Once land vests in the State under the ULC Act, the original owner has no further say in it, and the plaintiff could not claim any right or injunction over the land.

1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by defendant No.5 society for the discharging/setting aside the injunction order dated 6th November, 2009 granted in favour of the plaintiff in Notice of Motion No. 3180 of 2009 in the above Suit, restraining defendant Nos.1 to 4 from allotting to defendant No.5 society the suit land and for discharging and setting aside the said order at least to the extent of the interest of defendant No.5 society.

2. The suit plot of land bear Survey No. 25 Hissa No.2 CTS No. 1250 and Survey No. 25 Hissa No.3 CTS No. 1251 in Kanjur village. The plaintiff sued for the declaration that it was the owner of the said land and the defendants had no right, title and interest thereto and for injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiff's possession and declaring the notification issued under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the ULC Act) illegal and for incidental reliefs relating to the panchnama and the possession receipt executed and taken thereunder and the allotment made thereunder.

3. The Plaintiff's initial Notice of Motion was for injunction against the dispossession of the plaintiff against putting defendant No.5 society in possession. The plaintiff obtained an order of this Court in that Notice of Motion on 6th November, 2009 that the actions and steps that defendant Nos.1 to 4 would take in respect of the suit land pending the suit would be subject to further orders and directions of the Court in this Suit. The order dated 6th November, 2009 does not grant an absolute injunction to the plaintiff as prayed for by the plaintiff in Notice of Motion No. 3180 of 2009 taken out in this suit. The order dated 6th November, 2009 does not grant either of the injunctions prayed for.

4. The order considers the declaration sought by the plaintiff and the controversy in the suit relating to the subsisting owner's right. It refers to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the ULC authorities defendant Nos.1 to 4. It also shows the steps taken by defendant No.5 in respect of the suit land. It makes an observation that the land belongs to the Government and it can be allotted by the Government in accordance with law. This allotment was to be made to defendant No.5. The order further refers to the fact that the society has deposited Rs.62.65 lacs but possession is not given to defendant No.5 society and that the society is operating through its Chief Promoter Dr. Sailen Ghosh. It shows the service sought to be effected upon the Chief Promoter of defendant No.5 who could not be located. The suit land was not allotted to the society but the land was observed to be in possession of the Collector, MSD. Hence the order directs that the interest of justice would be sub-served if the land proposed to be allotted to defendant No.5 is not allotted to defendant No.5 society. The other land which was not proposed to be allotted to defendant No.5 society was in the possession of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and it was directed that all the actions and steps that defendant Nos.1 to 4 would take in relation to the suit property would be subject to further orders and directions of the Court in the suit.

5. The plaintiff had sought to serve the Notice of Motion upon the Chief Promoter of the society. His address had changed. Consequently the Notice of Motion could not be served and hence defendant No.5 was observed not to have been in existence and could not be located. Thereafter defendant No.5 took out this Notice of Motion. Defendant No.5 is now represented. Defendant No.5 is the main contesting defendant. All the parties are now required to be heard in the Notice of Motion taken out by defendant No.5 at least to the extent if affects its interest.

6. The suit land is open land to which the ULC Act applied. The Plaintiff claims to have been transferred the said open land.

7. The case of the plaintiff is, therefore, required to be first seen. It is the plaintiff's c