JUDGMENT: - Rule. With the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati by which order, the appeal tiled by the respondents 1 to 3 herein came to be allowed and the order passed by the Addl. Collector dated 22.9.2009 came to be set aside. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated thus: The dispute in the above petition is as regards the mutation entry in respect of survey No. 28/2 (New Gut No. 92) admeasuring 6 H 98R of village Nimbi, Tq. Balapur, Dist. Akola. Suffice it to say that an entry in the revenue record came to be made in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 by the Talathi, by order dated 25.6.1998. Against the said order, the petitioners herein tiled an Appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer which came to be dismissed by the order dated 17.10.2008. Against which, the petitioner filed a further Appeal under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (in short "the Code") before the Additional Collector which came to allowed by the Additional Collector by the order dated 22.9.2009, which resulted in the respondents filing further Appeal before the State Government under the same provisions, which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 19.11.2010 and the entries effected in favour of the petitioners came to be set aside in respect of the said land in question. 4. The principal ground of challenge to the impugned order is that the third appeal is not maintainable under section 247 of the Code as the respondents 1 to 3 had already exhausted two appeals - one before the SDO and second before the Additional Collector. To this, Mr A.S. Chandurkar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that initially the proceedings filed before the SDO were in the nature of an application against the entries made by the Talathi by his order dated 25.6.1998 and, therefore, the said proceeding cannot be equated with an appeal. To this, Mr A.S. Chandurkar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that initially the proceedings filed before the SDO were in the nature of an application against the entries made by the Talathi by his order dated 25.6.1998 and, therefore, the said proceeding cannot be equated with an appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents would further contend that the instant proceedings were tried by the Additional Commissioner who is vested with both the powers of appeal as well as revision under section 247 of the Code and, therefore, even though the proceeding was styled as appeal, it could be construed as an order passed in a Revision Application filed under sec. 247 of the Code. 5. Insofar as the submissions of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 are concerned, it is required to be noted that the proceedings filed before the SDO were in the nature of Appeal in as much as the preface of the said proceeding itself discloses the SDO has proceeded on the basis that he was dealing with an Appeal and, therefore, the proceedings filed before the Additional Commissioner which were admittedly treated as an Appeal were not maintainable in the scheme of the Code wherein a third appeal is not contemplated. Insofar as the submissions of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 that the order passed can be construed as one passed in the revisional jurisdiction. In my view, since the scope of an appeal and revisional proceeding is different the authority would have to be alive to the jurisdiction which it was exercising. In the instant case the authority has proceeded on the premise th<\t it was dealing with an Appeal and not a Revision and in the said context has dealt with the matter. May be if the proceedings were to be a Revision the approach of the authority would have been different. 6. The judgment cited on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 of the Apex Court to the effect that merely mentioning of a wrong provision would not invalidate a order, in the fact situation of the present case, would not be applicable. 6. The judgment cited on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 of the Apex Court to the effect that merely mentioning of a wrong provision would not invalidate a order, in the fact situation of the present case, would not be applicable. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 19.11.2010 would have to be set aside and the matter would have to be relegated back to the Additional Commissioner and the petitioners and respondents 1 to 3 would have to prosecute the said proceedings as a Revision as a third appeal is not maintainable in the scheme of the Code. On such remand, the Additional Commissioner Amravati would deal with the said proceedings as Revision and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The respondents 1 to 3 would be permitted to make the necessary amendments in the proceedings i.e. appeal memo etc. so as to bring them in sync with the revisional jurisdiction which they are invoking. 7. On remand, the Additional Commissioner to try the said revisional proceedings on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced with any of the observations made in the instant order or the impugned order dated 19.11.2010. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their respective costs. Petition allowed.