IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, (S.D.

), DAMAN
AT DAMAN
Regular Civil Suit No. ___/2019

(1) Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala,

Aged about 52 years,
Occupation Business,
R/o. G-1, A.K. Empire,
Airport Road, New RTO Office,
Nani Daman

(2) Shri Manojkumar S. Surana

Aged about 55 years
Occupation Business,
R/o. 12, M.H. Road,
Fancy Bazar, Gauhati-1,
Assam

(3) Shri Jayantilal Mavjibhai Patel

Aged about 54 years,
Occupation Business,
R/o. Kailash Road,
Valsad, Gujarat ……. Plaintiffs

V/s.

1. Daman Municipal Council,

Through its Chief Officer,
Office of Daman Municipal Council,
Moti Daman, Daman.

2. Department of Fire & Emergency Services,

Administration of Daman & Diu (U.T.),
Fire Force Headquarter, Daman
Through it’s Director / Asst. Director …….
Defendant

SUIT FOR DECLARATION &

PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

The plaintiffs of this case do herein most humbly and

respectfully submit their case as under:

1
1. That the plaintiffs are the owners of an immovable
property being non agricultural plot bearing city survey
PTS No. 80/55-B admeasuring 2414 square meters
situated at Vithal Mandir, Doctor Sheri, Moti Daman
(hereinafter referred to as “Suit Property”). That
the plaintiff no. 2 and 3 have duly constituted plaintiff no.
1 as their power of attorney holder and granted authority
to file present suit and do all acts related to said land
vide General Power of Attorney duly Notarized before
Notary Public & Advocate, Rajnikant B. Tandel at Daman
under serial no. 2429/2015 dated 23/02/2015. The copy
of said power of attorney is produced on record.
2. The Defendant No. 1 is a Municipal Council, constituted
under The Daman & Diu Municipalities (Amendment)
Regulation, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “DMC”). The
Defendant No. 1 is herein represented by its Chief
Officer. The Defendant No. 2 is a Department of
Administration of U.T. of Daman & Diu, which responsible
for the matters related to Fire and emergency services in
Daman district (hereinafter referred to as “Fire
Department”). The Defendant No. 2 is herein
represented by its Director / Asst. Director.
3. The plaintiffs are having a business of development of
properties. The plaintiffs desire to construct 2 multi-
storey buildings for residential and commercial use
containing shops and flats. The plaintiffs initiated said
project in the year 2012. The plaintiffs gave an
application of construction to the defendant on
25/10/2012 and submitted a construction plan for
carrying out a proposed residential building over the said
plot of land. The defendant No. 1, scrutinized said
construction proposal, approved the plan and issued
construction license no. 25/2012-13 dated 12/11/2012.
2
 (hereinafter referred to as “the License”). The plaintiffs
constructed 2 buildings over suit property namely
“Ocenic Perl Building No. A & B” on plot bearing city
survey PTS No. 80/55-B admeasuring 2414 square
meters situated at Vithal Mandir, Doctor Sheri, Moti
Daman . (hereinafter referred to as “the suit building”).
The plaintiff carried out the construction of the said
building “Ocenic Perl Building No.A & B” as per approved
plan, however the defendant has issued order dated
26/09/2019 to demolished entire building and therefore
the plaintiff is compelled to file present civil suit.
4. The plaintiffs state that during the period of license, the
plaintiff couldn’t complete the construction and hence
plaintiffs applied for the renewal of the said construction
license and sought permission by a letter dated
18/06/2013 and requested for the renewal thereof. The
defendant No. 1 being satisfied with the progress of the
construction and after due inspection granted revised
approval by letter no. 4/3-67/12-13/DMC/13-14/2657
dated 29/11/2013.
5. That the plaintiffs state that since the year 1968 when
Goa, Daman & Diu Municipal Act came into force and in
the year 1971-72, when the model Bye-Laws have been
adopted and implemented by the defendant No. 1, set in
the practice have came into existence mainly regarding
the condition of intimation at the time of commence of
construction work and excavation of the land,
approval/N.O.C. of built up area, laying of footing of
building and the renewal application submitted by the
defendant would not go for any fresh permission or the
license and shall allow to continue the construction work
till its completion based on the original license. This
practice is followed by the defendant No. 1 since last
3
 forty years and therefore citizens and builders also does
not insist for compliance of such condition and the norms
provided under the Act and Bye-Laws.
6. The plaintiffs state that the submission of application for
renewal of the construction license and permission is
deemed to be sufficient compliances and defendant No. 1
has permitted and allowed the citizen and builders to
complete the commenced construction as per the said
practice set by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs carried
out the construction and completed as per approved
plan. The plaintiffs applied for issuance of completion
certificate and NOC for electrical connection of said
building by application dated 05/01/2016. Said
application for completion certificate is pending till date.
7. The plaintiffs state that the plaintiffs received a show
cause notice No.4/3-67/12-13/DMC/16-17/3108 dated
13/02/2017 which was issued by the defendant No. 1. It
was stated in the said show cause notice to demolish the
extra construction within 15 days of the receipt of the
said notice and also submit the reply within 15 days to
show cause as to why alleged unauthorized construction
should not be declared as illegal and accordingly ordered
for demolition. It is pertinent to note that the defendant
No. 1, through its officer never inspected the
construction site of the plaintiff and could not even
indicate as to what it is unauthorized construction and to
what extent it was unauthorized. Said notice being
vague, false and illegal and in complete violation of the
principle of natural justice.
8. The plaintiffs state that in view of the above it was not
even necessary to give any reply of the said show cause
notice and should have treated it as nonexistent.
However out of abundant caution the plaintiffs submitted
4
 preliminary reply dated 23/02/2017, wherein it was
clearly stated that the allegation in notice is totally false
and allegation of illegal construction are false. The
plaintiffs also pointed out that during the workmanship if
there is a deviation here and there the same can be
regularized as provided under the Bye-Laws. Plaintiffs
reserved their right to invoke the option of regularization
as and when & if any extra work is found and established
in the matter. As regards to the fire N.O.C. also it was
stated that the provision of National Building Code
merely provide a guideline and it is not legal enactment.
The defendant No. 2, local fire department does not have
facility to extinguish fire and sufficient tall ladder etc. for
high rise building having height above 15 meters and
under such anomalous situation the defendant No. 1
cannot expect impossible things as it will be termed as
an illegal demand. As the said Show Cause Notice has
been denied as correct, the defendant No. 1 was obliged
to grant an opportunity of hearing in the matter.
9. The plaintiffs state that the defendant No. 1 neither
granted any opportunity of hearing nor carried out any
inquiry and issued one more notice dated 05/06/2017
stating that the reply of plaintiffs is not satisfactory
because the violation is major in nature. The defendant
No. 1 unilaterally reached to said conclusion by
misreading the provision of Bye Laws and erroneously
concluded that only a minor deviation can be regularized.
The request of plaintiffs has been illegally rejected and
did not provide any detail of FSI calculation and further
alleged that it is merely a delay tactic on the part of the
plaintiffs. By the said notice the defendant No. 1 has
called upon the plaintiffs to demolish extra construction
work carried beyond the limit mentioned within 7 days of
5
 the receipt of the said notice. The plaintiffs gave
preliminary reply to said notice on 13/06/2017 wherein it
was clearly stated that the allegation in notice is totally
false and allegation of illegal construction are false.
10. The plaintiffs state that the defendant No. 1 is not
following the procedure as per municipal regulation and
building byelaws which is also violating the principle of
natural justice as well as misinterpreting the provision of
law and has thereby endangered the civil and property
right of the plaintiff in their suit property and suit
building.
11. The Plaintiffs say that on 14/05/2018 the defendant No. 1
issued a notice to the Plaintiffs, requesting to come for
Joint Inspection of building By-laws violation on
29/05/2018. The plaintiffs further say that on 18/05/2018,
the defendant No. 1 issued another notice to the plaintiff
to come for hearing in the matter of violation of Building
Bye-Laws on the same day i.e. 29/05/2018. Said Notices
did not clarify as to which license was the reference for
Joint Inspection. The said Notice was addressed to
Plaintiff No. 2 only. The Plaintiff No. 2 attended Joint
Inspection & hearing and thereafter conveyed reply on
30/05/2018 that he shall comply with the directions and
demolish the extra constructed portion as per directions
of the defendant No. 1 and sought some time for further
removal.
12. The Plaintiff received a Caveat filed in the court of
Hon’ble Civil Judge (J.D.) in the month of May, 2018 by
the defendant No. 1 (Caveator) against present plaintiff
(caveatee) pertaining to Construction License No.
25/2012-13 alleging there is a violation of construction.
However no civil suit was filed as apprehended in said
caveat by Plaintiff.
6
13. The plaintiffs state that on 08.06.2018, the plaintiffs
submitted an application to the defendant No. 2,
Department of Fire and Emergency Service, Daman
requesting to issue provisional NOC for suit building. The
Plaintiff filed Declaration in support of his application and
produced the entire documents as per check list. The
Defendant No. 2 conveyed a reply, dated 30/06/2018 and
expressed its inability to issue Fire NOC to Plaintiff’s suit
building not because of any default of Plaintiff but as
there was fundamental difference/ contradiction in
between Municipality Building Model Bye-laws and
Zoning Regulations, 1971 and the National Building Code
Of India. The Defendant No. 2 further stated in his reply
that until U.T. Administration make policy decision and
amend Municipal Building Bye-laws and Zoning
Regulations, 1971, from the fire and life safety point of
view, the Fire Department is unable to issue such NOC.
The Defendant No. 2 quoted two examples as to how
there is a discrepancy between two Regulations and
National Building Code.
14. The Plaintiff sates that from the reason mentioned in
reply, it was gathered that condition of obtaining fire
NOC mentioned in construction license by Defendant No.
1 is IMPOSSIBLE condition as the Defendant No.2 is
unable to fulfill it due to technical problem and legal
restriction until U.T. Administration amend the
Regulation. The Plaintiff states that it is a contradiction
between two different legal provisions and the Plaintiff
has no role in it, but he is merely a sufferer.
15. The Plaintiff further states that there is no rule or Bye-law
of Municipality that “Prior to Construction NOC from Fire
Department is mandatory”. It is also not logical and
practical to obtain Fire NOC before commencement of
7
 construction. It is of course logical that before issuance of
Completion Certificate, all the permissions must be in
place. Hence, constant insistence of Defendant No.1 to
obtain NOC from Fire Department, before
commencement of construction of suit building is neither
logical nor legal. The Defendant No. 1 has arbitrarily
introduced said condition in License without application
of mind or following rules and Bye-laws or consulting
concern authority i.e. Defendant No.2 and without
referring NBC. Hence, it is prayed to declare said
condition as illogical as well as impossible and required
to be either strike out or to be modified in consideration
and consultation with Fire Department of Daman, so it
can be fulfilled and complied by all the Builders of
buildings having height more that 15 m from ground.
16. The plaintiffs state that on 23/11/2018 the defendant
issued a letter to plaintiff no. 1 calling in his chamber on
29/11/2018 or hearing in the matter of building violation.
The plaintiff no. 1 attended said hearing. However the
hearing was merely repetition of earlier notice content to
which plaintiff replied earlier.
17. The plaintiffs say that the defendant observed long
silence and suddenly on 26/09/2019 passed an order no.
4/3-67/12-13/DMC/2019-20/1267, directing the plaintiff to
demolish the entire building within 7 days of
receipt of notice. Failing to which the defendant would
demolish the entire building and all the cost shall be
recovered from plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 issued said
order u/s. 184(8) of DMC regulation wherein he
contended that there is violation of clause 17(k) of
license terms under which the plaintiffs had to obtain
NOC prior to commencement of construction work and
also after completion of work. However no such NOC is
8
 submitted with the office of defendant No. 1 by plaintiff
and therefore entire building may be termed as unsafe
for dwelling. The Defendant No.1 also contended that the
said building is situated in Coastal Zone and according to
condition no. 16 of the License, NOC from the Coastal
Zone Management Authority (CZMA) was required and
No Objection Certificate from CZMA has not yet been
obtained. The Defendant No.1 was observing mere
silence about NOC requirement from CZMA in his earlier
notices to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff submits that there is no
violation of CRZ regulation in his construction and he is
not falling within the purview where such NOC is required
to be obtained.
18. the plaintiff further states that so far the contention of
violation of CRZ is concern and requirement of NOC from
CZMA is concern the plaintiff would like to state that the
entire license conditions are not stating specifically about
NOC from CZMA. the Defendant no.1 has specified which
all NOC are required but regarding CZMA it is silent. Now
the Defendant No. 1 taking shelter of general clause no.
16 which state that licensee should obtain NOC or
permission or license from ANY OTHER competent
authority if required under any other provision of law for
the time being in force. now if there is any default on
part of the CRZ then the concerned authority ought
have given any notice to the Plaintiff but no any such
notice is received by plaintiff till date.
19. the Defendant no. 1 has no concern with CRZ and he is
not the competent authority to decide unilaterally and
arbitrarily that there is violation of any kind in Plaintiff’s
construction. Moreover Non submission of require NOC
may entitle Defendant No. 1 to stop issuance of
completion certificate but not authorizing to demolish
9
 entire building for said reason. The plaintiff therefore
denies the allegations as it is false and baseless and
prays to declare order dated 26/9/2019 is illegal, null and
void.
20. The plaintiffs state that defendant No. 1 has issued
similar notices of violation of fire safety, NOC
procurement prior to commencement of construction and
other allegations are given almost to all the builders and
developers of Daman though he is aware about the
limitation of Fire department to issue Fire NOC to the
building having height more than 15 mtr. as the
Department No. 2, fire department is not having
sufficient infrastructure to reach above 15 mtr. tall
building. Since last 3-4 years the defendant No. 1 has
stopped granting fresh construction permission of the
high rise multi-storied buildings and also not processing
the application for completion certificate applied by
numbers of builders and developers including the
plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 has kept mum over any
explanation for not granting completion certificate over
long period to those builders who have completed
construction in totally inspite of repeated inquiry made
by all the builders and builders association and inspite of
several representation made to the defendant No. 1.
Illegal instruction and orders are also passed directing
the Sub-Registrar, Daman not to accept the deed of
conveyance for registration of the property of the
building belonging to the builders and developers without
verifying the completion certificate. The defendant No. 1
has come under the thumb of the highly placed authority
and under such pressure not performing their duty only
with a view to cause harassment to the
builders/developers and the people at large.
10
21. The plaintiffs state that during the period of last 2 years
the plaintiffs and the association of builder collectively
have met the defendant No. 1, its council, post holders
and the Chief Officer and Municipal Engineer, etc. but
they are not undertaking the process of regularization
and grant the completion certificate and all the while
they are giving reply which is evasive and leading to no
logical end. Off late on 01/09/2017 and thereafter there
is statement coming from different authority including
the defendant No. 1, that the defendant No. 1 is bent
upon to take law in their hand and cause demolition of
the buildings of the builders/developers including the
building of plaintiffs as stated above and that they are
likely to engage a separate agency for causing the
demolition including the building of the plaintiffs. The
defendant No. 1 is quite capable to put in practice their
illegal design and action and it is strongly apprehended
that the defendant or the agency engaged by them shall
demolish the existing construction indiscriminately
without any legal and just decision taken after
conducting inquiry granting opportunity of being heard to
the plaintiffs. It is being published in the newspaper
“DAMAN GANGA TIMES”, “ASLI AZADI” and other Local
Newspaper of Daman district since 2017 till 2019 that
the defendant No. 1 is in process to demolish the
construction of high rise building which have been
alleged to violate the building norms and Bye laws and to
whom the notices are issued for demolition of
construction beyond the scope of approved license.
22. The plaintiff has made huge investment in the building
and if his building will be demolished for merely breach
of term that Fire NOC ought to have been obtained prior
to commencement of work is nothing but a harsh
11
 punishment and it may cause irreparable loss to the
plaintiff. The demand of defendant is also neither logical
nor maintainable. The defendant is issuing a license for
the building which is having height which is more than
the height to which fire department can reach in case of
fire. It is contradicting between the terms and condition
of two departments under one administration. There is
no coordination between two departments and the
suffered are citizen who invest huge amount in the
construction of building. The said breach of term 17k is
exaggerated by defendant though it can be resolved.
23. The Plaintiff states that the Defendant No. 1 has issued
License to construct a building above 15 meter height
and has approved Construction Plan accordingly. The
Plaintiff invested huge amount in construction of a
building in pursuance to said License. The Plaintiff
requested Fire Department to issue NOC but the
Department is incapable of issuing such NOC as they are
not having sufficient infrastructure. The Plaintiff has
applied for issuance of Completion Certificate of it’s
Commercial-cum- Residential building on 05/01/2016,
which is pending in the office of Defendant No. 1 till date.
According to Municipal Regulation said construction is
legal and valid in eye of law as the Occupancy Certificate
application is not refused but it is deemed to be granted.
In such circumstances, the Order dated 26/09/2019 to
demolish the entire building is illegal and required to be
set aside. The Plaintiff has submitted another application
to the Defendant No. 1, on 30/09/2019 stating that it is
incapability of the Fire Department, Daman to issue
necessary NOC to satisfy License condition No. 17(k)
regarding Fire NOC and therefore, requested to strike out
or modify it. However, the DefendantNo. 1 is not showing
12
 any gesture to consider the Plaintiff’s request and hence,
the Plaintiff is compelled to file the present suit, which
otherwise may cause destruction of suit building.
24. The plaintiffs state that plaintiffs have installed entire fire
fighting system and equipments in suit building. However
due to inability of defendant No. 2, NOC could not be
obtained inspite of making efforts since long time. The
defendant No. 2 was not prepared to issue NOC and it
has not issued NOC to any building which is duly
complied with fire safety standard having height more
than 15mtr. due to their own inability. Hence the entire
demolition of suit building is nothing but a harsh
punishment for which the plaintiffs are not entitled.
25. The plaintiffs state that director of Municipal
Administration, Daman Mr. Sandeep Kumar who was also
collector of Daman at the relevant time passed an order
no. COL/DMN/EST/2017/3381, dated 26/04/2017 wherein
he has contended that there are 17 high rise building in
Daman Municipality are which were under construction
and 27 such buildings whose construction is completed
have violated building byelaws and no occupancy
certificate is given to them by defendant No. 1. He
further ordered that DMC and Town & Country Planning
Department will not approve any plan if CRZ clearance
and NOC from coast guard is not received and directed
sub-registrar shall not register any documents in respect
of any property, flat without occupancy certificate. He
further directed Electricity Department & Public Works
Department not to provide electricity and water
connection respectively to the building which do not have
occupancy certificate.
26. The plaintiffs states that after above said order the
defendant No. 1 has not given any Occupancy Certificate
13
 and therefore, the sale and transfer of property is halted,
since then. The Plaintiff’s building is one of them.
27. The plaintiffs states that the defendant No. 1 has not
issued completion certificate till now and there is no
human dwelling in the said suit building till filing of suit
and hence there is no eminent endanger to human life if
the Fire NOC is obtained before issuance of completion
certificate.
28. The plaintiffs state that plaintiffs will be prevented from
availing legal right of removing violation of license
condition and thereby regularizing the construction and
minor irregularities which will cause great prejudice and
it may suffer irreparable loss which may not be
compensated in the terms of money only. The plaintiffs
have carried out the construction as per approved plan
and after obtaining license from the defendant No. 1.
Hence there is a prima facie case in favour of the
plaintiffs and which may prevent multiplicity of litigation.
However in present case the defendant No. 1 is adamant
and seems in no mood to consider the request of
plaintiffs for regularization but is set to demolish the
construction anyhow.
29. If the construction will be demolished without availing
opportunity of regularization then it would cause lots of
hardship, loss and harassment to the plaintiffs which is
apart from the violation of legal right of plaintiffs and
hence this is the fit case in which the Hon’ble court can
exercise its jurisdiction and power of granting relief by
order of injunction preventing the defendant to carry out
demolition of plaintiff’s building and act upon order dated
26/09/2019 until remedy of regularization is exhausted.

14
30. That the Plaintiffs have also filed an application for
temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Civil
Procedure Code alongwith the suit and therefore for the
purpose of that application the plaintiff shall rely on all
the averments and pleadings made in this suit and also
the documents annexed herewith.
31. The Plaintiffs state that the Defendant no. 2 is a
government authority, however, considering the urgent
and immediate relief, the Plaintiffs have filed the present
suit against the government without giving notice under
section 80 of C.P.C. for which the Plaintiffs separate
application seeking waiver of notice. The plaintiff further
states that defendant no. 1 is a constituted body under
municipal regulation and hence to file a suit against it
requires to issue a notice U/s.289 of regulation giving
time of one month before filing suit. However the
defendant no. 1 has violated the provision of regulation
and granted merely 7 days to demolish entire
construction and thereby caused artificial emergency. In
such circumstances, it is not practical to issue notice
under section 289 of Municipal Regulation and there is
emergency to protect the plaintiffs civil right and
therefore the plaintiff is seeking waiver of notice under
289 of regulation. The plaintiff has separately filed said
application with supporting affidavit.
32. The plaintiffs state that the apprehended and threatened
action is totally illegal and is not in respect of any act
done in pursuance of the regulation.
33. The plaintiffs have filed present suit for the relief sought
in prayer clause however the defendant No. 1 is likely to
take harsh action by taking advantage of notice period
and therefore by order of ex-parte injunction defendant is
required to be restrained from taking any coercive action
15
 against the plaintiffs until the application of interim
injunction is decided on merit. This is the fit case in which
the defendant No. 1 is required to be restrained by order
of interim injunction and the same can be granted ex-
parte considering the nature of suit.
34. The plaintiff states that the defendant has made up its
mind to demolish the construction to the noticee who has
been called upon to demolish the construction at their
own but have not complied with the same. The defendant
is not considering the legal provision of regularization of
construction which has violated the norms. This act of
defendant indicates the mind set of defendant to
demolish the construction forcefully and without granting
any opportunity to the builders for availing benefit of
regularization which is granted in law. Hence it is
necessary to restrain the defendant from taking coarse
action as stated in order dated 26/09/2019 and therefore
plaintiff is compelled to file the present suit for
declaration and perpetual injunction
35. The plaintiffs state that defendant No. 1 has also violated
the provision of section 184 of municipal regularization
which otherwise provides sufficient time for licensee to
act upon the direction. In the instant case the defendant
No. 1 has overlooked and ignored mandatory
requirement of section 184(8) of regulation under which
15 days time is to be given to the licensee but in the
instant case it is merely 7 days. The defendant No. 1 has
intentionally overlooked and bypassed the mandatory
provision and requirement so the licensee cannot availed
any legal remedy and thereby causing unnecessary
haste in matter desire to demolish the entire building.

16
36. That the Plaintiff have also filed an Application for
temporary injunction, under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Civil
Procedure Code along with the suit and therefore, for the
purpose of that application, the Plaintiff shall rely on all
the averments and pleadings made in this suit and also
the documents annexed herewith.
37. The cause of action arose on 26/09/2019 when the
defendant issued order for demolition of entire building
within 7 days of receipt of said order and hence the suit
is within the limitation.
38. That the present suit is for declaration and is valued for
Rs.300/- and for the purpose of injunction the suit is
valued for Rs. 300/- and accordingly the ad-velorem
Court fee on Rs. 600/- leviable is paid. Hence the court
fee of Rs. 45/- is paid.
39. The property of the plaintiffs is situated at Daman. Both
the parties are from Daman and entire cause of action for
filing this present suit has arisen at Daman and therefore
this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try
this suit.
40. That plaintiff therefore prays as under:
a. To decree the suit with cost.
b. By decree and order of this Hon’ble Court it may
please be declared that the notice dated 13.02.2017
and 05.06.2017 and order dated 26/09/2019 to
demolish entire suit building constructed on suit
property under License No. 25/2012-13 dated
12.11.2012, issued by the defendant No.1 are
illegal, false and be quashed and set aside.
c. That by the order and decree of mandatory
injunction the defendant No.1 may pleased be
directed to ascertain legally the deviation of the
construction made by the plaintiffs while
17
 constructing over his property bearing Survey PTS
No. 80/55-B, at Moti Daman with the construction
license No. License No. 25/2012-13 dated
12.11.2012 by making necessary inquiry with the
right to the plaintiffs to determine the deviation of
the construction and to regularize the same, as per
bye-law by following the due process of Law.
d. That by an order and decree of permanent
injunction, the defendant No. 1, its agent, servant or
any third person acting on behalf of defendant No.
1, may please be permanently restrained by himself
or through any agency not to cause any demolition
of the construction of plaintiff building, constructed
under License No. 25/2012-13 dated 12.11.2012,
standing over Plot bearing No. PTS No. 80/55-B, at
Moti Daman.
e. That by an order and decree of permanent
injunction the defendant no. 1 may please be
restrained from cancelling or suspending the
construction vide License No. 25/2012-13 dated
12.11.2012 and demolishing the building standing
on suit property until the plaintiff exhaust his legal
right of regularizing the minor and major
irregularities as per the legal right of licensee
granted under the DMC regulation and Bye laws.
f. Any other and further relief, which this Hon’ble
Court deem, just and proper under the
circumstances of this case may please be granted.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS THE PLAINTIFF SHALL

EVER PRAY.

Daman

18
Dated: 01/10/2019 __________________

19
 VERIFICATION

I, the undersigned, Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala,

Son of Ghelabhai Intwala, Business, Aged about 52 years,

Hindu, Indian National, Resident of 401, A.K. Empire, Airport

Road, Nani Daman, Daman, do hereby verify and state that

whatever stated above in my plaint is true to the best of my

knowledge, information and belief.

Daman
Dated: 01/10/2019 ____________________

20
 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, (S.D.), DAMAN
AT DAMAN
Regular Civil Suit No. ___/2019

Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala & other ……. Plaintiffs

V/s.

Daman Municipal Council & another ……. Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, the undersigned Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala, Son

of Ghelabhai Intwala, Business, Aged about 52 years, Hindu,

Indian National, Resident of 401, A.K. Empire, Airport Road,

Nani Daman, Daman, do hereby declare on oath as under:-

That the contents of my plaint are read over to me by

my advocate and I say that the said contents are true and

correct in all respect.

Whatever stated in my this affidavit is true to the best

of my knowledge, information and belief.

Daman

Dated: 01/10/2019 __________________

21
 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, (S.D.), DAMAN
AT DAMAN
Regular Civil Suit No. ___/2019

Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala & other ……. Plaintiffs

V/s.

Daman Municipal Council & another ……. Defendants

ADDRESS MEMO

ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFFS

(1) Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala,

Aged about 52 years,
Occupation Business,
R/o. 401, A.K. Empire,
Airport Road, New RTO Office,
Nani Daman

(2) Shri Manojkumar S. Surana

Aged about 55 years
Occupation Business,
R/o. 12, M.H. Road,
Fancy Bazar, Gauhati-1,
Assam

(3) Shri Jayantilal Mavjibhai Patel

Aged about 54 years,
Occupation Business,
R/o. Kailash Road,
Valsad, Gujarat

Daman
Dated: 01/10/2019 __________________

22
 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, (S.D.), DAMAN
AT DAMAN
Regular Civil Suit No. ___/2019

Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala & other ……. Plaintiffs

V/s.

Daman Municipal Council & another ……. Defendants

LIST OF DOCUMENT

The plaintiffs of this case do hereby relies upon

following documents in support of their case:

1. Copy of partnership deed dated 07/06/012

2. Copy of Retirement Cum Partnership Deed dated
24/08/2012
3. Copy of Development Agreement duly registered in
the office of Sub-Registrar, Daman under serial no.
1450/2014 dated 16/06/2014.
4. Copy of General Power of Attorney duly Notarized
before Notary Advocate Rajnikant B. Tandel at Daman
under serial no. 2429/2015 dated 23/02/2015.
5. Copy of approved construction plan
6. Copy of Construction license No. 25/2012-13 dated
12/11/2012.
7. Copy of Revised approval of license dated 29/11/2013.
8. Copy of letter dated 05/01/2016 by plaintiff to
defendant for issuance of completion certificate
9. Copy of Show cause notice dated 13/02/2017 issued
by defendant to plaintiff
10. Copy of Reply by plaintiff to defendant dated
23/02/2017
11. Copy of notice dated 05/06/2017 by defendant to
plaintiff

23
12. Copy of reply of plaintiff to defendant dated
13/06/2017
13. Copy of Notice dated 14/05/2018 by defendant to
plaintiff
14. Copy of Notice dated 18/05/2018 by defendant to
plaintiff.
15. Copy of letter dated 30/05/2018 by plaintiff to
defendant.
16. Copy of Caveat Application filed in the Hon’ble Civil
Judge, (J.D.), Daman by defendant against Plaintiff.
17. Copy of letter from Department of Fire & Emergency
Services, Daman to plaintiff dated 30/06/2018.
18. Copy of Notice dated 23/11/2018 by defendant to
plaintiff.
19. copy of order dated 26/9/2019 issued by Defendant
No.1
20. Copy of Letter submitted by plaintiff to defendant No.1
on 30/9/2019

Daman
Dated: 01/10/2019 __________________

24
 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, (S.D.), DAMAN
AT DAMAN
Regular Civil Suit No. ___/2019

1. Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala,

Aged about 52 years,
Occupation Business,
R/o. G-1, A.K. Empire,
Airport Road, New RTO Office,
Nani Daman

2. Shri Manojkumar S. Surana

Aged about 55 years
Occupation Business,
R/o. 12, M.H. Road,
Fancy Bazar, Gauhati-1,
Assam

3. Shri Jayantilal Mavjibhai Patel

Aged about 54 years,
Occupation Business,
R/o. Kailash Road,
Valsad, Gujarat ……. Plaintiffs

V/s.

1. Daman Municipal Council,

Through its Chief Officer,
Office of Daman Municipal Council,
Moti Daman, Daman.

2. Department of Fire & Emergency Services,

Administration of Daman & Diu (U.T.),
Fire Force Headquarter, Daman,
Through it’s Director / Asst. Director ……. Defendants

AN APPLICATION FOR AD-

INTERIM INJUNCTION UNDER
ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 R/W.
SECTION 151 OF C.P.C.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

25
 The plaintiffs of this case do herein most humbly and
respectfully pray as under:

1. That the plaintiffs are the owners of an immovable

property being non agricultural plot bearing city survey
PTS No. 80/55-B admeasuring 2414 square meters
situated at Vithal Mandir, Doctor Sheri, Moti Daman
(hereinafter referred to as “Suit Property”). That
the plaintiff no. 2 and 3 have duly constituted plaintiff no.
1 as their power of attorney holder and granted authority
to file present suit and do all acts related to said land
vide General Power of Attorney duly Notarized before
Notary Public & Advocate, Rajnikant B. Tandel at Daman
under serial no. 2429/2015 dated 23/02/2015. The copy
of said power of attorney is produced on record.
2. The Defendant No. 1 is a Municipal Council, constituted
under The Daman & Diu Municipalities (Amendment)
Regulation, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “DMC”). The
Defendant No. 1 is herein represented by its Chief
Officer. The Defendant No. 2 is a Department of
Administration of U.T. of Daman & Diu, which responsible
for the matters related to Fire and emergency services in
Daman district (hereinafter referred to as “Fire
Department”). The Defendant No. 2 is herein
represented by its Director / Asst. Director.
3. The plaintiffs are having a business of development of
properties. The plaintiffs desire to construct 2 multi-
storey buildings for residential and commercial use
containing shops and flats. The plaintiffs initiated said
project in the year 2012. The plaintiffs gave an
application of construction to the defendant on
25/10/2012 and submitted a construction plan for
carrying out a proposed residential building over the said

26
 plot of land. The defendant No. 1, scrutinized said
construction proposal, approved the plan and issued
construction license no. 25/2012-13 dated 12/11/2012.
(hereinafter referred to as “the License”). The plaintiffs
constructed 2 buildings over suit property namely
“Ocenic Perl Building No. A & B” on plot bearing city
survey PTS No. 80/55-B admeasuring 2414 square
meters situated at Vithal Mandir, Doctor Sheri, Moti
Daman . (hereinafter referred to as “the suit building”).
The plaintiff carried out the construction of the said
building “Ocenic Perl Building No.A & B” as per approved
plan, however the defendant has issued order dated
26/09/2019 to demolished entire building and therefore
the plaintiff is compelled to file present civil suit.
4. The plaintiffs state that during the period of license, the
plaintiff couldn’t complete the construction and hence
plaintiffs applied for the renewal of the said construction
license and sought permission by a letter dated
18/06/2013 and requested for the renewal thereof. The
defendant No. 1 being satisfied with the progress of the
construction and after due inspection granted revised
approval by letter no. 4/3-67/12-13/DMC/13-14/2657
dated 29/11/2013.
5. That the plaintiffs state that since the year 1968 when
Goa, Daman & Diu Municipal Act came into force and in
the year 1971-72, when the model Bye-Laws have been
adopted and implemented by the defendant No. 1, set in
the practice have came into existence mainly regarding
the condition of intimation at the time of commence of
construction work and excavation of the land,
approval/N.O.C. of built up area, laying of footing of
building and the renewal application submitted by the
defendant would not go for any fresh permission or the
27
 license and shall allow to continue the construction work
till its completion based on the original license. This
practice is followed by the defendant No. 1 since last
forty years and therefore citizens and builders also does
not insist for compliance of such condition and the norms
provided under the Act and Bye-Laws.
6. The plaintiffs state that the submission of application for
renewal of the construction license and permission is
deemed to be sufficient compliances and defendant No. 1
has permitted and allowed the citizen and builders to
complete the commenced construction as per the said
practice set by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs carried
out the construction and completed as per approved
plan. The plaintiffs applied for issuance of completion
certificate and NOC for electrical connection of said
building by application dated 05/01/2016. Said
application for completion certificate is pending till date.
7. The plaintiffs state that the plaintiffs received a show
cause notice No.4/3-67/12-13/DMC/16-17/3108 dated
13/02/2017 which was issued by the defendant No. 1. It
was stated in the said show cause notice to demolish the
extra construction within 15 days of the receipt of the
said notice and also submit the reply within 15 days to
show cause as to why alleged unauthorized construction
should not be declared as illegal and accordingly ordered
for demolition. It is pertinent to note that the defendant
No. 1, through its officer never inspected the
construction site of the plaintiff and could not even
indicate as to what it is unauthorized construction and to
what extent it was unauthorized. Said notice being
vague, false and illegal and in complete violation of the
principle of natural justice.

28
8. The plaintiffs state that in view of the above it was not
even necessary to give any reply of the said show cause
notice and should have treated it as nonexistent.
However out of abundant caution the plaintiffs submitted
preliminary reply dated 23/02/2017, wherein it was
clearly stated that the allegation in notice is totally false
and allegation of illegal construction are false. The
plaintiffs also pointed out that during the workmanship if
there is a deviation here and there the same can be
regularized as provided under the Bye-Laws. Plaintiffs
reserved their right to invoke the option of regularization
as and when & if any extra work is found and established
in the matter. As regards to the fire N.O.C. also it was
stated that the provision of National Building Code
merely provide a guideline and it is not legal enactment.
The defendant No. 2, local fire department does not have
facility to extinguish fire and sufficient tall ladder etc. for
high rise building having height above 15 meters and
under such anomalous situation the defendant No. 1
cannot expect impossible things as it will be termed as
an illegal demand. As the said Show Cause Notice has
been denied as correct, the defendant No. 1 was obliged
to grant an opportunity of hearing in the matter.
9. The plaintiffs state that the defendant No. 1 neither
granted any opportunity of hearing nor carried out any
inquiry and issued one more notice dated 05/06/2017
stating that the reply of plaintiffs is not satisfactory
because the violation is major in nature. The defendant
No. 1 unilaterally reached to said conclusion by
misreading the provision of Bye Laws and erroneously
concluded that only a minor deviation can be regularized.
The request of plaintiffs has been illegally rejected and
did not provide any detail of FSI calculation and further
29
 alleged that it is merely a delay tactic on the part of the
plaintiffs. By the said notice the defendant No. 1 has
called upon the plaintiffs to demolish extra construction
work carried beyond the limit mentioned within 7 days of
the receipt of the said notice. The plaintiffs gave
preliminary reply to said notice on 13/06/2017 wherein it
was clearly stated that the allegation in notice is totally
false and allegation of illegal construction are false.
10. The plaintiffs state that the defendant No. 1 is not
following the procedure as per municipal regulation and
building byelaws which is also violating the principle of
natural justice as well as misinterpreting the provision of
law and has thereby endangered the civil and property
right of the plaintiff in their suit property and suit
building.
11. The Plaintiffs say that on 14/05/2018 the defendant No. 1
issued a notice to the Plaintiffs, requesting to come for
Joint Inspection of building By-laws violation on
29/05/2018. The plaintiffs further say that on 18/05/2018,
the defendant No. 1 issued another notice to the plaintiff
to come for hearing in the matter of violation of Building
Bye-Laws on the same day i.e. 29/05/2018. Said Notices
did not clarify as to which license was the reference for
Joint Inspection. The said Notice was addressed to
Plaintiff No. 2 only. The Plaintiff No. 2 attended Joint
Inspection & hearing and thereafter conveyed reply on
30/05/2018 that he shall comply with the directions and
demolish the extra constructed portion as per directions
of the defendant No. 1 and sought some time for further
removal.
12. The Plaintiff received a Caveat filed in the court of
Hon’ble Civil Judge (J.D.) in the month of May, 2018 by
the defendant No. 1 (Caveator) against present plaintiff
30
 (caveatee) pertaining to Construction License No.
25/2012-13 alleging there is a violation of construction.
However no civil suit was filed as apprehended in said
caveat by Plaintiff.
13. The plaintiffs state that on 08.06.2018, the plaintiffs
submitted an application to the defendant No. 2,
Department of Fire and Emergency Service, Daman
requesting to issue provisional NOC for suit building. The
Plaintiff filed Declaration in support of his application and
produced the entire documents as per check list. The
Defendant No. 2 conveyed a reply, dated 30/06/2018 and
expressed its inability to issue Fire NOC to Plaintiff’s suit
building not because of any default of Plaintiff but as
there was fundamental difference/ contradiction in
between Municipality Building Model Bye-laws and
Zoning Regulations, 1971 and the National Building Code
Of India. The Defendant No. 2 further stated in his reply
that until U.T. Administration make policy decision and
amend Municipal Building Bye-laws and Zoning
Regulations, 1971, from the fire and life safety point of
view, the Fire Department is unable to issue such NOC.
The Defendant No. 2 quoted two examples as to how
there is a discrepancy between two Regulations and
National Building Code.
14. The Plaintiff sates that from the reason mentioned in
reply, it was gathered that condition of obtaining fire
NOC mentioned in construction license by Defendant No.
1 is IMPOSSIBLE condition as the Defendant No.2 is
unable to fulfill it due to technical problem and legal
restriction until U.T. Administration amend the
Regulation. The Plaintiff states that it is a contradiction
between two different legal provisions and the Plaintiff
has no role in it, but he is merely a sufferer.
31
15. The Plaintiff further states that there is no rule or Bye-law
of Municipality that “Prior to Construction NOC from Fire
Department is mandatory”. It is also not logical and
practical to obtain Fire NOC before commencement of
construction. It is of course logical that before issuance of
Completion Certificate, all the permissions must be in
place. Hence, constant insistence of Defendant No.1 to
obtain NOC from Fire Department, before
commencement of construction of suit building is neither
logical nor legal. The Defendant No. 1 has arbitrarily
introduced said condition in License without application
of mind or following rules and Bye-laws or consulting
concern authority i.e. Defendant No.2 and without
referring NBC. Hence, it is prayed to declare said
condition as illogical as well as impossible and required
to be either strike out or to be modified in consideration
and consultation with Fire Department of Daman, so it
can be fulfilled and complied by all the Builders of
buildings having height more that 15 m from ground.
16. The plaintiffs state that on 23/11/2018 the defendant
issued a letter to plaintiff no. 1 calling in his chamber on
29/11/2018 or hearing in the matter of building violation.
The plaintiff no. 1 attended said hearing. However the
hearing was merely repetition of earlier notice content to
which plaintiff replied earlier.
17. The plaintiffs say that the defendant observed long
silence and suddenly on 26/09/2019 passed an order no.
4/3-67/12-13/DMC/2019-20/1267, directing the plaintiff to
demolish the entire building within 7 days of
receipt of notice. Failing to which the defendant would
demolish the entire building and all the cost shall be
recovered from plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 issued said
order u/s. 184(8) of DMC regulation wherein he
32
 contended that there is violation of clause 17(k) of
license terms under which the plaintiffs had to obtain
NOC prior to commencement of construction work and
also after completion of work. However no such NOC is
submitted with the office of defendant No. 1 by plaintiff
and therefore entire building may be termed as unsafe
for dwelling. The Defendant No.1 also contended that the
said building is situated in Coastal Zone and according to
condition no. 16 of the License, NOC from the Coastal
Zone Management Authority (CZMA) was required and
No Objection Certificate from CZMA has not yet been
obtained. The Defendant No.1 was observing mere
silence about NOC requirement from CZMA in his earlier
notices to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff submits that there is no
violation of CRZ regulation in his construction and he is
not falling within the purview where such NOC is required
to be obtained.
18. The plaintiff further states that so far the contention of
violation of CRZ is concern and requirement of NOC from
CZMA is concern the plaintiff would like to state that the
entire license conditions are not stating specifically about
NOC from CZMA. the Defendant no.1 has specified which
all NOC are required but regarding CZMA it is silent. Now
the Defendant No. 1 taking shelter of general clause no.
16 which state that licensee should obtain NOC or
permission or license from ANY OTHER competent
authority if required under any other provision of law for
the time being in force. now if there is any default on
part of the CRZ then the concerned authority ought
have given any notice to the Plaintiff but no any such
notice is received by plaintiff till date.
19. the Defendant no. 1 has no concern with CRZ and he is
not the competent authority to decide unilaterally and
33
 arbitrarily that there is violation of any kind in Plaintiff’s
construction. Moreover Non submission of require NOC
may entitle Defendant No. 1 to stop issuance of
completion certificate but not authorizing to demolish
entire building for said reason. The plaintiff therefore
denies the allegations as it is false and baseless and
prays to declare order dated 26/9/2019 is illegal, null and
void.
20. The plaintiffs state that defendant No. 1 has issued
similar notices of violation of fire safety, NOC
procurement prior to commencement of construction and
other allegations are given almost to all the builders and
developers of Daman though he is aware about the
limitation of Fire department to issue Fire NOC to the
building having height more than 15 mtr. as the
Department No. 2, fire department is not having
sufficient infrastructure to reach above 15 mtr. tall
building. Since last 3-4 years the defendant No. 1 has
stopped granting fresh construction permission of the
high rise multi-storied buildings and also not processing
the application for completion certificate applied by
numbers of builders and developers including the
plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 has kept mum over any
explanation for not granting completion certificate over
long period to those builders who have completed
construction in totally inspite of repeated inquiry made
by all the builders and builders association and inspite of
several representation made to the defendant No. 1.
Illegal instruction and orders are also passed directing
the Sub-Registrar, Daman not to accept the deed of
conveyance for registration of the property of the
building belonging to the builders and developers without
verifying the completion certificate. The defendant No. 1
34
 has come under the thumb of the highly placed authority
and under such pressure not performing their duty only
with a view to cause harassment to the
builders/developers and the people at large.
21. The plaintiffs state that during the period of last 2 years
the plaintiffs and the association of builder collectively
have met the defendant No. 1, its council, post holders
and the Chief Officer and Municipal Engineer, etc. but
they are not undertaking the process of regularization
and grant the completion certificate and all the while
they are giving reply which is evasive and leading to no
logical end. Off late on 01/09/2017 and thereafter there
is statement coming from different authority including
the defendant No. 1, that the defendant No. 1 is bent
upon to take law in their hand and cause demolition of
the buildings of the builders/developers including the
building of plaintiffs as stated above and that they are
likely to engage a separate agency for causing the
demolition including the building of the plaintiffs. The
defendant No. 1 is quite capable to put in practice their
illegal design and action and it is strongly apprehended
that the defendant or the agency engaged by them shall
demolish the existing construction indiscriminately
without any legal and just decision taken after
conducting inquiry granting opportunity of being heard to
the plaintiffs. It is being published in the newspaper
“DAMAN GANGA TIMES”, “ASLI AZADI” and other Local
Newspaper of Daman district since 2017 till 2019 that
the defendant No. 1 is in process to demolish the
construction of high rise building which have been
alleged to violate the building norms and Bye laws and to
whom the notices are issued for demolition of
construction beyond the scope of approved license.
35
22. The plaintiff has made huge investment in the building
and if his building will be demolished for merely breach
of term that Fire NOC ought to have been obtained prior
to commencement of work is nothing but a harsh
punishment and it may cause irreparable loss to the
plaintiff. The demand of defendant is also neither logical
nor maintainable. The defendant is issuing a license for
the building which is having height which is more than
the height to which fire department can reach in case of
fire. It is contradicting between the terms and condition
of two departments under one administration. There is
no coordination between two departments and the
suffered are citizen who invest huge amount in the
construction of building. The said breach of term 17k is
exaggerated by defendant though it can be resolved.
23. The Plaintiff states that the Defendant No. 1 has issued
License to construct a building above 15 meter height
and has approved Construction Plan accordingly. The
Plaintiff invested huge amount in construction of a
building in pursuance to said License. The Plaintiff
requested Fire Department to issue NOC but the
Department is incapable of issuing such NOC as they are
not having sufficient infrastructure. The Plaintiff has
applied for issuance of Completion Certificate of it’s
Commercial-cum- Residential building on 05/01/2016,
which is pending in the office of Defendant No. 1 till date.
According to Municipal Regulation said construction is
legal and valid in eye of law as the Occupancy Certificate
application is not refused but it is deemed to be granted.
In such circumstances, the Order dated 26/09/2019 to
demolish the entire building is illegal and required to be
set aside. The Plaintiff has submitted another application
to the Defendant No. 1, on 30/09/2019 stating that it is
36
 incapability of the Fire Department, Daman to issue
necessary NOC to satisfy License condition No. 17(k)
regarding Fire NOC and therefore, requested to strike out
or modify it. However, the Defendant No. 1 is not
showing any gesture to consider the Plaintiff’s request
and hence, the Plaintiff is compelled to file the present
suit, which otherwise may cause destruction of suit
building.
24. The plaintiffs state that plaintiffs have installed entire fire
fighting system and equipments in suit building. However
due to inability of defendant No. 2, NOC could not be
obtained inspite of making efforts since long time. The
defendant No. 2 was not prepared to issue NOC and it
has not issued NOC to any building which is duly
complied with fire safety standard having height more
than 15mtr. due to their own inability. Hence the entire
demolition of suit building is nothing but a harsh
punishment for which the plaintiffs are not entitled.
25. The plaintiffs state that director of Municipal
Administration, Daman Mr. Sandeep Kumar who was also
collector of Daman at the relevant time passed an order
no. COL/DMN/EST/2017/3381, dated 26/04/2017 wherein
he has contended that there are 17 high rise building in
Daman Municipality are which were under construction
and 27 such buildings whose construction is completed
have violated building byelaws and no occupancy
certificate is given to them by defendant No. 1. He
further ordered that DMC and Town & Country Planning
Department will not approve any plan if CRZ clearance
and NOC from coast guard is not received and directed
sub-registrar shall not register any documents in respect
of any property, flat without occupancy certificate. He
further directed Electricity Department & Public Works
37
 Department not to provide electricity and water
connection respectively to the building which do not have
occupancy certificate.
26. The plaintiffs states that after above said order the
defendant No. 1 has not given any Occupancy Certificate
and therefore, the sale and transfer of property is halted,
since then. The Plaintiff’s building is one of them.
27. The plaintiffs states that the defendant No. 1 has not
issued completion certificate till now and there is no
human dwelling in the said suit building till filing of suit
and hence there is no eminent endanger to human life if
the Fire NOC is obtained before issuance of completion
certificate.
28. The plaintiffs state that plaintiffs will be prevented from
availing legal right of removing violation of license
condition and thereby regularizing the construction and
minor irregularities which will cause great prejudice and
it may suffer irreparable loss which may not be
compensated in the terms of money only. The plaintiffs
have carried out the construction as per approved plan
and after obtaining license from the defendant No. 1.
Hence there is a prima facie case in favour of the
plaintiffs and which may prevent multiplicity of litigation.
However in present case the defendant No. 1 is adamant
and seems in no mood to consider the request of
plaintiffs for regularization but is set to demolish the
construction anyhow.
29. If the construction will be demolished without availing
opportunity of regularization then it would cause lots of
hardship, loss and harassment to the plaintiffs which is
apart from the violation of legal right of plaintiffs and
hence this is the fit case in which the Hon’ble court can
exercise its jurisdiction and power of granting relief by
38
 order of injunction preventing the defendant to carry out
demolition of plaintiff’s building and act upon order dated
26/09/2019 until remedy of regularization is exhausted
30. The plaintiffs have made huge investment in the building
and if they will be prevented from availing legal right of
regularization of construction it shall cause great
prejudice to the Plaintiff and they may suffer irreparable
loss which may not be compensated in the terms of
money only. The plaintiff has carried out the construction
as per approved plan and after obtaining license from the
defendant. Hence, there is a prima facie case in favour
of the plaintiff and if the defendant will consider the
request of plaintiff to regularize those deviations and
exceed construction from approved plan then it can be
regularized easily by following procedure of law and it
may prevent multiplicity of litigation. The balance of
convenience is also in favour of plaintiffs.
31. The plaintiffs have filed present suit for the relief sought
in prayer clause however the defendant No. 1 is likely to
take harsh action by taking advantage of notice period
and therefore by order of ex-parte injunction defendant is
required to be restrained from taking any coercive action
against the plaintiffs until the application of interim
injunction is decided on merit. This is the fit case in which
the defendant No. 1 is required to be restrained by order
of interim injunction and the same can be granted ex-
parte considering the nature of suit.
32. The plaintiff states that the defendant has made up its
mind to demolish the construction to the noticee who has
been called upon to demolish the construction at their
own but have not complied with the same. The defendant
is not considering the legal provision of regularization of
construction which has violated the norms. This act of
39
 defendant indicates the mind set of defendant to
demolish the construction forcefully and without granting
any opportunity to the builders for availing benefit of
regularization which is granted in law. Hence it is
necessary to restrain the defendant from taking coarse
action as stated in order dated 26/09/2019 and therefore
plaintiff is compelled to file the present suit for
declaration and perpetual injunction
33. The plaintiffs state that defendant No. 1 has also violated
the provision of section 184 of municipal regularization
which otherwise provides sufficient time for licensee to
act upon the direction. In the instant case the defendant
No. 1 has overlooked and ignored mandatory
requirement of section 184(8) of regulation under which
15 days time is to be given to the licensee but in the
instant case it is merely 7 days. The defendant No. 1 has
intentionally overlooked and bypassed the mandatory
provision and requirement so the licensee cannot availed
any legal remedy and thereby causing unnecessary
haste in matter desire to demolish the entire building.
34. The plaintiff states that if the Defendant will not be
restrained by an order of injunction then it would cause
irreparable toss to plaintiffs civil right. the balance of
convenience is in favour of plaintiff as he is having legal
right of regularization if there is any violation or breach
of license condition and demolition of entire building is
not the solution.
35. The plaintiff therefore prays:
a. That the application may please be allowed with
cost.
b. By an order of ad-interim injunction, the execution
and operation of Order dated 26/09/2019 issued by
Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiff to demolish entire
40
 constructed building under License No. 25/2012-13
dated 12.11.2012 may please be stayed during
pendency of suit.
c. That by an order of ad-interim injunction, the
Defendant No. 1, its agent, servant or any third
person acting on behalf of defendant No. 1, may
please be temporarily restrained by himself or
through any agency not to cause any demolition of
the construction of Plaintiff building, constructed
under License License No. 25/2012-13 dated
12.11.2012, standing over Plot PTS No. 80/55-B, at
Moti Daman.
d. That by an order and decree of ad-interim Injunction
the Defendant no. 1 may please be restrained from
cancelling or suspending the Construction License
No. 25/2012-13 dated 12.11.2012 during pendency
of suit.
e. Any other and further relief, which this Hon’ble
Court deem, just and proper under the
circumstances of this case may please be granted.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS THE PLAINTIFF SHALL

EVER PRAY.

Daman
Dated: 01/10/2019 __________________

41
 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, (S.D.), DAMAN
AT DAMAN
Regular Civil Suit No. ___/2019

Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala & other ……. Plaintiffs

V/s.

Daman Municipal Council & another ……. Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, the undersigned Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala, Son

of Ghelabhai Intwala, Business, Aged about 52 years, Hindu,

Indian National, Resident of 401, A.K. Empire, Airport Road,

Nani Daman, Daman, do hereby declare on oath as under:-

That the contents of my application for ad-interim

injunction is read over to me by my advocate and I say that

the said contents are true and correct in all respect.

Whatever stated in my this affidavit is true to the best

of my knowledge, information and belief.

Daman

Dated: 01/10/2019 __________________

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, (S.D.), DAMAN

42
 AT DAMAN
Regular Civil Suit No. ___/2019

Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala & other ……. Plaintiffs

V/s.

Daman Municipal Council & another ……. Defendants

APPLICATION TO DISPENCE NOTICE U/S.

80(2) OF C.P.C.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOR

The above named plaintiff humbly submits as follows:

1. That the plaintiffs are the owners of an immovable

property being non agricultural plot bearing city survey
PTS No. 80/55-B admeasuring 2414 square meters
situated at Moti Daman, hereinafter referred to as “Suit
Property”. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the
defendant No. 2, which is govt. organization of U.T. of
Daman & Diu Administration. The entire contents of
plaint shall be read for the purpose of this application
and hence not re-produced herewith to avoid the
repetition.
2. The Plaintiff has filed the suit against the Defendant No.
2 who is a Government authority. However, considering
the urgent and immediate relief, the Plaintiff has filed the
present suit against the Defendant No.2 i.e. Government
Department without giving notice u/s. 80 of C.P.C.
3. The present suit is against the government and hence a
notice u/s. 80 is mandatory. However considering the
urgency and illegal act of Defendant No. 2, the Plaintiff
has no option but to approach the Hon’ble court of equity
for equitable relief, to protect the right of Plaintiff and to
restrain Defendant No. 1 from causing demolition of
43
 entire suit building. In such circumstance it is not
convenient and possible to wait for period of two months
and issue notice u/s. 80 of C.P.C. which would otherwise
defeat the purpose of relief. Moreover the Plaintiff has
not sought any ad-interim relief against the Defendant
No.2 and hence no prejudiced will be caused to the
Defendant’s right if the present application will be
allowed by Hon’ble court
4. The Plaintiff has craved the leave of Hon’ble court to
institute suit by waiving the notice u/s. 80(2) of C.P.C.
Hence, the Plaintiff has filed this application u/s. 80(2) of
C.P.C. seeking leave of the Hon’ble court to file the
present suit for urgent and immediate relief against the
public servant without serving notice as required u/s.
80(1) of C.P.C. Hence it is humbly prayed that:
a. To dispense the statutory notice u/s. 80 of C.P.C. as
provided u/s. 80(2) of C.P.C.

b. Any other and further relief, the Hon’ble Court

deem, just and proper under the circumstances of
this case in the interest of justice.

Daman
Dated: 01/10/2019 __________________

44
 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, (S.D.), DAMAN
AT DAMAN
Regular Civil Suit No. ___/2019

Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala & other ……. Plaintiffs

V/s.

Daman Municipal Council & another ……. Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, the undersigned Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala, Son

of Ghelabhai Intwala, Business, Aged about 52 years, Hindu,

Indian National, Resident of 401, A.K. Empire, Airport Road,

Nani Daman, Daman, do hereby declare on oath as under:-

That the contents of my application u/s 80 of CPC are

read over to me by my advocate and I say that the said

contents are true and correct in all respect.

Whatever stated in my this affidavit is true to the best

of my knowledge, information and belief.

Daman

Dated: 01/10/2019 __________________

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, (S.D.), DAMAN

45
 AT DAMAN
Regular Civil Suit No. ___/2019

Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala & other ……. Plaintiffs

V/s.
Daman Municipal Council & another ……. Defendants

APPLICATION TO DISPENCE NOTICE U/S. 289

OF THE DAMAN AND DIU MUNICIPALITIES
(AMENDED) REGULATION, 1994

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOR

The above named Plaintiff humbly submits as follows:

1) The Plaintiff has filed the suit against the Defendant

no. 1 is a constituted body under The Daman and Diu
Municipalities (Amended) Regulation, 1994. The entire
contents of plaint shall be read for the purpose of this
application and hence not re-produced herewith to
avoid the repetition.

2) The Plaintiff further states that Defendant no. 1 is a

constituted body under The Daman and Diu
Municipalities (Amended) Regulation, 1994 and hence,
to file a suit against it requires to issue a notice u/s.
289 of Regulation, giving time of 1 (one) month
before filing suit.
3) The plaintiff states that defendant has also violated
the provision of section 184 of The Daman and Diu
Municipalities (Amended) Regulation, 1994 which
otherwise provides sufficient time for licensee to act
upon the direction. In the instant case the defendant
has overlooked and ignored mandatory requirement of
section 184(8) of The Daman and Diu Municipalities
(Amended) Regulation, 1994 under which 15 days
time is to be given to the licensee but in the instant
46
 case it is merely 7 days. The defendant has
intentionally overlooked and bypassed the mandatory
provision and requirement so the licensee cannot avail
any legal remedy and thereby causing unnecessary
haste in matter desire to demolish the entire building.

4) The plaintiff apprehends that the defendant is likely to

take harsh action by taking advantage of notice period
and he has disclosed his desire to do so in order dated
26/9/2019 and hence the plaintiff is compelled to file
present suit issuing notice under section 289 of The
Daman and Diu Municipalities (Amended) Regulation,
1994 and there is emergency to protect the Plaintiff’s
civil right and therefore the Plaintiff hereby prays to
seek waiver of notice u/s. 289 of The Daman and Diu
Municipalities (Amended) Regulation, 1994.
5) Hence it is humbly prayed that:

a. To dispense the statutory notice u/s. 289 of The

Daman and Diu Municipalities (Amended)
Regulation, 1994.

b. Any other and further relief, the Hon’ble Court

deem, just and proper under the circumstances of
this case in the interest of justice.

Daman
Dated: 01/10/2019 __________________

47
 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, (S.D.), DAMAN
AT DAMAN
Regular Civil Suit No. ___/2019

Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala & other ……. Plaintiffs

V/s.

Daman Municipal Council & another ……. Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, the undersigned Shri Ambrish Ghelabhai Intwala, Son

of Ghelabhai Intwala, Business, Aged about 52 years, Hindu,

Indian National, Resident of 401, A.K. Empire, Airport Road,

Nani Daman, Daman, do hereby declare on oath as under:-

That the contents of my application u/s 289 of

municipal Regulation are read over to me by my advocate

and I say that the said contents are true and correct in all

respect.

Whatever stated in my this affidavit is true to the best

of my knowledge, information and belief.

Daman

Dated: 01/10/2019 __________________

48