1 wp381-11 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.381 OF 2011 Vivekanand Co-Operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Anr. ....Petitioners V/s. Tahasildar, Ambarnath & Anr. ....Respondents Mr.K.F. Badgujar for the Petitioners. Ms.P.S. Cardozo, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.Kailash Mali for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 25TH JANUARY, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.9.2008 passed by the Collector. The order was passed in the petitioners’ application against the order dated 25.3.2008, passed by the Tahsildar, directing the petitioners to grant respondent No.2 access. The order dated 19.9.2008 was partly against respondent No.2 to the extent of directing respondent No.2 not to construct a compound wall on the portion of the land granted to him by the order of the Tahsildar dated 25.3.2008. Against this order, respondent No.2, filed an application to the Divisional Commissioner, which was rejected by an order dated 14.10.2009. Respondent No.2 has challenged this order before the Revenue Minister. 2. Apart from the fact that the petitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 247 by adopting the same course which respondent 2 wp381-11 No.2 has adopted, in the facts of this case, it is desirable that the petitioners ought to adopt the alternate remedy. This is for the obvious reason that the issues in the writ petition and in the revision, filed by respondent No.2 would be similar. In any event, common questions of fact which fall for appreciation, arise. 3. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail of the alternate remedy. Needless to add that all the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.