1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3460/2009 (Draupadi Gavai ..vs.. Ashok Agrawal and others) WRIT PETITION NO. 4179/2009 (Ashok Gavai ..vs.. Gayabai Bhopale and another) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:- NOVEMBER 04, 2009 Heard Mrs. Neeta Jog, Advocate for petitioner-original plaintiff and Shri R.M.Darda, Advocate for respective respondent – original defendant. The trial court has granted interim relief to petitioners after noticing that the transfer of land was hit by the provisions of Section 29 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holding) Act, 1961. The lower appellate court has found that present respondents did not receive any land as allottees under Section 27 of the said Act, 1961 and hence, Section 29 was not relevant. The lower appellate court has, therefore, reversed the order of trial court. This court has on 18th September, 2009 directed both the parties 2 to maintain status-quo till the matter is heard for admission, today. The petitioners rely upon order of Sub. Divisional Officer, dated 26/6/1989 to show that there possession of 2.34 Acres of land was never affected. Advocate Shri Darda also relies upon same order to show that this order states that it would be subject to change of location and spot because of ‘dhura’ on south side, was required to be put. With the assistance of both the counsel, I have perused the orders passed by lower courts. The aspect was not gone into by the said courts at all. It appears that said question was not specifically raised for consideration in these words. Considering the nature of controversy, I find that the order of status-quo needs to be continued further and trial court needs to be directed to decide the Regular Civil Suit No. 269/2009 and 274/2009, in any case, within a period of Six months from the date of communication of this order to it. It is to be noted that these suits have been re-registered and old numbers of these suits are of the year 2008. Accordingly, parties shall maintain status- quo as obtaining today, during the pendency of both the suits. The suits are expedited as mentioned above. 3 With these directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE diwale.