The court ruled that appeals against orders made under Article 227 of the Constitution are not maintainable, emphasizing the jurisdictional distinction between Articles 226 and 227.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

1. Heard Mr. B.P.Sharma, Mr. M.L.Sakat, Mr. Abhinav Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the State as well as Mr. M.V.Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sanjay Agrawal and Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respective respondents.

2. In WA No. 418/2021, challenge is made to the order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(227) No. 876/2012 by which the petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners challenging the order dated 14.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, in Revenue Case No. 19/A-23/2009-10, has been dismissed.

3. In WA No. 626/2022, challenge is made to the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(227) No. 173/2021 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to record his name in the revenue records in pursuance of the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 03.02.2014 and provisions contained under Sections 108 to 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, has been rejected.

4. The Registry has raised an objection that these appeals are not maintainable as they are appeals against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and as such, no appeal to this Bench would lie. As such, both the appeals were directed to be listed together and they are being considered and decided.

5. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well as State submit that these appeals are not maintainable in view of provisions of Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (for short, the Act of 2006).

6. Mr. B.P.Sharma and Mr. Abhinav Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respective appellant(s) submit that though the writ petitions were titled as petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India but the prayer clause makes it clear that the said petitions could only be treated as petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. Mr. Sharma submits that the term ‘Court’ has no where been de However, Section 31 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, the Code of 1959) provides for conferral of status of Courts on Board and Revenue Officer. The said Section states that the Board or a Revenue Officer, while exercising power under this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force to enquire into or to decide any question arising for determination between the State Government and an person or between parties to any proceedings, shall be a Revenue Court. ‘Attributes of a Court’ and a ‘Court’ are two different things. Section 32 of the Code of 1959 is in respect of inherent power of revenue Courts. It states that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.

8. Mr. Sharma places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Visan Kumar Shiv Charan Lal { (2008) 15 SCC 233 }. Mr. Sharma submits that in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex