Z.A. HAQ, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer allowing the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “MLR Code”). The substantive challenge raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was not maintainable.

4. Shri Kothari, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 140(1) of the MLR Code is required to be challenged by filing civil suit as laid down by Section 143(4) of the MLR Code. It is submitted that the appeal or revision under the MLR Code is provided subject to the provisions of sub- sections (4) and (5) of Section 143 of the MLR Code, meaning that the appeal or revision under the MLR Code cannot be filed until the party challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 143(1) of the MLR Code files civil suit. In support of the submission, reliance is placed on the following judgments:-

(i) Judgment given in the case of Vidya Vijay Karandikar vs. State of Mahar