*'-:'t^>* .."'<. 'l'yi3ii!«»a '%, •;^:^ ^\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTBGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRISUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ ADpeal No. 37 of 2009 Appellant Resoondents Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. Kesharram Sahu, Age-53, S/o Late Vishalram Sahu Kharra, PC # 22 The. Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, by Secretary, Deptt. of Revenue, ^4antralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Board of Revenue, By R^istrar, Raipur (C.G.) SDO, Dhamtari (C.G.) Kaliram Sahu, Age-61, S/o Late Vishalram Sahu Thua, Teh. Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Writ Appeal under Sectfon 2 (1) of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division Bencht Act. 2006 Present : Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Government Advocate Tor the State / respondents No.1 to 3. ORDER (9m February, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, leamed Government Advocate for the State has raised a prelimlnary objection about the maintainabtlity of the appeal on the ground that the order impugned in thfe writ appeal was fassed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. •^'^irf' ' ',;.•. '^tl ^--^ 2) A bare perusal of the reliefs sought In the wrlt petition and the reliefe granted by the leamed Single Judge in para 15 of the impugned order does not leave any room for doubt that the leamed Single Judge has passed the impugned order in exerclse of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3) In this view of the matter, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 4) The writ appeal, therefore, is dismlssed accordingly. _ padma Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge