- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. APPEAL NO.445 OF 2004 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.359 OF 2001 IN SUIT NO.1144 OF 2000 ... Union of India ...Appellant v/s. 1.Suresh Jayantilal Thanawala and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.S.R.Rajguru with Ms.Nisha Valani for the Appellant. Mr.Swapnil Bangur i/b Vinod Mistry & Co. for Respondent No.3. Mr.Vachan Bodke i/b Chitnis Vaity & Co. for Respondents Nos.4 to 7 & 9. ... - 2 - CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED: 21ST JANUARY, 2009 P.C.: 1. The order impugned in this appeal is dated 1st October, 2003 passed in Notice of Motion No.359 of 2001. 2. A very limited grievance is made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in relation to that order. The first grievance is that though the learned single Judge has granted temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating the property, Defendants Nos. 4 to 7, 9 & 10 have been permitted to use the land as a container yard. According to the Appellant, instead of issuing such direction, a receiver should have been appointed on the land. 3. In our opinion, it is not necessary to appoint the receiver on the land, because admittedly the Defendants Nos.4 to 7, 9 & 10 are in possession of - 3 - the land, there is no construction on the land and they are using the land as a container yard. The learned Counsel appearing for those Defendants has stated before us that those Defendants are maintaining accounts. In our opinion, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice to direct the Defendants Nos.4 to 7, 9 & 10 to continue to maintain the accounts of the income derived by them by using the land as a container yard and they shall also submit a copy of those accounts to the Appellant every quarter. 4. The second grievance made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant against the order is that by the impugned order the Defendants have been permitted to hand over possession of the land, if the land is needed for any public purpose. He submits that on handing over the land for public purpose the Defendants would be entitled to TDR and if that happens the Appellant will permanently lose its right to the TDR. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents stated before us that they have already handed over a part of land for the purpose of - 4 - construction of eastern freeway, because the land was acquired for public purpose. He further stated that they have not received any TDR for such acquisition. 6. In view of this statement, it is not necessary to modify the order. In our opinion, it will be in the interest of justice to issue a direction to the Defendants Nos.4 to 7, 9 & 10 to the effect that in case the land is acquired for any public purpose, then before actually handing over possession, they will give four weeks prior notice to the Appellant. In that event, the Appellant shall be entitled to take up appropriate proceedings in this regard. 7. The order of the learned single Judge impugned in the appeal is modified to the above extent. Appeal disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)