ORDER : Vikram Nath, J. 1. We have heard Shri B.B. Naik, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Mayur Rajguru, learned counsel for the appellants in some of the matters and Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellants in the remaining matters, Shri Prashant G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Deep Vyas, learned counsel, appearing for Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Shri D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent State in all the appeals. 2. Civil Applications for impleadment and Civil Applications for additional evidence are allowed. 3. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants for having raised constructions without obtaining sanction of their building plans resulting into orders for demolition being passed. Aggrieved by the orders passed for demolition of their constructions, Special Civil Applications were filed. Learned Single Judge disposed of the Special Civil Applications vide judgment and order dated 13.07.2018 by providing that the offending constructions would be removed on or before 20th July 2018, failing which the Corporation would be free to remove the same after taking all necessary assistance from the administration including police help as may be required. The operative portion of the order as contained in para-7 of the judgment is reproduced below: "7. In view of the above, it is directed that the petitioners shall remove/demolish the offending constructions as expeditiously as possible and not later than one week i.e. 20.07.2018, failing which the respondent corporation shall remove the same forthwith thereafter. It is further directed that if the said offending constructions are removed by the petitioners, the concerned officers of the Corporation shall visit the site and verify as to whether the same has been removed/demolished or not and shall submit a compliance report to the Municipal Commissioner personally after the removal/demolition work is carried out. The concerned Counsels for the respondent Corporation shall also serve the copy of this order to the Municipal Commissioner personally. It is needless to say that the Corporation shall be at liberty to take assistance of the Police force as and when may be required." 4. The present bunch of Letters Patent Appeals was filed assailing the correctness of the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is needless to say that the Corporation shall be at liberty to take assistance of the Police force as and when may be required." 4. The present bunch of Letters Patent Appeals was filed assailing the correctness of the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Before we deal with the Letters Patent Appeals, we may record that before the learned Single Judge, learned counsels for the petitioners, upon instructions, had stated that the petitioners therein were ready to remove and demolish the offending constructions as shown in the impugned notices. 5. The submission advanced by the leaned counsels for the appellants in the appeals was to the effect that the offending constructions would be removed by the appellants, however, an independent agency may be appointed for finding out and point out the offending constructions as the appellants were not convinced that the Corporation's engineers have recorded the offending constructions accurately. The contention was that some of the constructions which could otherwise be falling within the permissible limits were also pointed out as offending. It was thereafter that the appellants would apply before the Corporation for regularization of the constructions within the permissible limits. 6. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28th March, 2019, considering the submissions advanced, provided that the Deputy Municipal Commissioner may appoint an independent Engineer as Court Commissioner within a week thereof and the said Court Commissioner would carry out the exercise and submit report within two weeks thereafter. 7. Deputy Municipal Commissioner accordingly appointed Shri Kiran Patel, an Engineer to be assisted by Shri Ashok Mistri to carry out the exercise. Shri Patel has submitted his report, after considering the constructions raised and making on the spot inspection in presence of the appellants. The said report has been submitted on 9th May, 2019, specifically pointing out the offending constructions of the buildings in question. 8. After the report was submitted, Division Bench of this Court, in its order dated 8th July, 2019 recorded that the counsels for the appellants, upon instructions, stated that part of the buildings, which is beyond 10 meter height and which is required to be removed, would be removed. However, the appellants may be permitted to address in so far as the margin constructions are concerned, without creating any right in that regard. 9. However, the appellants may be permitted to address in so far as the margin constructions are concerned, without creating any right in that regard. 9. We may also record that one Shri Sumit Shah, Advocate, appearing for four owners of the buildings had raised objections challenging the entire exercise being undertaken by the Municipal Corporation, but later on, it has been stated before us that now Shri Sumit Shah does not appear for those owners and it is Shri Maulik Nanavati, who has instructions to appear for them and he is not raising any such objections as were being raised by Mr. Shah. On that score, the matters were adjourned. 10. Before us today, the submission made by learned counsels for the appellants is that the appellants have removed the constructions insofar as the constructions above 10 meter height are concerned. However, insofar as margin aspect is concerned, there is some resistance, rather some mercy plea is being raised that the appellants would remove the margin constructions also by removing the walls, but not the pillars as otherwise if the pillars are also removed in order to make the constructions in accordance with the margins permissible, then, the entire building up to 10 meter height standing on such pillars would automatically come down. Therefore, they may be given liberty to retain the pillars. However, the walls would be removed and with the roof intact on the pillars, the same could be used as Verandahs. 11. On the other hand, Shri Prashant G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is not a correct submission made by the learned counsels for the appellants that all the offending constructions above 10 meter height have been removed. According to him, there are constructions still standing above 10 meter height and they need to be removed. 12. However, insofar as the margin constructions, retention of the pillars and remaining walls are concerned, Shri Desai has raised serious objection and submits that this cannot be permitted as it is against the bye-laws and regulations. He further submits that the Court Commissioner has also not made any recommendation that pillars may be allowed to be retained and only the walls may be removed. 13. He further submits that the Court Commissioner has also not made any recommendation that pillars may be allowed to be retained and only the walls may be removed. 13. Shri Desai also submitted that proper course open to the appellants would be to first demolish the entire construction and thereafter only apply for sanction of their building plans, which the Corporation would consider in accordance with law and then grant sanction. 14. In reply, again, learned counsels for the appellants submitted that whether the constructions above 10 feet height are standing or not would be a question that can be examined by the engineers of the Corporation, and if found so, then they would also be removed. 15. Insofar as violation of margin construction, the learned counsels again submitted that the Court may consider the hardship that the owners would face in case the pillars are brought down as the upper floors would also be pulled down in case of removal of pillars. 16. Lastly, it was submitted that submission of Shri Desai that all constructions should be first pulled down in order to maintain application for regularization is not correct. The appellants may be allowed to apply for regularization of their constructions after removing the offending constructions and whatever is permitted by the bye-laws and regulations be retained. 17. Having considered the submissions, now that there is report of the Court Commissioner to which no objection has been raised by any side as to its correctness or otherwise, the Court Commissioner having been appointed with the consent of the counsels of the parties and copy of his report having come on record and detailed report retained by the Municipal Corporation, all constructions need to be strictly retained in accordance with the report of the Court Commissioner. All the offending constructions, pointed out in the report of the Court Commissioner have to be pulled down and removed, whatever may be the loss or extent of loss to the owners as they have on their own volition raised the construction without getting the building plans sanctioned from the appropriate authority and also that they have proceeded with the constructions despite due notice from the regulatory authority for stopping the constructions. Thus, no leniency can be extended to them with regard to the offending marginal constructions. 18. Thus, no leniency can be extended to them with regard to the offending marginal constructions. 18. After the offending constructions are removed, which exercise shall be done within two weeks from today, i.e. 14 days from today, only thereafter the appellants will apply for regularization of their constructions to the Corporation and the Corporation, upon submission of such application for regularization, will proceed to pass appropriate orders and intimate the appellants to deposit necessary fee for each of the constructions and upon deposit of necessary fee by the owners, regularization orders be passed by the Corporation. It is further provided that applications for regularization may necessarily be made within 15 days from the last date of removal of the offending constructions as provided above and the Municipal Corporation shall consider the applications for regularization of constructions and communicate the fee to be deposited to the owners within 15 days thereafter. The fee as indicated may be deposited within 15 days thereof and the Corporation will issue necessary orders within a week of the deposit so made. 19. In case the offending constructions are not removed as provided above, the Municipal Corporation would be at liberty to forcefully pull down the constructions at the cost of the owners-appellants and if necessary, may also take police assistance to be provided by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad. 20. So far as Letters Patent Appeal No. 988 of 2018 is concerned, the order of the learned Single Judge imposing cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the judgment and order dated 13th July, 2018 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 4208 of 2018 is set aside as we do not find sufficient justification for such imposition of costs, all the more when all the offending constructions are being removed voluntarily by the appellants. Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in the said petition stands modified to that extent only. 21. In view of the above observations and directions, all these appeals are disposed of. Consequently, connected Civil Applications for stay are disposed of accordingly.