'"^« t<3^-/^°)/2-oo7 HIQH COURT OF <3HHAPN8GARH. BILA8PUR 1 M,Am>eat(PjaM6.4828of2007 DB: Hon'bte.^toi Jt»disliBhaUa, Aa.C.J. Shrl Sunil fcniinar Slnha. Judee Appellant RBSPONDEKTS KedamatU, s/p Mukunda, aged abput 31 years, r/o vi0ay,e Teiidum.uiida, Tahsfl Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G) Versus 1. Cham.Smgh,s/oDayaSmgh,caste Gond, r/o ViBe^e Rajhapara (Korba), TahsU Pendra Road, Distnct, Bflaspur{C.G) 2. Stete of C.G. through Cofflector, Bilaspur(C.G) 3. Revenue Board 6f C.G., Bilaspur (C.G} 40 ADpearance: No pne appeajs^tfae appeUantwten the aia^ out. .;• . • ' • • .%:--:''~:.^^:^''^ . ' . . SIiriU.N.S. Dep,<3k?vt.Advocate^^^ no.2 & 3 on advaDce copy. ORAItORIMiR (13.8,2007) Jaatfisfa BhaIIa. AfcC.J., This writ appeal arises out'of an. OTder passed tn Writ Petition filed under Ardcle 227 of the Constitution of India. Before coming intp force ofthe High Gourt ofChhattisgarh (Appealto Division Bench)Act, 2006 (fpr short 'the Act, 2006% tatra court appeals were being ffled under fhe provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Saiapati) Adluniyam, 1981. The said provMion of Letters I^tent Appeal was repealed by fhe Act, 2006 and by fhe same notification, Chhattisgarfa H^h Court Rides, 2005 came mto ^' ' "• _ .• • •-..-. •' :- .. . force wherein fhe provision of appeal is prowided imder Rule 2 which is as foUows: ° "2. Appeal to the Elndsipn Bcach of fhe High. Court finin ajudgmexit or brderofone Judge|0f& H^h Court luade iu exeroise of pr^uialjurisdiction (1) An appeal shall lie &osa. a judgment o^ order --^tl •'•{ llfit)*' ^@s^ —t^- passed by;6ne judge ofttieHighCSourtm. exercise of original julisdi<^ri Ttnder of fhe Constitution of India, to a Disisioa Beneh comprisingoftwoJudgesofttiesaineIughCourt: Provided that no such appeal shaB Ue agaiBst an interlocutoiy order or agajnst aa order passed in exercise of supervisoiy jurisd^ Article 227 ofthe eoristi.tutiouoflndja. (2)^ An appeal under sub-sectioir(l) sUaU be ffled witluu 45 days &om the date of order p^sed by a Single Judge. Provided ffaat aay appeal laay be adalitted after 'the prescnbed period of 45 days, if tiie petttipner satisfics the Division Beuch that he had suffieaent cause for not preferring fhe appeal wittun Sucliperiod. Explanation:- The fact tfaat the petiticiuer was inisled by any order, practfce or jufigment of Qie H^h Court in ascertaiiung the pBescnbed period may by sufficient cause withia ttie meaning of this sub-section," Prcun the perusat of the aforesaid provision, it is ciystal elear fliatiio appeal shaBlie agaiastaa orderpassed in exerctee of supen^oiy jurisdlctioa under Article 227 of the Gpnstitution oflridia. Same view has been taken by a Divteion Bench ofthis Court ia W.A(P.R.) No.3486/2007, in whfch (me of us (Hoa'bte Shri Jagdish Blialla, Acting ChiefJustice) is a Member. In ligUf of Ihe above discussion, iatra. Gourt appeal is aot mamtauiable again.st fhe order passed in exercise pf supeivispiy jurisdictionuiider Article 227 ofthe Gonstttution oflndia. Accordiagly, th@ writ appeal is disnussed. Rao 41