ORDER 1. This writ appeal filed under section 2 (i) of MP Uchch Nyayalaya Khandpeeth ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the final order dated 31. 7.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition under Article 227 declining interference to the appellate order of the SDO, Vidisha dated 7.2. 2020 dismissing the Appeal of the petitioner thereby upholding the order dated 25-5-2019 of Tahsildar, Vidisha regarding demarcation of the land belonging to respondent no. 5 herein. 2. The principal ground raised in the appeal before SDO by the petitioner was that demarcation on behest of the respondent was carried out in the absence of the petitioner. 3. The learned single judge while dismissing the petition preferred by the petitioner titled as "a petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India" observed that demarcation had been done on four earlier occasions and with the prayer of the petitioner to carry out demarcation of all the survey numbers including that of the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 cannot be gone into, owing to absence of any prayer made in the application for demarcation made by petitioner before the Revenue Authorities. 4. The learned single judge has also emphasized the limited scope of interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution under which the petition in question has been filed. 5. Consequently, the learned single judge treating the petition as one under Article 227 dismisses the same. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no further remedy under the MPLR code against the appellate order passed by the SDO vide P1 in view of the statutory bar which stipulates appellate order under section 129 of the MPLRCode to be final. It is thus submitted that the petitioner had no remedy except to approach this Court. 7. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent about maintainability of this appeal on the ground that since the order assailed of single bench is under article 227 no writ appeal can lie under the provisions of the 2005 Act. It is submitted by the respondent's Counsel that not only the petition filed by the petitioner was titled as "under Article 227 of the Constitution but the Court fees paid was also under Article 227 and not under Article 226. It is submitted by the respondent's Counsel that not only the petition filed by the petitioner was titled as "under Article 227 of the Constitution but the Court fees paid was also under Article 227 and not under Article 226. It is also submitted that the prayer made in the petition was only for quashment of impugned order without seeking any issuance of writ as contemplated by Article 226. It is lastly submitted that no public law element is involved in the cause raised by the petitioner. Reliance is placed by the respondents on the case of Manoj Kumar v. Board of Revenue reported in 2007 (3) JLJ 151 and Jaidev Siddha and Ors. v. Jaiprakash Siddha and Ors. reported in 2007 (4) MPHT 545 . 8. After having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court is of the view that the primary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents deserves to be upheld. 9. The petition was not only titled as one "under Article 227" but the Court fees paid was also qua a petition under Article 227. Moreso, the learned Single Judge consciously exercised the powers under Article 227 which is evident from the bare reading of the impugned order and therefore it cannot be said that the impugned order of the learned single judge was one "under Article 226" when the learned single judge has unequivocally and consciously exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. Thus it goes without saying that the decision impugned before this Court is one "under article 227" and therefore the present appeal in view of the statutory bar contained in section 2 (i) of 2005 Adhiniyam is not maintainable. Consequently this appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable.