1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5770 OF 2008. Abdul Shakoor S/o Abdul Sattar, Age 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o Katkat Gate, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus Khatib Mohd. Siddique S/o Mohd.Yousuf and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.Sk.Ashpak T.Patel, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.H.J.Pathan, advocate for the Respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 18.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 alongwith others filed an application dated 2.8.2005 before 2 the City Survey Officer, Aurangabad, with a request to rectify the City Survey record pertaining to CTS No.11602. Originally father of the petitioner was owner of the said property. The City Survey Officer noticed that from time to time various parts of the said property were alienated and, therefore, there remained no land which could be recorded in name of the petitioner. The entry appearing in the City Survey record, showing the petitioner as owner of a certain portion of the said property was, therefore, directed to be deleted. The petitioner preferred an appeal which is pending before the Superintendent of Land Records vide Appeal No.SL-156/2007. In his appeal, he filed an application for amendment of the appeal memo and the petition as such. He desired to introduce certain amendments in the appeal memo in order to explain as to how the PR card properly indicated his ownership in respect of certain part of the land bearing CTS No.11601 etc. The amendment application is rejected by the Superintendent of Land Records. 3 3. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. for the State. 4. There appears alternate remedy available U/s 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. It is significant to note that the appeal is provided for against any decision or order passed by the Revenue or Survey Officer. Mr.Ashpak Patel, would submit that proviso creates an embargo and more than two appeals can not be preferred. There appears no substance in such contention. The Misc.Appeal which the petitioner can prefer can not be regarded as a Regular Appeal as such and when he will prefer an appeal on merit, if adverse decision is rendered then also the number of appeals would not be more than two. Thus, alternate efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner and as such the petition is not maintainable. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp577008