that, development permission is granted in violation of the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Act also. 13. Mr. Nirupam Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. 13. Mr. Nirupam Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Viral Shah, learned advocate for the developer, has submitted that, the development permission granted by the authorities is fully in conformity with the GDCR and the constructions made by the developer are in conformity with the sanctioned plan, as such, the appellants are not entitled for any directions in the petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare said development permission as illegal and to remove such constructions of the buildings, which are in conformity with the development plan. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel that, the grievance of the appellants, as regards leaving margin towards their properties, is dealt in detail by the learned Single Judge and it is submitted that, there are no merits in these appeals so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that, for the claim of easmentary rights, the appellants have to avail the civil remedy but by making such allegations, they cannot claim that development permission is illegal, which is otherwise in accordance with the GDCR. It is submitted by Mr. Nanavaty that, even by the time the appellants approached this Court, the basic framework of the construction was completed and now building is completed in all respects and the appellants herein are preventing the developer from using the building by raising one ground or the other. It is submitted that, with regard to building in Core Walled City, Regulation 10, which is applied, does not make any provision for keeping margin around the plot. With regard to allegation of fire safety norms and violation of provisions of the Ancient Monuments Act, it is submitted that, the competent authorities have already issued no objection certificates and by making vague allegations, the appellants cannot plead that, permission granted is in violation of fire safety norms and also Ancient Monuments Act. 14. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. With regard to allegation of fire safety norms and violation of provisions of the Ancient Monuments Act, it is submitted that, the competent authorities have already issued no objection certificates and by making vague allegations, the appellants cannot plead that, permission granted is in violation of fire safety norms and also Ancient Monuments Act. 14. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Deven Parikh, in support of his arguments, has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others vs. Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Private Limited and Another, (2014) 4 SCC 538 , Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others vs. Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Private Limited and Another, (2014) 4 SCC 574 , NDMC vs. Statesman Ltd. 1989 Supp (2) SCC 547 as well as Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Centre Point Welfare Association vs. Nita International and Another, 2001 (4) GLR 2777, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Vijay Owners' Association, 2000 (3) GLH 510 and Sarvesh Atulbhai Gohil vs. Jamnagar Urban Development Authority and Others, 2014 (2) GLH 26 . 15. Before we deal with the contentions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant GDCR, in brief, and its relevant provisions, for the purpose of disposal of these appeals. As per the GDCR, different areas in development plan are divided into different zones and the applicability of Regulations is shown zone-wise. It is not in dispute that, plot/land in question, for which permission is granted, is within the Core Walled City, as per the development plan. The main grievance of the appellants appears to be that, the respondent-developer is permitted constructions without leaving margin around their building, as such, same is not in conformity with the GDCR. The term “margin” is defined under Regulation 2.99 of the Regulations, which means the space adjacent to boundary of building-unit, buildings or common plot that should be kept fully open to sky. As per the definition of margin, no built-up area shall be permitted in marginal space, except specifically permitted under these Regulations. Open space is defined under Regulation 2.117, which means an area forming integral part of the plot, left permanently open to sky. As per the definition of margin, no built-up area shall be permitted in marginal space, except specifically permitted under these Regulations. Open space is defined under Regulation 2.117, which means an area forming integral part of the plot, left permanently open to sky. No provision is brought to our notice under Regulation 10, which is applicable to Core Walled City to show that, permissions are to be granted by leaving margin, as defined under Regulation 2.99. Regulation 10.5 deals with permissible ground coverage and as per Regulation 10.5.1, for building-units with area 500 sq. mts or less, the ground coverage is permissible for the entire area of the building-unit. As per Regulation 10.5.2, for building-units with area more than 500 sq. mts and upto 1500 sq. mts, ground coverage is permissible upto maximum 75% of the entire building-unit area. Under Regulation 10.5.3, for building-units with area more than 1500 sq. mts, the permissible ground coverage is upto maximum 65% of the entire building-unit area. In the instant cases, as the plot in question is more than 1500 sq. mts, the permissible ground coverage is upto maximum of 65% of the entire building-unit area. It is not the case that, developer is permitted more than 65% of the permissible ground coverage under Regulation 10.5.3. Under Regulation 10.7, open to sky space is provided for natural light and ventilation and, location and dimensions of the open space shall be based on the dimensions of the building unit and the proposed building height, whichever is higher. Open to sky space is nothing to do with the margin, as defined under Regulation 2.99 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. Open to sky space is a requirement within the building unit as per GDCR in Core Walled City. 16. Learned Senior Counsels for the appellants, in support of their arguments, have placed reliance on the general requirement for open space, by pointedly referring to Regulation 10.7.3(4) of the Regulations, which reads as under: “10.7.3 General Requirement for Open-to-Sky space 1......... 2......... 3......... 4. 16. Learned Senior Counsels for the appellants, in support of their arguments, have placed reliance on the general requirement for open space, by pointedly referring to Regulation 10.7.3(4) of the Regulations, which reads as under: “10.7.3 General Requirement for Open-to-Sky space 1......... 2......... 3......... 4. No construction work on a building shall be allowed if such work operates to reduce an open air space of any other adjoining building belonging to the same owner to an extent less than what is prescribed by any of these Regulations in force at the time of the proposed work to further reduce such open space if it is already less than what is prescribed.” 17. The above provision under Regulation 10.7.3(4) is applicable only in cases where, adjoining building is of the very same owner, in which event, no construction work on the buildings shall be allowed, if it results in reducing the open area less than what is prescribed by the Regulations for adjoining building, of the same owner. Such Regulation will not apply at all, to the facts of the cases on hand, as much as adjoining building/plot is not owned by the respondent-developer. 18. From a perusal of various clauses of Regulation 10, which are applicable to the Core Walled City, it does not provide for keeping margin within the plot to be developed. When there is no provision for keeping margin within the plot in Regulation 10, such provision cannot be read into Regulation 10, especially when provision for margin made in Regulation 13 is not made generally applicable to development of all zones. A composite reading of Regulations 10 and 13 and other Regulations makes it clear that, for development in the area of Core Walled City, there is no requirement of keeping the margin within the plot, as such, if the development permission is granted and the plans are approved by the authorities, without leaving for margin, it cannot be said that development permission granted is in violation of GDCR, so as to declare the same as illegal. 19. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Parikh, by referring to Regulation 24.3 of GDCR, has submitted that, marginal space adjacent to the building referred to in Regulation 24.3.1 of the Regulations has general application to all the developments to be made in the areas of all zones covered under development plans. Regulation 24 provides for fire prevention and safety. 19. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Parikh, by referring to Regulation 24.3 of GDCR, has submitted that, marginal space adjacent to the building referred to in Regulation 24.3.1 of the Regulations has general application to all the developments to be made in the areas of all zones covered under development plans. Regulation 24 provides for fire prevention and safety. The said regulations are under performance regulations. Regulation 24.3.1 provides for all buildings, except dwellings 1 & 2, the marginal space adjacent to the building shall be open to sky and motorable with minimum load bearing capacity, as per table mentioned therein. The marginal space adjacent to building referred under Regulation 24.3 is in the context of the building, which is to be constructed within the plot. The word “marginal space” used is with reference to the building in the plot for construction and which shall be open to sky and motorable with minimum load bearing capacity as per the table. The phrase “marginal space” adjacent to the building has nothing to do with the margin, as defined under Regulations. What is envisaged under Regulation 24.3 is that, there has to be sufficient vacant space in the building for access of rescue equipments from which rescue operation is feasible. Once the provision is made in the building design and which is approved after no objection certificate is issued by the authorities of the fire department, it is not open to seek application of margin open space by equating the margin with adjoining building. The margin open space referred to under Regulation 24.3 has to be necessarily read to the building, which is meant for construction but not with reference to adjoining building. In any event, it is to be seen that, the open space for plots more than 1500 sq. mts, development permission for coverage is permissible upto 65% by leaving 35% open to sky. In the instant cases, apart from more than 10% of the open to sky space towards roadside, it is stated that, coverage is not more than 60%. In that view of the matter also, we are of the view that the argument of learned counsels that, building plans approved in favour of the respondent/developer are in contravention of Regulation 24 of GDCR, cannot be accepted. 20. In that view of the matter also, we are of the view that the argument of learned counsels that, building plans approved in favour of the respondent/developer are in contravention of Regulation 24 of GDCR, cannot be accepted. 20. There is yet another plea raised by the learned counsels appearing for the appellants that, the development is not permitted in the Core Walled City area by amalgamation of different plots. No provision is brought to our notice, which prohibits amalgamation of different plots within the Core Walled City area. In any event, it is to be noticed that amalgamation was made earlier by separate proceedings by the vendor of the developer and same was not questioned at any point of time. The respondent/developer, after purchase of amalgamated plot, has asked for development permission in connection with only one plot bearing plot No. 3285. Thus, it is clear that developer has purchased the land having only one city survey number. Therefore, plea of the appellants that, development permission granted would be rendered illegal, on the ground that amalgamation of plots was not permissible, cannot be accepted. 21. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Parikh, in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgment in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others vs. Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Private Limited and Another, (2014) 4 SCC 538 . In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a case where, the developer has made construction by reducing the recreational space area at ground level to only 7.7% of area, as against the required minimum of 15%. In the said context, the general issue regarding acute problem of excessive construction at the cost of minimum recreational space in Indian Cities is considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 22. Further reliance is placed in the case of NDMC vs. Statesman Ltd. 1989 Supp (2) SCC 547. In the aforesaid judgment, while dealing with fire safety requirements in refugee area, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, better safety precautions proposed than those prescribed in statutory byelaws can be accepted. It is further held that, while clearance by the Chief Fire Officer is an indispensable condition for eligibility of sanction to the scheme, such clearance by itself is not conclusive nor binding on NDMC. 23. It is further held that, while clearance by the Chief Fire Officer is an indispensable condition for eligibility of sanction to the scheme, such clearance by itself is not conclusive nor binding on NDMC. 23. Further reliance is placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Centre Point Welfare Association vs. Nita International and Another, 2001 (4) GLR 2777. It was a case where, the Division Bench of this Court has considered a case where shops and offices were constructed contrary to plans, which were for residential flats. In the said case, it was held that, in one of the towers, an entire floor was constructed in breach of building regulations. When such unauthorized constructed shops were demolished and the petitions were filed by the owners of shops for compensation, writ petition was entertained as a measure of public law remedy and builder was directed to pay compensation of cost of the shop with 15% interest, etc. 24. Reliance is also placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Vijay Owners' Association, 2000 (3) GLH 510 . In the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of this Court deprecated the practice of Civil Courts granting injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 where, constructions are made contrary to the sanctioned plans. In the same judgment, it is held that, development in the areas has to be strictly in accordance with the zoning regulations and strict compliance is to be made for provisions of such amenities for parking, FSI, etc. 25. Further reliance is also placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sarvesh Atulbhai Gohil vs. Jamnagar Urban Development Authority and Others, 2014 (2) GLH 26 . It is a case where, the Division Bench of this Court has found unauthorized construction of 26 shops on the common plot of the society without approval plans and permission from competent authority. 26. Having regard to the fact situation in the present cases, we are of the view that, the case law discussed above, which are relied on by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Parikh, would not render any assistance in support of his case. 26. Having regard to the fact situation in the present cases, we are of the view that, the case law discussed above, which are relied on by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Parikh, would not render any assistance in support of his case. In the cases on hand, the appellants have not made out a case to show that, permission granted and plans approved by the respondent Corporation are in contravention of any of the provisions of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 or Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 or GDCR. It is also not the case of the appellants that, developer has made any construction contrary to the sanctioned plan. In that view of the matter, when permission granted and plans approved are in accordance with the applicable provisions and constructions are made as per the sanctioned plan, it cannot be said that, grant of permission is illegal and constructions made are unauthorized, so as to accept the case of the appellants by placing reliance on the judgments referred above. Further, we are of the view that, the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the relevant clauses of GDCR and other relevant provisions and recorded findings, which are in accordance with law. We find no error committed by the learned Single Judge, so as to interfere with the common CAV judgment passed in the Special Civil Applications, in these appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 27. For the aforesaid reasons, both these appeals are devoid of merits. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.