: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3653 OF 2009 Bhiku Pandu Vikari since deceased through L.Rs. ... Petitioners V/s. Vidya Prasarani Sabha & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.B. Shah for Petitioners Mr.S.N. Chandrachood for Resp. Nos.3 to 5, 8,9 and 11 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 17TH JUNE, 2009 P. C.: 1. The petition challenges the order passed by the SDO, Haveli Sub Division, Pune in TNC/Application /13/85 filed by Respondent No.1 Trust. By this order, the certificate u/s 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has been issued and an exemption certificate accordingly has consequently been issued on 16.11.1989. The petitioner is challenging these orders in 2009 after more than 25 years. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has a right to approach the revisional authority and therefore, must exhaust that remedy before approaching this Court. : 2 : 3. Mr.Shah, appearing for the petitioner, relies on the judgment in the case of Shrimant Jagderorao Anandrao Pawar v/s. Kisan Namdeo Pawar & Ors., 1979 BCI 91 in which this Court held that no notice is required to be given u/s 8B to the tenant. It was also held that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal could not exercise its revisional jurisdiction against an order passed by the Deputy District Collector u/s 88B(2). Mr.Shah submits that the impugned orders are palpably erroneous in view of the aforesaid judgment and therefore even though there is a delay in challenging these orders, the writ petition should be entertained. 4. The view of the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment has been overruled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Keraba Dattu Borachate & Ors. v/s. Sheshashai & Vishnu Trust, 1990(3) Bom.C.R. 656 where the Division Bench has specifically held that the Collector while exercising the powers even when performing the administrative duties is bound to serve notice upon the persons whose property rights are to be affected. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner then relies on the judgment in the case of Hirabai Baburao Shidankar & anr. v/s. Rayat Shikshan Sanstha & ors., 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 117 to submit that even after a prolonged delay the High Court can always entertain a writ petition. In my opinion, this judgment has no relevance to the facts in the present case. The order of the Sub Divisional Officer is passed on 16.11.1987 and the certificate u/s 88B has been issued on 16.11.1989. The petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge these orders in a writ petition after an inordinate delay of more than 20 years. : 3 : 6. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot now reopen the case by preferring the writ petition when there is an alternate remedy of filing a revision application. Petition is rejected. The petitioner is relegated to exhaust the remedy alternate available to him.