(1) THE appellant before us has felt aggrieved by the decision rendered by the High court of Bombay dismissing his writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. That writ petition was directed against the order of the learned Single Member of the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal exercising jurisdiction under Section 111 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. Section 111 of the Act reads as under:

"111. (1 Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bombay Revenue tribunal Act, 1957, an application for revision may be made in the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal constituted under the said Act against any order of the Collector on the following grounds only-

(A) that the order of the Collector was contrary to law; or

(B) that the Collector failed to determine some material issue of law; or

(C) that there was a substantial defect in following the procedure prescribed by this Act, which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice.

(2 In deciding applications under this section the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal shall follow the procedure which may be prescribed by rules made under this Act after consultation with the Maharas