T C: J 0 '^^b '^' HI6H COWT Cff CHHATTIS6ARH AT QILASnM DIVISION BENCH COR^M: HON'BLE SHRI JA66ISH BHALLA, Ag. C3. & HON'BLE SHRI SATISH K. A6NIHOTRI. J. Appellant Petitioner Respondents Writ Appeal No. 04 of Z008 Bho.j Baj ^ W/o Riyendra Sond Aged about 40 years Sflrpaneh Sram Panchdyat Anwari, Block bondi, E>istrict Dur9 '<€.<?.) Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. State of ChhattiS9ar'h, Throtgh the Seci^tory, &eptt-tment of Panchtyat, &.K.5. Bhawan, Mantralflya, Rafpur, Distt. Raipur Upper Cotlector Durg, Distt. t>urg The Sub Divisional Officer, Oondi Lohara, Distt! Owg (C.S.) The Presiding Officer, Nayob Tahsildar, Dallir((jara Distt- Durg 6r<m Panchayat Anwari, Throu^h : Its Secretory Block &ondi, t>istt- Durg (C.6.) Sushila Bai W/o Nohar Singh Baltu Ram S/o 5al<ha Runcged about 35 yews, Bhikori Rarn S/o Dau Ram aaed about 80 years. Chagan Bai W/o Purshotam <ged about 45 yeare. 10. Radhe lal S/o Bisambhcr Singh. ^ 1^9 •2- II. Heeraniisn S/o Shiv Laf aaed about 35 yews. 12. Narayan Sinqh S/o Krioa Ram aaed about 28 years. 13. Hori Kam s/o Budh Ram aged about 39 years 14. 6ayab<rt-i W/o Rqj Kumar 15. , Uma 3ai W/o Banshi lat cged about 33 yews 16. Dhula Bai W/o Kripa Ram cged about 33 years 17. Samoru Rom S/o Loxman aged about 33 years. 18. Ramesh Kumar S/o Chait Ram (ged about 32 y<?cr». Respondents 5 to 18 are PanchiB, R/o Viliage Paneheyat Anwar'i, Block Dondi, E)ist Dwg (C.6.) Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of Chhattisgorh Hioh Court Appeal to Diyj'sion Bench AcT 2006 Present: Shri A.S. Rajput, counset for -rtie appetlant. Shri Yashwont Singh, Sovemment Advocate fpr the State. ORAL ORDER 9»ass®don 11 Januar'y, 2008) The following orai order of Ihe Courl- was possed by Hon'bte Jt^dish Bhalla. Ag. C.J. This writ oppeal is directed agmrfst -the order dated 02-01-20)8 passed by teamed Sin9te Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 7681/2007. whereby the writ petition fited by the petitioner against the order passed by Upper Collector, Durg was dismis^d. From the perusol of Rute 2 of Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 it is clear that no appeal shgll lie -3 against an order passed in exercise of supervisory Jurisdictionunder Article 227 of •the Constitution of IndioL The petitioner/appellant has fietd writ petition against the order passed by -the Upper Collector. therefore, it is not under ori9inal jurisdictlon. This Court has already dec'ded "the said issue by its jflfdgment dated 13 July, 2007 in Writ Appeal (PR) No.3486/2007. Therefore, in the light of •Hie above Judgment. this wr-it appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writappeal is dismissed. ~—~—-—___ Sd/- ActingChiefJ"^6 Sd/- r-I> SAarma Judge ni-wrni