ORDER : This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the prayer has been sought for to dispose of the stay petition and the appeal filed by the petitioner in S.A.R. Appeal No. 19 of 2018-19. 2. According to the petitioner, one appeal has been filed against the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, Ghatshila in Land Restoration Case No. 09 of 2017-18, wherein, interlocutory application has been filed for grant of ad interim relief, but, till date, no order has been passed. 3. Mr. Md. Shamim Akhtar, learned G.A. III appearing for the Respondent-State has submitted that the appropriate order may be passed, so that the interlocutory application, if not already disposed of, may be disposed of after hearing the other side, if any. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the rival submissions, it is evident from the materials available that one order of restoration has been passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms in Land Restoration Case No. 09 of 2017-18, dated 14.08.2018 against which appeal has been filed being S.A.R. Appeal No. 19 of 2018-19, which has been posted for hearing on 08.01.2019 on the point of admission and it has been found that the Appeal has been admitted for hearing and the matter has been posted before the appellate authority on 12.03.2019. 5. In view thereof, the Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the interlocutory application after providing an opportunity of hearing to the private respondents, namely, Respondent No. 5 by securing his appearance within a period of four weeks from the date of his appearance. 6. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the notice has been issued on 7.2.2019 directing the petitioner to remove the structure, constructed over the said land. 6. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the notice has been issued on 7.2.2019 directing the petitioner to remove the structure, constructed over the said land. His grievance is that the original order has been passed on 14.08.2018, whereby and whereunder direction has been passed for removing the structure within the period of six months and in a very haste manner, the notice has been issued on 07.02.2019 by noticing him to remove the structure by 14.02.2019, failing which the same would be removed and the expenditure incurred upon the same shall be recovered, therefore, it has been submitted that although the Interlocutory application has been filed before the appellate authority and there is day to day threat of removal of structure, which is the residential as well as the shop for earning livelihood. 7. Mr. Md. Shamim Akhtar, learned G.A. III appearing for the Respondent-State has submitted that the petitioner’s contention is that although the Interlocutory application has been filed before the appellate authority, but no such application has been annexed with this writ petition. Further, he has submitted that since the appellate authority is being directed to dispose of the interlocutory application, there is no need of passing an interim order. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and looking to the factual aspects as also the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, dated 14.08.2018, whereby and whereunder, it has been directed to remove the structure i.e. the residential as also the shop within a period of six months and as has been said, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interlocutory application has been filed, if that be so, the same be considered in accordance with law. 9. In view thereof, status quo, as exists today, shall be maintained, subject to the condition that, if there is no interlocutory application, there would be no force of the interim order. The force of the interim order will be operative till the final order, has been passed on the interlocutory application, if any. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of.