Judgement RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. :- Mr. T. S. Doabia, Senior Counsel with Ms. Mamta Joshi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. J. P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. They are heard on admission. 2. Mr. J. P. Joshi, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Special Appeal on the ground that the present Special Appeal is not maintainable on account of the specific bar contained in Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules. 3. Appellant Hira Kalyan Das has filed this Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against the impugned judgment dated 25-9-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 840 of 2001 (M/S). 4. Appellant Hira Kalyan Das had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs : "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 15-3-1990 (annexure III) and judgment and order dated 31-7-1984 (annexure II passed by the respondent No. 2); (b) Issue such other further suitable writ, order or direction deemed proper in the circumstances of the case; (c) Award costs to the petitioner." 5. Thus, it is apparent from the abovequoted reliefs sought in the writ petition that the petitioner was seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 31-7-1984 (Annexure No. II) passed by respondent No. 2 Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer (under U.P. Act No. 1 of 1961), Dehradun and the judgment and order dated 15-3-1990 (Annexure No. III) passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Garhwal Region, Pauri, Dehradun (Appellate Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960). 6. Mr. T.S. Doabia, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the present Special Appeal is very much maintainable as : (i) the learned Single Judge ought not to have heard and decided the writ petition, as the constitutional validity of the Act, itself, was challenged in the writ petition; and (ii) the U.P. Act, under the provisions whereof the impugned judgments and orders were passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, falls in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India and, as such, is not covered by the exclusion clause in Rule 5. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. J. P. Joshi, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that Rule 5 (b) of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules specifically excludes filing of a Special Appeal against a judgment or order passed by the Government or any officer or authority made or purported to be made in exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The learned Chief Standing Counsel, placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sudershan Singh Bedi v. Additional District Magistrate (Rent Control and Eviction Officer), Varanasi and others reported in 1993 (1) ARC 121 further submitted that as the impugned judgments and orders, passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer and the Appellate Authority, were in exercise of their judicial powers, these Authorities are to be deemed as Tribunal for the purposes of Rule 5 of the High Court Rules and, as such also, the Special Appeal is not maintainable in view of Rule 5(a). 8. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, as applicable to the High Court of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), providing for Special Appeals, reads as follows : "5. Special appeal.- An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award (a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge." 9. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Ajeet Singh Patwa v. The District Judge, Pithoragarh and others reported in 2005 (2) UD 659, while considering the maintainability of the Special Appeal in the said case, observed in paras 3 and 4 : "3. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 5 raised a preliminary objection that this special appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of Court 1952 issued by the Allahabad High Court which are applicable to the High Court of Uttaranchal. The preliminary objection is opposed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the said Rules reads thus : "5. Special appeal.- An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award (a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act) of one Judge." It is clear from the above-quoted provisions that a special appeal shall not lie from an order passed by the Single Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment of a Court made in the exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The order impugned in this special appeal was passed by the Single Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in respect of a judgment of the District Court, Pithoragarh made in the exercise of jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 5 is upheld. The special appeal is dismissed as not maintainable." 10. The above-quoted Division Bench decision in the case of Ajeet Singh Patwa (supra) was followed in the case of Nagar Panchayat Landhora and another v. Damodar Prasad and another (Defective Special Appeal No. 7 of 2007) decided on 22-2-2007. Reported in 2007 (2) UC 1110. 11. It is not in dispute that the judgments and orders under challenge in the writ petition were passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority in exercise of their judicial powers under the U.P. Act. As such, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in such a writ petition, is not appealable under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules. 12. As the Special Appeal, against the impugned judgment, is not maintainable under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the other submissions, advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant are not required to be examined by us in this Special Appeal, which is not maintainable. 13. At this stage, Mr. T. S. Doabia, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that as the Special Appeal is being dismissed as not maintainable, the operation of the impugned judgment may be stayed for one month so that the appellant may file a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. 14. Once we have held that the Special Appeal is not maintainable, no such relief can be granted. 15. We, therefore, reject the above prayer of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable and is hereby dismissed accordingly notwithstanding that it is barred by time. Appeal dismissed.