1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.148 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.212 OF 2010 Babulal S. Solanki Through his power of attorney holder P.S.Solanki ...Appellant. v. Smt. Vimal S. Rathod and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. P.S.Dani i/by Sarang S. Aradhye/Ujwala D. Sawant ,advs. For the Appellant. Mr. Thorat i/by Ms Pooja Thorat, advs. For the R.Nos.1 to 24. Shri V.M.Thorat, adv. For the R.No.25. Mr. A.P.Kulkarni, adv. For the Respondent No.26. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JULY 19, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff/appellant claims that on 8.11.1985 one Nandubai Pardesi, original owner of the land city survey no.645, had entered into agreement for sale of that land in favour of the plaintiff on 8.11.1985. Process for acquisition of the land was already commenced for road widening. Accordingly, acquisition proceedings commenced in 1988 and after passing of the order of the acquisition, possession was taken on 8.3.2008. Legal heirs of Nandubai 2 transferred right to claim compensation in the form of TDR from the Municipal Corporation in favour of defendant no.25 by registered sale deed dated 17.4.2008. Plaintiff filed special civil suit no.466 of 2009 for declaration of his right to claim TDR and to restrain defendant no.25 from claiming that compensation on the basis of assignment dated 17.4.2008. By application, Ex.5 he also sought temporary injunction of the same nature. After hearing the parties, the trial Court rejected application. That order is challenged in the present appeal. 2 It appears that as per the agreement for sale dated 8.11.1985, plaintiff was to get the sale deed executed within six months. Admittedly, he never got the sale deed executed. He never filed any suit for specific performance of the contract. In 1989 original owner Nandubai, who had entered into alleged agreement, also expired. Her legal heirs were brought on record and finally property was acquired from her legal heirs. As the land was taken for road widening within city area, the Municipal Corporation is not likely to pay any compensation in cash but likely to assign transferable development rights to the owners. The defendant no. 25 claims to be bonafide purchaser for value without any knowledge of any right of the plaintiff. 3 In view of the fact that though sale deed was to be got 3 executed within six months from the date of agreement, i.e., 8.11.1985, he never got the sale deed executed for 23 years. He kept silent after acquisition of land. Defendant No.25 has purchased the rights from the legal heirs of the original owner to claim compensation in the form of TDR. In view of these circumstances, I do not find any fault with the order passed by the trial Court in rejecting application, Ex.5. The learned counsel for the defendant/respondent no.25 on taking instructions from him, who is present in the Court, to show his bonafides makes a statement that he would give undertaking before the trial Court that in case the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, he would compensate the plaintiff at the present rate of T.D.R., which is Rs.2,500/- per sq.ft. Statement is accepted. 4 Appeal stands dismissed. However, the defendant/respondent shall give undertaking before the trial Court as per the above statement within four weeks/. Ad-interim order stands vacated. 5 As the appeal itself is dismissed, civil application does not survive and stands disposed off. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)