1. The present intra Court filed under section 2(1) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (hereinafter referred as “ Act of 2005”) assails the final order dated 10.2.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.5970/2016 whereby the learned Single Judge while exercising the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has allowed the petition and set aside the order of Board of Revenue dated 5.8.2016 after holding that application of petitioner under section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Code, 1959') was filed within the limitation period of two years as prescribed in section 250(1-a)(b) of the Code.

2. The argument of the learned counsel for the parties are heard solely on the question of maintainability of this writ appeal as it is objected by the learned counsel for the respondent that no appeal under section 2(1) of 2005 Act lies against the order passed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of the objection has placed reliance on the decision of Dr. Jaidev Siddha (Dr.) v. Jaiprakash Siddha and others [2007(3) JLJ 151=2007(3) MPLJ 595 para 17] and Vijay Chaudhary v. Smt. Vimlabai and others [2011(III) MPWN 75] and contends that since no writ was sought to be issued and the petition in question was also titled as being under Article 227 and also that the tenor of the pleadings merely sought exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the learned single Judge, the impugned order that has been passed is under Article 227 and not under Article 226 and, therefore, statutory bar under section 2(1) of 2005 Act comes into play against the appellant thereby rendering this appeal not maintainable. It is further submitted that the writ Court has not decided upon any of the rights and liabilities of the rival parties but has merely adjudicated as to whether the impugned order was passed within the jurisdictional limits of the authorities or not.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has exercised its original writ jurisdiction by issuing the writ of certiorari though not specifically asked for in the relief clause of the petition. It is further submitted by the appellant that quashment of order of the Board of Revenue (Annexure P-1) and order of SDO (Annexure P-3) was sought in the petition which essentially is a kin to asking for writ of certiorari. Thus, it is submitted that merely because the petition in question was titled as inter alia being under Article 227 the power exercised by the writ Court was actually and essentially under Article 226 and not under Article 227.

5. The issue as to whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge is under Articles 226 or 227 is no more res integra. The Full Bench decision in the case of Manoj Kumar v. Board of Revenue [2008(1) JLJ 76 (SB)=(2008)1 MPLJ 152] and the recent decision in the case of Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others [(2015)5 SCC 423], which has been followed by the apex Court in the case of Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh and others [(2015)7 SCC 373]. Paragraphs 16 to 20 of the Himalayan Coop. Group (supra), are being reproduced below for convenience and ready reference :-

“16. The scope and extent of power of the writ Court in a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the recent case of Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath [(2015)5 SCC 423]. This Court observed that the writ of certiorari under Article 226 though directed against the orders of an inferior Court would be distinct and separate from the challenge to an order of an inferior Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The supervisory jurisdiction comes into play in the latter case and it is only when the scope and ambit of the remedy sought for does not fall in the purview of the scope of supervi