1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2205/2010. Motiram Ananda Lahane and another. -: VERSUS :- Gajanan Kundlik Lahane and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 27, 2010. Heard Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri V.B. Gawali, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. On oral request made by Shri Khapre, learned counsel for petitioner, Collector, Washim is allowed to join as respondent no.4 in the petition. Learned A.G.P. waives notice for added respondent no.4 Collector. Grievance of petitioners is order of status quo operating in favour of petitioners has been vacated by the Sub Divisional Officer, exparte behind the petitioners and 2 without any opportunity to him, on the pretext that petitioners have misused it by uprooting some trees. His contention is, petitioners are opposing grant of way to respondent no.1 and hence, there is no question of petitioners uprooting any trees, as those trees will be evidence of the non existence of such way. According to him, the Sub Divisional Officer, at Washim has been acting high handedly in the matter. He therefore, states that the interim order of status quo granted by this Court should be continued for a period of four weeks and some other Sub Divisional Officer, should be asked to decide the said Revision under Mamlatdar Courts Act. Shri Gawali, learned counsel is opposing the request. He states that the Sub Divisional Officer vacated the orders because of complaint made by the respondent no.1 and also because of report by Tahsildar, Malegaon. Learned A.G.P. supports the arguments of Shri Gawali, learned Counsel. According to him, valid reasons are given by the Sub Divisional Officer for vacating the order. It is not in dispute that the order of status quo operating in favour of petitioners has been vacated exparte i.e. behind their back. The relevance of the alleged act of uprooting trees by the petitioners need not be gone into at 3 this stage, but prima facie it appears to be inconsistent with the stand before the Sub Divisional Officer. In any case the interim orders granted by this Court are operating since 05.05.2010. In this situation, those orders can be continued further for a period of three weeks and other Sub Divisional Officer can be directed to be decide the matter expeditiously. Learned A.G.P. without prejudice to his contentions states that Sub Divisional Officer, Mangrulpir may be the nearest Sub Divisional Officer in this situation. Respondent no.4 Collector is directed to transfer the revision pending before Sub Divisional Officer, Washim to Sub Divisional Officer, Mangrulpir forthwith and the petitioners as also respondent no.1 are directed to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer, Mangrulpir in the said matter on 05.08.2010. The Sub Divisional Officer at Mangrulpir, shall decide the revision at the earliest and in any case by 18.08.2010. The Sub Divisional Officer at Mangrulpir shall apply his own mind and shall not be influenced by any observations made by this Court or by the Sub Divisional Officer, Washim in the matter. Till the Sub Divisional Officer, Mangrulpir decides the matter parties shall maintain status quo as on today. 4 Rule accordingly. No cost. Copy of this order be furnished to the learned Counsel for the parties to act upon. JUDGE Rgd.