 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 569 of 2009 (Shri Tukaram Maharaj Trust Vilegaon Taluka Hingoli Vs. Shri Satish Janardhan Ratnaparkhi & anr.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.K. Choube, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. O.V. Kashid, Adv. for R-1. Mr. D.M. Kale, A.G.P. for R-2. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 6 th APRIL, 2009 It is pointed out on behalf of the respondents by the learned counsel that the writ petition is not tenable and an appeal is provided under the provisions of Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, to the Divisional Commissioner against the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Washim on 25/1/2008. The submission made on behalf of the respondents appears to be well-founded as the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Malegaon, on 12th of July, 2002 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue  Code, was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Washim, and the Deputy Collector, Washim, has, by an order dated 25/1/2008, dismissed the appeal. In view of Schedule “E” under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, an appeal would lie against the order passed by a Collector or a Deputy Collector invested with the appellate power of the Collector, to the Divisional Commissioner. It is clear from a perusal of the provisions of Section 247 of the Land Revenue Code and Schedule “E” of the Code, as framed thereunder, that the impugned order dated 25/1/2008 is appealable before the Divisional Commissioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for the redressal of his grievance. No orders as to costs. JUDGE RMP