IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 285 OF 2009 SHRI. RAMNATH D. ZAMBAULIKAR ... Petitioner Versus MR. D. S. THORAT AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri D. P. Bhise, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri G. Teles, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 3rd June, 2009 P.C.:- Shri G. Teles, learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents. Challenge in this petition is to the Order of the Collector dated 6-3-2009 by which the Collector has refused to grant the prayer of the Petitioner for injunction and police protection. Heard Shri D. P. Bhise, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner as well as Shri G. Teles, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents. The Petitioner appears to have approached the Mamlatdar under Section 4 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1966 with the allegation that the Respondents had reduced the three meters access to two meters. After a reply was filed raising preliminary objections, the Mamlatdar vide Order dated 6-5-2008 came to the conclusion that the parties ought to approach the concerned authorities to get the area re-demarcated. It appears that there were allegations that either of the parties had encroached the three meters vide access. On appeal being filed, the Collector, vide Order dated 6-3-2009 presumably came to the conclusion that the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to try the case under Section 4 of the said Act but nevertheless remanded back the case to the Mamlatdar to decide the issue within a period of three months from the date of the order and at the same time declined to grant any order of injunction or police protection in favour of the Petitioner. A perusal of the impugned orders of the Mamlatdar as well as of the Collector does not at all show whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner was one which was cognizable by the Mamlatdar under Section 4 of the said Act and a perusal of the order of the Mamlatdar to some extent discloses that the Mamlatdar did not wish to entertain the said dispute as it was purely of civil nature to be dealt by the Civil Court. At the hearing of this petition, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is inclined to approach the Civil Court by a Civil Suit to get the dispute resolved within a period of ten days and further submits that till then the parties be directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit access of three meters width. In my view, this limited relief can be granted to the Petitioner for a period of ten days. Both the parties are hereby directed to maintain status quo as regards the suit access of three meters for a period of ten days. Thereafter, the Petitioner is at liberty to file a Civil Suit within a period of ten days and if filed, the Civil Court shall grant temporary injunction if applied for on the merits of the case and uninfluenced by any observations made herein. The Writ Petition is therefore disposed of on the above terms. Petitioner undertakes to withdraw the proceedings before the Mamlatdar bearing No.MAM/MCA/3/2007 within a period of ten days. Expedited copy of the order be given to the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.