The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of long-standing possession as a basis for protection and the emphasis on due process in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiffs claim as lessee of a plot of land along with a bungalow thereon. Defendant no. 1 is a Co-operative Housing society whose property is presently under redevelopment carried out by defendant no. 2. According to the plaintiffs, defendant no. 1 is utilizing FSI of the plaintiffs' plot of land. The plaintiffs' plot of land along with the plot in the occupation of defendant no. 1 is described as "the Larger Plot" which was hitherto owned by defendant no. 3. Defendant no. 4 is the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (DDR) who has issued order of deemed conveyance. Defendant no. 5 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). Defendant no. 6 is the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.

2. In the suit the plaintiffs seek a declaration that plaintiffs are the lease holders of land ad-measuring G09.GG sq.mtrs pursuant to Indenture of Lease dated 29th February, 1980 read with Deed of Assignment dated 2nd December, 1981. In the alternative they seek declaration that they are entitled to exclusive use and occupation of said area of G09.GG sq.mtrs. Elsewhere the area is shown as 622 sq.mtrs ("Suit Land"). Out of G09.GG sq.mtrs, 522.56 sq.mtrs form the entitlement of the plaintiffs under the aforesaid lease of deed but to the extent of 87.10 sq.mtrs (approximately) the plaintiffs' claim ownership by virtue of prescription/ adverse possession.

3. Consequential relief of sub-division of land is sought by carving out G09.GG sq.mtrs or 522.56 sq.mtrs. The plea seeks a direction to defendant nos. 1 to 3 to transfer and convey residuary rights of the lease hold land ad-measuring G09.GG sq.mtrs. The plaintiffs also seek cancellation of an order of deemed conveyance dated 26th June, 2014 passed by defendant no. 4. Further declarations are sought to the effect that construction on the land to the extent it relates to 522.56/622 sq.mtrs is non-est and void ab initio. Injunctions are sought pending disposal of the suit in terms of the interim application. In the alternative, plaintiffs seek damages from defendant nos. 1 and 2 to the extent of Rs.250,00,00,000/-.

4. By this interim application the plaintiffs seek

(a) To restrain defendant nos. 1 and 2 by an order of injunction from carrying out or continuing construction / development activities at the suit property and exploiting FSI and development potential of the Suit Land.

(b) To restrain defendant nos. 1 and 2 from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession and occupation of bungalow known as Amir House and land appurtenant thereto bounded by walls on four sides.

(c) To restrain defendant nos. 1 and 2 from applying for and obtaining Completion Certificate or Occupation Certificate of the buildings being constructed by defendant nos. 1 and 2.

(d) A direction to the MCGM - defendant no. 5 and SRA- defendant no. 6 to restrain them from granting further permissions.

(e) To prevent the construction activity touching or falling within the boundary wall of the plaintiffs' bungalow and appurtenant land.

(f) A mandatory order directing defendant nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith restore status quo ante qua a 15 feet road access to the bungalow.

5. At the hearing of the interim application it became evident that plaintiffs' occupation and possession of lease hold land of 522.56 sq.mtrs, the bungalow standing thereat and right to use the access road were admitted. Accordingly in the course of proceedings parties arrived at consent terms. Defendant no. 1 has agreed not to obstruct the exclusive use, occupation and possession of the plaintiffs' on the suit land ad-measuring 522.56 sq.mtrs and the bungalow standing thereon. Defendant no. 1 also agreed to restore and has since rightly restored status quo ante qua the 15 feet wide road access to the bungalow. Thus the bungalow and land upon which it is constructed appurtenant thereto to the extent of 522.56 sq.mtrs and access thereto are protected. The suit therefore continues in relation to the area in excess of 522.56 sq.mtrs upon which plain