*1* wp.2848.11.928.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2848 OF 2011 Santosh Kisan Chorat. ..Petitioners ­Versus­ The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Sachin Gite, for the Petitioner. Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Mr.S.B.Deshmukh, for the Respondent Nos.5 and 6. Mrs.M.S.Rane, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 14th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 The Petitioner has challenged an order dated 10.02.2011 of the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in SR­ Application­64/2010. 2 It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are owners of the land bearing Gat No.966/1A which is on the northern side of the Petitioner’s land i.e. Gat No.966­1C. In other words, the Petitioner claimed the land bearing Gat No.966­1C whereas the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 claim to be owners of the land bearing Gat No. 966/1A. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are obstructing peaceful possession over his land. Therefore, an application was made for correction of the map of Gat No.966. The application made to cancel the mutation entry as well. From this controversy, the proceedings were commenced. 3 Both sides relied upon the maps which are prepared by the authorities. The matter was decided prior to the Divisional *2* wp.2848.11.928.sxw Commissioner’s impugned order, by the lower authority holding that the Divisional Commissioner would be the authority who can resolve this controversy. The application was made and the parties requested for his intervention by granting both of them a personal hearing. The Petitioner pointed out that on the date on which the matter was placed, the Petitioner was unable to arrange for his representation by an Advocate. The Petitioner had made an application which could hardly be termed as Written Statement. The Respondent Nos.5 and 6, on the other hand, state that the Petitioner was duly heard inasmuch as before the date of hearing, he tendered the written arguments which have been considered. 4 Bearing in mind a limited controversy and since the Petitioner is making grievance that he was not heard adequately and properly; the interest of justice would be served if this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction that both sides should appear before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune on 21st July, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. and the Commissioner shall make an endeavour to dispose of the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of appearance of the parties. Each of the contentions including one raised in the present Writ Petition and the affidavits thereto, of both sides, are kept open. The Commissioner to pass a fresh order without being influenced by any of the findings rendered in the earlier order. Till the Commissioner decides the matter, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, they shall maintain the status­quo in relation to the subject property. It is clarified that the status­quo as on the date of the earlier order in this petition has to be maintained throughout. 5 The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)