P.C.:

1] Plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for a declaration that it is entitled to an area of 632 sq.mtrs. as reflected in the registered lease deed annexed at Annexure A to the plaint and the measurement map annexed to the letter dated 11th October 2005, Annexure C. The further prayer is of a declaration that demarcation of boundary wall carried out by the Executive Engineer, Ghatkopar Division, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board (MHADA) on 11th February 2009 as reflected in the map annexed to the letter dated 23rd January 2009, Annexure P is incorrect and invalid. The next substantive prayer is that of removal of defendant No.2 from the plot of land allotted to the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction.

2] It is the case of the plaintiffs that it is a cooperative housing society duly registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 . First defendant is the Authority established by the Government of Maharashtra under the provisions of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. Second defendant is also a cooperative Housing society.

3] It is urged that the first defendant executed a lease in favour of the plaintiff on 1st October 2004 which is duly registered and under the lease deed an immovable property admeasuring 632.22 sq.mtrs. has been demised. By virtue of the lease deed the first defendant upon payment of Rs.1,82,320/- sold and conveyed the property i.e. Building No.20 standing on the land. This building comprises 20 tenaments.

4] It is the case of the plaintiffs that they intended to develop the property by demolishing the existing building No.20 and constructing new building in lieu thereof as per the policy and rules of first defendant. Accordingly, by a letter dated 4th January 2005 and by a further letter of a developer of September 2005, a request was made to first defendant to measure the property through an appropriate authority. The plaintiffs have further stated that upon measurement of area, the Deputy Chief Officer of the first defendant vide letter dated 11th October 2005 communicated to the Executive Engineer of the first defendant that the area has been measured and it is found that it admeasures about 632 sq.mtrs.

5] The plaintiffs have, thereafter, moved the Architect and Planner of first defendant, who had called upon the Executive Engineer, Ghatkopar Division to submit a report demarcating the plot boundaries as per the approved layout plan so as to enable issuance of NOC to the plaintiffs. It is stated that the property was demarcated and the area tallied with the figure of 632 sq.mtrs. as pointed out in the letter dated 11th October 2005. It is stated that the Executive Engineer of the first defendant confirmed the demarcation done by the Assistant Land Manager and it is, then, contended that the document to this effect has been signed by the Appropriate Authority. It is on this basis that on 31st March 2006 that a letter of offer was received confirming the area of the property as 632 sq.mtrs. as per the lease deed. Accordingly, the developer came to be appointed who applied for issuance of NOC and it is stated that the first defendant has no objection to the proposal submitted by the Architect. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer of the Corporation issued IOD dated 22nd May 2006 and the plaintiffs in compliance with the terms and conditions, sought further documents, so as to enable them to commence construction.

6] When the construction was almost complete, the Executive Engineer of the first defendant issued a letter to the plaintiff stating that the boundary wall between building No.20 and 22 has not been constructed in accordance with the demarcation and, therefore, plaintiffs should get the demarcation in the presence of the Secretary of defendant No.2 society and it was further directed that the Secretary should remain present at site on 7th June 2008 at 11.30 a.m. Accordingly, the Secretary of plaintiff's society remained present at site for