1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.662 OF 2010 Popat Meghraj Samdediya & ors. ... Petitioners v/s. Shri Tajuddin Moohmadbhai Somji & ors. ... ... Respondents Mr.N.R. Bubna for Petitioners. Mr.Amit Borkar for Res.Nos.1 & 2. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for Res.No.3. ---- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 3rd February, 2010 P.C. : 1.Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. 2.Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have challenged the maintainability of this Writ Petition on the ground that a Second Revision Application is required to be filed under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC) before the Minister of State and this Petition is, therefore, not maintainable. In this case, the Tahsildar s initial order was passed, from which an Appeal to the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) has been filed. Thereafter a Second Appeal under Sections 247 and 249 of the MLRC to the Collector has been filed 2 followed by a Revision before the Commissioner which order passed under Section 257 of the MLRC has been impugned in this Writ Petition. 3.Mr.Borkar on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 relies upon a judgment in the case of Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani vs. The State of Maharashtra (Letters Patent Appeal No.55 of 2003 Against Writ Petition No.7477 of 2002, dated 13th July 2005) contending that the Division Bench of this Court has held that the Second Revision Application before the State Government is required to be filed before the order of the State Government is challenged in a Writ Petition. In that case the SDO exercised revisional powers in respect of mutation entries made by the Revenue Officer, which had come to be challenged. That revisional jurisdiction was exercised under Section 257 of the MLRC by the SDO. From that order an Appeal was filed before the Collector under Section 249 of the MLRC. From the order in Appeal, another Revision Application came to be filed before the Commissioner under Section 257 of the MLRC and from that a further Revision came to be filed before the Minister of State. It was held that the Second Revision Application before the Minister of State was tenable since the Appeals provided under Sections 247 and 249 intervene between the two revisional orders passed by the SDO and the 3 Commissioner. It was observed that the scheme of the Revenue Code permitted more than one Revision and hence the Minister of State had jurisdiction under Section 257 of the MLRC to decide the Revision Application. It has been further observed that Second Revision is tenable and possible . 4.Mr.Borkar on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 further drew my attention to the order of this Court in the case of Shri Malhari Punjaram Ahire & ors. vs. Smt.Sakhubai Ruja Ahire & ors. (Writ Petition No.2026 of 2005, dated 4th May 2009)following the judgment in the case of Gurudassing (supra) and upon the Second Revision Application being maintainable directing the parties to appear before the Minister of State. 5.Mr.Bubna on behalf of the Petitioners has sought to show how that judgment is different from and not applicable to the facts of this case. In this case, an Appeal was filed before the SDO and not a Revision Application. Thereafter a Second Appeal was filed before the Collector. There has been a Revision Application before the Commissioner for the first time which order is impugned. Mr.Bubna argued that since in the case of Gurudassing (supra), a Revision was filed before the SDO, which came to be allowed followed by an Appeal to the Collector and thereafter a Revision 4 before the Commissioner. Two Revision Applications with an Appeal intervening in between those revisional orders let the Court to observe that the two orders could have been passed and the Second Revision before the Minister was, therefore, held tenable and possible. There were in all three Revision Applications filed in that case. Two Revisions had an Appeal intervening in between. Even thereafter a further Revision Application was filed before the State Government. 6. The fact remains that in this case there has been only one Revision Application filed before the Commissioner invoking power under Section 257 of the MLRC. Though there is an observation that an Appeal has intervened between two revisional orders, one of the SDO and the other of the Commissioner, the fact remains that third revisional order before the Minister of State was upheld as an order with jurisdiction, power and competence. The revisional jurisdiction of the Minister of State being available and upheld and the Commissioner being an officer subordinate to the Minister of State, the revisional jurisdiction is an alternative remedy and is required to be availed before the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked. The initial words of Section 257 .... The State Government and any revenue or survey officer ..... who are vested with the revisional power 5 over any subordinate revenue or survey officer specifically shows the revisional powers in the survey officer, the revenue officer as also the State Government over any survey officer or revenue officer subordinate thereto. Consequently, the alternative remedy is available upto the State Government. Hence the Revision is required to be filed before the Minister of State, as has been done in the case of Malhari Punjaram Ahire (supra). Hence the Petitioner shall exhaust that revisional remedy. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)