JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Survey No. 213 admeasuring 16 Acres and 1 Guntha and Survey No. 131 admeasuring 21 Acres and 21 Gunthas, both situated at Kallamb in Osmanabad District, were owned by Shaikh Maheboob and Shaikh Ahmed s/o. Hasanji, respectively and the petitioner admittedly was in possession of these lands as tenant. Two separate applications appears to have been made under section 44 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 for the resumption of these lands for personal cultivation by landlords mentioned above. These applications claiming restoration of possession of these lands along with other lands in possession of other tenants were allowed by Tahsildar on 16-11-1959 and 30-11-1959 and the landlords were directed to be put in possession by restoring the land. Two appeals bearing Tenancy Appeals 41/44/59 and 43/44/59 came to be filed before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Osmanabad, and these two appeals were partly allowed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Osmanabad, by his order dated 28th February, 1961. The learned Deputy Collector considered the fact that because of the order of resumption for personal cultivation of all the lands owned by the landlord, petitioner-tenant has become landless and therefore, he will have to be left with basic holding i.e., 8 Acres land. Accordingly, he ordered that out of Survey No. 213 belonging to Shaikh Maheboob, a portion of 5 Acres and out of Survey No. 133 owned by Shaikh Ahmed, a portion of 3 Acres be given back in possession of the tenant. It may be noted that the learned Deputy Collector while passing this judgment, committed an error in mentioning survey No. 133 instead of 131 situated at kallamb which was, in fact, owned by Shaikh Ahmed and was previously in possession of tenant-petitioner. The Deputy Collector also noticed that the respondents have already been given possession of the suit land and, therefore, directed the lower Court to put the tenant in possession of 8 Acres land as shown above. A revision application was presented to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Aurangabad against the said order of the Deputy collector, Osmanabad, dated 28-2-1961 and this Revision Application No. 514/N/61 Osmanabad, filed by both the landlords was dismissed by an order of the learned Member dated 8th April, 1963. 2. A revision application was presented to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Aurangabad against the said order of the Deputy collector, Osmanabad, dated 28-2-1961 and this Revision Application No. 514/N/61 Osmanabad, filed by both the landlords was dismissed by an order of the learned Member dated 8th April, 1963. 2. It appears that despite the directions of the Deputy Collector to put the tenant in possession, the tenant was not put in possession and, therefore, on 26-6-1990, an application purporting to be under section 94 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act came to be filed by the tenant - petitioner before Tahsildar, Kallamb. Tahsildar, Kallamb was pleased to hold that the tenant is entitled to 5 Acres portion out of Survey No. 213 situated at Kallamb and directed that he be put in possession of the same. He was pleased to observe that the consideration of claim of tenant for possession of 3 Acres portion from Survey No. 131 was kept pending till the error about the survey number in the judgment of the Deputy Collector is corrected. Aggrieved by this order of Naib-Tahsildar (Revenue), dated 20th November, 1980, in File No. 80-TNC 94-1, both the landlords filed appeal bearing NO. TNC-A-104/1980 before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) Osmanabad. Learned Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Osmanabad, held that the petitioner has become entitled for possession of the suit land on 8-4-1963 (the date of which revision of the landlords was dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and when tenant ha not filed application under section 32(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act within time and, therefore, a request made by tenant - petitioner after a lapse of 17 years cannot be entertained. He was pleased to allow the appeal, set aside order of the Naib-Tahsildar, Kallamb, which had directed that the petitioner be put in possession of 5 Acres portion in Survey No. 213. Aggrieved by this judgment and order of learned Deputy Collector (Lands Reforms), Osmanabad, dated 19-11-1981, petitioner has filed this petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitute of India. 3. Aggrieved by this judgment and order of learned Deputy Collector (Lands Reforms), Osmanabad, dated 19-11-1981, petitioner has filed this petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitute of India. 3. Shri K.B. Bhise, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, firstly submitted that an order passed under section 94 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950, will have to be taken as an order passed under the Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1906 as has been specifically provided in that section and, therefore, no appeal against any order passed by the Tahsildar under section 94 of the Tenancy Act is maintainable. In support of his contention that an appeal is not maintainable. Shri Bhise invited my attention to a judgment of this Court in the case of (Laxman Govindrao others v. Bapurao Punyaji)1, 1984 Mh.L.J. 435. Shri Bhise further submitted that since the appeal itself is not maintainable before the Deputy Collector, order of the Deputy Collector will have to be quashed and the original order of the Tahsildar will have to be restored. Shri Bhise further submitted that though no specific prayer has been made in the writ petition but the correction of wrong mention about the survey number was made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 22-10-1982 and, therefore, possession of 3 Acres portion of Survey No. 131 should also be directed to be given to the tenant. 4. Shri A.S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1(A) and 1(B), submitted that the proviso to section 94 providing that an order passed under section 94 shall not executed till the expiry of the period of appeal and revision, clearly indicates that an appeal and revision is maintainable against an order passed under section 94. He further submitted that section 89 provides that in all enquiries and proceedings before the Tahsildar or Tribunal, the powers under Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1906, can be exercised by Tahsildar and the Tribunal and, therefore, the mention in section 94 that an order under section 94 shall be executed as if it is an order under Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1906, is merely indicative of the procedure adopted for the execution of the said order and really does not affect that character of the order. Therefore, an appeal against the said order is maintainable under section 90 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. Therefore, an appeal against the said order is maintainable under section 90 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. Shri Deshmukh further submitted that application of section 5 of the Limitation Act has been expressly excluded so far as execution proceedings are concerned and, therefore, since order under section 94 is also an order in execution, section 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply to such an order. He also submitted that since possession was sought by the petitioner after a lapse of 17 years, leaned Deputy Collector was right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner by allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders of Naib-Tahsildar. 5. Section 94 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 reads thus : "94. When an original, appellate or revisional order under this Act involves the payment of money by any person, the money shall be recoverable from such person as if it was an area of land revenue and where such order involves the putting of any person in possession of land it shall be executed in the manner provided in section 21 of the Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1906, as if it were a decision of Tahsildar under the said Act : Provided that such order shall not be executed till the expiry of the period of appeal or as the case may be, of application for revision as provided in section 93." A plain reading of this section goes to show that an order passed in the original, appellate or the revisional jurisdiction involving payment of money and putting any person in 1906. Section 21 of the Mamlatdar's Court Act lays down an elaborate procedure indicating as to how the orders under the Act are to be executed and the Legislature wanted that the orders passed and referred to under section 94 shall also be given effect to by adopting the same procedure. If a statute provides that the procedure in respect of the execution and other matters of any order passed under that statute shall be the same, as is provided under some other statute, the order passed under the first statute does not become the order passed under the second statute. The Legislature merely omits to repeat the procedural provisions made in some other statute and provides that the same procedure will be applied in this case also. The Legislature merely omits to repeat the procedural provisions made in some other statute and provides that the same procedure will be applied in this case also. Such a provision does not alter the character of the order as an order passed under the first statute. Therefore, an order passed under any of the provisions under the Hyderabad Tenancy Act which is to be executed as if it is an order passed under the Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1906 does to become an order passed under the Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1906, but remains an order passed under the Hyderabad Tenancy Act of 1950. The judgment of Dhabe, J., in Laman Govindrao's case (cited supra) will have to be interpreted in the light of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands (Vidharbha Region) Act (99 of 1958). The real question before the Court in that case was whether an appeal is maintainable against an order under section 106(2) of the Bombay Tenancy (Vidharbha Region) Act. Provisions of section 106 of the Bombay Tenancy (Vidharbha Region) Act are identical in material respect with the provisions of section 94 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act of 1950, except the fact that sub-section (3) of section 106 of the Vidharbha Act provides that an order or decision of Tahsildar in execution proceedings conducted under sub-section (2) shall, subject to appeal (if any) to the Collector, be final. Section 107 of the Vidharbha Act provides that an appeal against order of Tahsildar may be filed to the Collector in respect of the cases which are mentioned in that section. It may be noted that there is no provision generally providing appeal against every order passed by the Tahsildar under the Vidharbha Act and the right of appeal is restricted to certain orders mentioned in section 107. Therefore, the question before Dhabe, J., was, in the absence of any specific provision about any appeal maintainable against an order passed under section 106, whether because of sub-section (3) can it be interpreted that over and above provisions under section 107, an appeal has been provided by sub-section (3) of section 106. Learned Judge ruled that sub-section (3) is not a provision providing for an appeal and, therefore, if an appeal has not been provided under the Act, provisions of sub-section (3) of section 106 of the Vidharbha Act cannot be interpreted to mean that an appeal is maintainable. Learned Judge ruled that sub-section (3) is not a provision providing for an appeal and, therefore, if an appeal has not been provided under the Act, provisions of sub-section (3) of section 106 of the Vidharbha Act cannot be interpreted to mean that an appeal is maintainable. The expression 'if any' in sub-section (3) of section 106 of the Vidharbha Act was interpreted by Dhabe, J., to mean that "if any provided under the Act" and since no appeal under section 107 of that Act was provided, it was held that an appeal is not maintainable. 6. The Bombay Tenancy (Vidharbha Region) Act (99 of 1958) provides appeals in respect of particular cases and similar provision is there under the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, section 74 which provides appeals in particular cases only. Contrary to these two provisions under these two statutes, the Hyderabad Tenancy Act of 1950 by virtue of section 90 provides that an appeal is competent from every order, other than interim order, passed by the Tahsildar or Tribunal under the Act. Therefore, if an order is passed under section 94, an appeal would be competent under section 90 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, and if we hold that an appeal is competent under section 90, it follows that a revision to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under section 91 would also be competent. Section 91 provides revision against any order passed on appeal or under section 90-B by the Collector. Therefore, it will have to be held that an appeal was competent against the orders of the Naib-Tahsildar to the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Deputy Collector, a revision under section 91 to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is also competent. 7. The factual submissions made by both the learned Counsel, need not be gone into at present since the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal would be proper forum to look into the grievances of the petitioner and the objections which the respondents want to raise. 7. The factual submissions made by both the learned Counsel, need not be gone into at present since the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal would be proper forum to look into the grievances of the petitioner and the objections which the respondents want to raise. Needless to say that if a revision is filed by the present petitioner, while considering the question of limitation, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shall take into consideration the time spent in pursuing remedy in this Court and the fact that one of the survey numbers wrongly mentioned in the order of the Deputy Collector was not corrected till 1982 and such other contentions as would be raised by the petitioner. Petitioner is at liberty to file revision application in this matter before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal shall also keep in mind the time spent in this protracted litigation and shall dispose of the revision application as expeditiously as possible, if filed. 8. With these observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Rule is discharged. However, in the circumstances indicated above, there be no order as to costs of this petition. Rule discharged. -----