1 (WP 1359 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1359 OF 2011 New Shree Swami Samartha Borivade Housing Company Private Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondent ----- Mr.V.A Thorat, Senior Counsel i/b. M/s. Mahimtura and Co. for Petitioner Mr.R.M. Patne -AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel i/b. Ms.Aruna H.Ghadge for Respondent No.8 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 15th February, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Shri Thorat, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Shri Dhakephalkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.8. 2. The Petitioner by this petition, is challenging an order passed by this Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane in R.T.S. Appeal No. 175 of 2010 dated 11th January, 2011. 2 (WP 1359 of 2011) 3. Shri Dhakephalkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.8 has raised the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition. It is submitted that against the order of SDO, an appeal is provided under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and without exhausting the alternate remedy which is available to the Petitioner, the Petitioner cannot directly challenge the impugned order in this Court. 4. On the other hand, Shri Thorat, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that on an earlier occasion, the matter came before the High Court and the High Court by order dated 23rd September, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 5551 of 2009 had directed the parties are at liberty to approach the revenue authorities for effecting or seeking change of entries in the record and rights after the civil suit is finally disposed of. It was, therefore, submitted that the SDO could not have passed the impugned order. It was, secondly, submitted that the Respondents had initially approached the Collector who by his order 3 (WP 1359 of 2011) dated 13.5.2010, had made certain observations in that application and had directed the Tahasildar to decided the said application. It was, therefore, submitted that since the Collector had pre-judged the issue in view of the observations made in the said order dated 13.5.2010, no useful purpose would be served in filing the appeal before the Collector. It was submitted that ordinarily, the Collector should have merely directed the Respondents to approach to the Tahasildar directly without passing a formal order. 5. Shri Dhakephalkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.8 submitted that the application which was made for correction of a clerical error regarding entries made in the 7/12 extract and, therefore, the said application was maintainable. 6. In my view, since an appeal is provided against an order passed by the SDO, it would be appropriate if the Petitioner first exhaust the alternate remedy which is available to them by filing an appeal before the Collector. The apprehension expressed by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the Collector has 4 (WP 1359 of 2011) pre-judged the issue, in my view, is misconceived. On perusal of the order dated 13.5.2010, the Collector has merely asked the Tahasildar to examine the application and considered the order passed by this Court and, thereafter, passed an order in accordance with law. It cannot be said that by making the said observation, he has expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. On the contrary, the Collector has directed the Tahasildar to decide the case on merits after particularly taking into consideration the order passed by the High Court and examining the provisions of the said Act and Rules. The petition, therefore, is dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy available of filing an appeal before the Collector and he should first exhaust that remedy. The Collector, however, is directed to decided the said application as expeditiously as possible after taking into consideration the order passed by this Court dated 23rd September, 2009 in Writ Petition No.5551 of 2009 on merits and in accordance with law. All contentions raised by both the parties are kept open. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 5 (WP 1359 of 2011) (V.M. KANADE J.)