JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27-11-1987 passed by respondent no. 1 and also for quashing the order dated 8-6-1978. The petitioner has also prayed for not affecting the allotment of the road made on old plot nos. 56 and 43 which has been numbered as 28 (new). 2. The main grievance of the petitioner before me is that the impugned order dated 8-6-78 has been passed behind the back of the petitioner and affects the original position already determined by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) at earlier occasion. According to him, the disputed new plot no. 28 measuring 1.00 acres is a rasta according to the consolidation papers but indirectly the same is being allotted to opposite party no. 2. It has also been stressed that the restoration application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 27-11-1987 and against the latter order the petitioner had preferred another restoration application which is pending with opposite party no. 1. 3. The claim of the petitioner is being contested by opposite party no. 4 Maharaj Singh on the ground that he has purchased a portion of plot no. 28 (new) which has been numbered as 28/2 and he wants to make construction there on but the petitioner is adopting dilatory tactics and trying some how to hamper the progress of the construction over the land purchased by the aforesaid opposite party no. 4. According to opposite party no. 4, the disputed land is situate within the municipal limit and in this proceeding no injunction can be issued against opposite party no. 4. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I think that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the opposite party no. 1 is directed to decide the restoration application filed by the petitioner and pending before him within three weeks from the date when the copy of this order is produced before him. It would also be necessary on the part of opposite party no. 1 to examine the record and satisfy itself about the bona fides of the official of the Department how a plot of land once reserved for the purpose of Rasta is being allotted to opposite party no. 2. It would also be necessary on the part of opposite party no. 1 to examine the record and satisfy itself about the bona fides of the official of the Department how a plot of land once reserved for the purpose of Rasta is being allotted to opposite party no. 2. Prima facie, I find that the move of the Department in allotting the land to opposite party no. 2, in the facts and circumstances of the case, deserves strict scrutiny at the lands of opposite party no. 1. However, as opposite party no. 1 is concerned with the correctness, propriety and legality of the order dated 8-6-1978 also. It would not be proper for me to comment any further. Opposite party no. 1 would hear the parties and consider and decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within three weeks from the date when a copy of this order is produced before him. 5. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy to seek requisite relief before opposite party no. 1, I do not consider it a fit case for interference with the impugned order at this stage. 6. As regards the submission made by learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 that no injunction can be issued against him in this proceeding, it is sufficient to observe that the parties should ordinarily maintain the nature of the disputed land till the rights are disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, opposite party no. 4 shall not make any construction over the disputed land for a period of two months and it is expected that opposite party no. 1 will deal with the claim of the petitioner within three weeks from the date when the copy of this order is produced before him. By maintaining status quo on the spot for a period of two months, opposite party no. 4 shall not suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, it is desirable that he should be directed to maintain status quo till that period. 7. With the above observation, this writ petition is finally disposed of at this stage. 8. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the parties on receipt of usual charges within 24 hours.