1 WP 6952.2011 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6952 OF 2011 Vithal S/o Pandurang Sathe Age : 63 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Kavdewadi, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad, 4. The Additional Collector, Osmanabad. 5. Gorakh S/o Sitaam Barde Age : Major, Occ. Agril., R/o : Kavdewadi, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. ..... RESPONDDNTS Mrs. M.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.B.Bhosale, Advocate for Resp. No. 5. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 05/10/2011 2 WP 6952.2011 - ( J ) ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed against the order passed by the Commissioner vacating the order of status-quo pending revision. 3. I have heard Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.B. Bhosale, the learned counsel for respondent no. 5. 4. It appears that the name of the present petitioner is mutated in the year 1973 and the same continued. Thereafter, the present respondents raised an objection by filing the Appeal. The same came to be allowed. Against that the Revision proceedings are pending before the Commissioner. Initially, the Commissioner had passed order of status-quo. Vide the impugned order, the same is vacated. 5. The learned counsel for respondent no. 5 contends that though the respondent had filed caveat, still the order of status-quo is passed without hearing the respondents and after hearing the Commissioner had rightly vacated the status-quo order. No illegality is 3 WP 6952.2011 - ( J ) committed. 6. The Revision is pending with the Commissioner. The rival contentions are to be discussed. Perusal of the order is manifest that no proper reasons are given. The arguments are not discussed. Un- reasoned order can not be sustained. More over, when the Revision is pending, it is in fitness of things to maintain the position as it is. 7. In light of the above, I quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the mutation entries till the disposal of the Revision by the Commissioner on its own merits. 8. Mr. Bhosale, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is in possession of the property. I am not required to decide as to who is in actual physical possession. The dispute is limited to the mutation entries. 9. In light of the above, I pass the following order. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The parties are directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the mutation entries till the final disposal of the Revision by the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall decide the Revision as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of six ( 6 ) months from today. 4 WP 6952.2011 - ( J ) 10. Leave to correct the name. 11. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6952.2011 - ( J )