ORDER :

N.J. Jamadar, J.

1. This motion is taken out by defendant No. 5 Apsara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ('the society') for rejection of the plaint under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code').

2. The suit is instituted for declaration that plaintiff is the owner of the property described in the Schedule (Exhibit-A) bearing Survey No. 25 Hissa No. 2 CTS 1250 admeasuring 1578.6 sq. mtrs. and Survey No. 25 Hissa No. 3 CTS 1251 admeasuring 1353.1 sq. mtrs. situated at] Kanjur village road, Kanjurmarg, Mumbai, ('the suit property'). Conversely, the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. The plaintiff has also sought a declaration that the notifications under Section 10(1) and under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 ('the ULC Act', for short) in respect of the suit property are illegal and void and those notification and declaration be cancelled and set aside. The plaintiff has further prayed that the allotment of the suit property in favour of defendant No. 5, the applicant herein, on 31st October, 2008, being fraudulent, illegal and void, be also quashed and set aside.

3. Since the applicant seeks the rejection of the plaint, it may be apposite to immediately notice the averments in the plaint. The case of the plaintiff, as averred in the plaint, can be summarised as under:

(a) The Khot of the village Kanjur was the original owner of the suit property. The Khot executed an agreement for sale of the suit property in favour of one Giriashankar S. Pande on 21st February, 1972 for a valuable consideration. The said Giriashankar, in turn, with the consent and confirmation of the Khot of village Kanjur, agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff by executing an agreement for sale dated 20th March, 1980. As the suit property was under the purview of the provisions of the ULC Act, the plaintiff submitted a scheme to the Additional Collector and the competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Mumbai - defendant No. 2, for construction of the tenements for the weaker sections of the society under Section 21 of the ULC Act. By an order dated 4th November, 1982, the plan was sanctioned and IOD was issued by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, in respect of the suit property for the proposed construction of tenements for weaker sections of the society. On 5th September, 1983, the plaintiff submitted a new scheme for the construction of tenements for the weaker sections of the society. Defendant No. 4 passed an order on 26th October, 1984 and granted, in principle, approval to the scheme, for construction of tenements on the suit property, subject to certain conditions. A dispute arose as the suit property was mutated in the record of rights in name of another entity.

(b) In the meanwhile, on 27th May, 1982, the Khot of village Kanjur executed a conveyance whereby the suit property came to be conveyed to the plaintiff. The deed of conveyance was registered with the Sub-Registrar (Assurances) on 29th May, 1998. The name of the plaintiff came to be mutated to the record of rights of the suit property. The plaintiff thus became absolute owner of the suit property.

(c) In the month of April 2009, the plaintiff noticed that some survey work was being carried out in the suit property. On enquiry, it transpired that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had issued notices under the provisions of the ULC Act to Shri. Giriashankar Pande, who had died in or about the year 1997. On the strength of the said notices, further orders and directions were passed under the provisions of the ULC Act, despite the name of the plaintiff having been reflected in Index-II and mutated to the record of rights as the absolute owner of the suit property. None of the notices were served on the plaintiff. The authorities had proceeded to acquire the suit property under the provisions of the ULC Act in utter disregard to lawful title and possession of the plaintiff and the schemes and ord