:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 17 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1638 OF 2005 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 1161 OF 2005 Jalinder Anna Satpute and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Mangal Jalinder Satpute and Ors. ....Respondents Shri Vijay D. Patil, Adv. for the petitioners. Shri. P.K.Hushing Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 15th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The Review petition is preferred by the original defendants seeking review of the order dated 11.7.2007 in Civil Application No. 1638 of 2005 in Second Appeal no. 1161 of 2005. 2. The Review petition is sought on the basis that the :2: :2: :2: original applicants were never put in physical possession of Block No. 460/2 and 559/84/2/1. These lands were claimed to be in possession of the original appellants on the basis of the Mutation Entry No.557. The appellants also claim to be in possession on the basis of panchanama. 3. However, the original defendants now point out that when this court passed the order, the developments which had taken place with regard to this Mutation Entry were not pointed out. The mutation entry was challenged by way of RTS Appeal No. 41 of 2003. That appeal was allowed by the Sub-Divisional officer, Pandharpur Division on 22.8.2005 and the mutation entry was set aside. The matter was carried by the original appellants by way of RTS Second Appeal no. 236 of 2005. That appeal was decided by Additional Collector, Sangola by order dated 31.8.2006. The appeal was dismissed and Tahsildar, Sangola was directed to conduct fresh enquiry under Section 85 of the land Revenue Code. 4. The original appellants pointed out that the order :3: :3: :3: of the appellate authority who decided the Second RTS Appeal on 31.8.2006 is subject matter of challenge in a Revision Application before the Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and the Revision Application is pending. 5. In my view, interest of justice would be sub-served if instead the ad-interim order passed by this court earlier in the Second Appeal on 19.9.2005 being continued, it would be desirable and in the interest of justice, that parties to the Second Appeal are directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the lands bearing Block No. 460/2 and 559/84/2/1 of Village-Lotewadi, Taluka-Sangola, District-Solapur, until the matter is decided by the Revisional Authority or till the fresh enquiry is concluded by the Tahsildar, Sangola. Thus, the order passed on the Review Application on 31.10.2007 to continue, as and by way, of interim arrangement during the hearing of Second Appeal No. 1161 of 2005 with liberty being granted to parties to apply after the above proceedings are concluded. The Review petition is disposed off in the above terms. sd/- ********