-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.935 of 2008 1. Manohar Sarvottam Purandare and others ..Petitioners vs. 1. Manu Rambhaji Pangare and others ...Respondents Shri Rajesh S.Datar for petitioners. Shri Prathamesh Bhargude i/b Shri Sugandh Deshmukh for respondent nos.1 to 20 Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.21 and 22. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 15th February, 2008 15th February, 2008 15th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioners claim to be the owners and otherwise seized and possessed of an immovable property namely, land in District Pune. It is their case that an enquiry under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was held by the Mamlatdar but enquiry was dropped as the landlords were serving members of the Armed Forces. 2. Respondent nos. 1 to 19 filed the tenancy application before respondent no.21 praying that purchase price be determined. The case was that they are the heirs and legal representatives of the persons who were allegedly tenants in -2- respect of the land. In substance, the order of Mamlatdar passed on 11th May, 1961 was challenged and request was to fix the purchase price and issuance of a certificate under sec.32M of the Act. 3. Respondent no.15 filed tenancy appeal before respondent no.22 and challenged the same order. 4. The petitioners made an application in appeal and prayed for stay of the proceedings of the tenancy application pending before respondent no.21. Respondent no.22 directed maintenance of status quo but thereafter without any notice to the petitioners vacated the same. Now, the petitioners are facing the proceedings before both respondent nos.21 and 22. 5. After this matter was heard for some time it was brought to my notice that the petitioners in deed were not heard when the order was passed vacating the stay/statusquo. The petitioners point out that the order itself recites that the proceedings before the Tahsildar, Purandar had been stayed and the order of status quo was passed. There are no reasons assigned in the impugned order warranting vacating of the -3- statusquo. It has been contended on behalf of the concerned respondents that the order was vacated after both sides were heard. Be that as it may, the learned Authority ought to have indicated as to why the order was being vacated, more so, when the main proceedings are pending. 6. In such circumstances, I am of the view that interest of justice would be sub served if the order of status quo is restored during the pendency of the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhor Division, Bhor, District Pune and he is directed to dispose of the pending proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two months from the date the parties appear before him. The parties shall appear before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhor Division, Bhor on 26th February, 2008. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. 7. The order of statusquo to continue until respondent no.22 decides the matter. All contentions on merits are kept open and respondent no.22 to decide the proceedings without being influenced by the continuation of statusquo. -4- 8. All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)