A suit for a declaration of title to immovable property situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court is a suit for land and is not maintainable under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

The instant suit is filed at the instance of the developer and promoter for declaration that the plaintiff is a sole and absolute owner of its allocation in respect of a building situated at CF-3 (Plot AA-1C) in Block CF, Street Nos. 178 and 173, New Town, Rajarhat, District – North 24 Parganas interms of the development agreement dated 20th September, 2007 and letter of allocation dated 18th October, 2010 and that the six deeds of lease as rectified and the mortgage created therein are illegal, null and void. With consequential reliefs in the form of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from giving any effect or further effect to the said six deeds of lease for the mortgage created therein and from alienating, encumbering, transferring and/or selling any part thereof without first refunding to the plaintiff the security deposit of Rs. 2 crores with interest.

2. The facts stated in the plaint as evident therefrom are that one National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED), a Multi-State Co-operative Society was sole and absolute owner of a plot of land measuring more or less 1 acre being premises No. CF-3 (Plot AA-1C) in Block CF, Street Nos. 178 and 173, New Town, Rajarhat, District – North 24 Parganas. The said co-operative society sold transferred and conveyed the said plot of land to nine different companies including the respondent No. 1 by an indenture dated 18/09/2007. After becoming the owner thereof the said nine companies decided to develop the said property by constructing a multi-storied building there at. An agreement was entered into on 20th September, 2007 with the plaintiff herein for development of a multi-storied building named “Xtra” on the strength of a plan sanctioned by the competent authority and the said agreement was executed in the office of the advocates representing the plaintiff which is within the jurisdiction of the Court. The plan was resubmitted to the competent authority with certain modifications and was resanctioned on 9th May, 2008. The remodified plan would show that the competent authority sanctioned the construction of a building having basement, ground floor and six upper floors with central atrium across the ground to 3rd floor and the other upper floors was sanctioned for commercial and office place.

3. The agreement dated 20th September, 2007 provides that 42% of the total constructed area in newly constructed multi-storied building shall belong to the said nine companies and the remaining 58% shall belong to the plaintiff. A security deposit of Rs. 2 crores was paid by the plaintiff to the said nine companies which was agreed to be repaid upon the construction of the said building and making over 42% allocated area. A power of attorney was executed in favour of two individuals, controlling and managing the plaintiff company, for the purpose of implementing or giving effect to the said development agreement and it is stated that the said power of attorney was executed in the office of the said learned advocate within the jurisdiction of this Court. Further power of attorney was executed on the same date authorising the said constituted attorney to transfer, register the plaintiff’s allocation upon completion of the construction in the said property.

4. A scheme of merger was sanctioned by this Court on 4th March, 2009 amalgamating the aforesaid four companies with the respondent No. 1 and therefore the owner’s allocation is to be given to the said respondent No. 1. It is stated that the development agreement was duly implemented and a construction was undertaken by raising a building to be used as shopping mall cum commercial building. Upon completion thereof respondent No. 1 and the plaintiff proceeded to identify and allocated the areas in terms of their respective allocated shares and the same has been reduced in writing by causing a letter dated 18th October, 2010. Under the said letter it would transpire that the 4th floor of t