1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6465 OF 2010 Ambadas Baburao Ubale ..Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents ......... Mr.K.B. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P., for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mrs.M.A. Kulkarni holding for Mr.A.M. Kulkarni, advocate for respondent no.3. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 21 st July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner vacated the interim status-quo order, which was granted on 13.06.2008 in Revision Petition No.ROR/REV/122/2008. The petitioner filed the said Revision Application feeling aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, Beed, whereby the Mutation entry standing in his name was cancelled. Initially, the revisional authority i.e. Additional Divisional Commissioner was pleased to grant status-quo. Subsequently, on 08.06.2010, the learned Advocate for petitioner 2 was heard as well as hearing was given to respondents. On merits, the learned Additional Commissioner came to the conclusion that there was no prima facie case made out to continue status-quo order. Hence, impugned order was rendered and interim relief was denied to the petitioner. 2. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that till now, the name of petitioner does appear in the 7/12 record, and therefore, vacating of status-quo was uncalled for. It is important to notice that along with the reply affidavit, the copies of judgments in the suit (R.C.S. No.311/1992) and other relevant record including the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.1448/2005 along with Civil Application No.9354/2005 have been produced. It is amply clear that the petitioner filed suit for declaration of ownership, setting aside the registered sale deed no.1912/1974 and issuance of perpetual injunction the against respondents. The trial Court held that the petitioner failed to establish his lawful possession as well as avernments that he continued to remain as owner of the suit land inspite of execution of the sale deed in favour of deceased respondent. These findings were confirmed by the appellate Court. The second appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed and as such, it is amply clear that the findings of the civil Court are against him. In the wake of such 3 findings of the Civil Court, the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner was right in refusing to continue status-quo order which would have run contrary to the order of the civil Court. No substance, the Petition is dismissed. No opinion is expressed about the subsequent developments in respect of agreement of sale. The learned Additional Commissioner to consider the subsequent development and to decide the Revision Petition on merits within a period of three months without being prejudiced by the observations made by this Court in this Order. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp6465.10