1 WP 1977.1997 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1977 OF 1997 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :30/09/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Kakade, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for the State. 2. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition has assailed the Order dated 19/02/1995 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Vaijapur. In fact, the said Order dated 19/02/1995 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Vaijapur is challenged by the present petitioner before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad [ For short, ‘ M.R.T. ’ ] in Appeal No. 47/A/96/Aurangabad. In the said Appeal, the present petitioner has also filed stay petition, which came to be rejected on 15/11/1996. 3. The Order dated 15/11/1996 is not assailed in the 2 WP 1977.1997 present Writ Petition. In fact, when the stay petition is rejected by the M.R.T., the order dated 19/02/1995 could not have been challenged in the present Writ Petition and should have challenged the order of M.R.T. rejecting stay petition, the same is not assailed. In view of that, the present Writ Petition can not be entertained. More over, the M.R.T. while rejecting the application for stay, has observed that the appellant i.e. the present petitioner is not in possession of the land. Mr. Kakade, the learned counsel submits that this Court had granted status-quo and the petitioner’s possession was protected. The same would be a disputed question of fact. I would not embark on the investigation of the said fact. Mr. Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel submits that the said Appeal has been transmitted to the Collector, Aurangabad from the M.R.T. 4. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The Rule is discharged. However, the order of status-quo is passed by this court in the year 1997. The same shall continue for the period of two ( 2 ) weeks i.e. 14/10/2011 to enable the petitioner to take appropriate steps. Needless to state that on the lapse of two ( 2 ) weeks, the said order of status-quo shall come to an end. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 1977.1997 3 WP 1977.1997