Preetam Das Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

2025:CGHC:59597

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 744 of 2015

Preetam Das S/o Devadas Manikpuri Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Amora, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

¶5

versus

¶6

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors S/o Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶9

4 - The Collector, Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh

¶10

5 - Sub Divisional Officer, Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh

¶11

6 - The Tahsildar, Nawagarh, District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh

¶12

7 - Shiv Prasad S/o Ramdhan Suryavanshi Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Amora, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh

¶13

8 - Netram S/o Chintram Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Amora, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh

¶14

9 - Kanhaiya Das S/o Ramdhan Satnami Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Amora, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

(Cause title is taken from the CIS)

¶17

-------------------------------------------- For Petitioner	---------------------------------------------------------------------- : Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate
For Respondents/State	: Shri Rajeev Bharat, GA
For Respondent- 7	: Shri Udit Khatri, Advocate, on behalf of Shri Animesh Verma, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

08.12.2025

¶21

Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.12.24 19:27:09 +0530

¶22

Wpc 744 of 2015

¶23

2

¶24

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19.03.2015, passed by the Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in Revision case-RN/06/R/A-56/90/2013, whereby the Revision filed by respondent-7 was allowed, and the order dated 26.02.2013, Annexure P2, passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, in Revision Case- 152-A-56/2011-2012 is set aside.

¶25

2. Subject matter in brief in the present petition is the appointment of Kotwar. The earlier Kotwar of the village-Amora, Tahsil-Nawagarh, namely, Devadas Manikpuri was removed from the post of Kotwar, due to ill health, and over age. Then, proceeding for appointment of Kotwar was initiated. Petitioner, as well as respondent-7 had made their application for appointment of Kotwar. After due verification of the documents, the Tahsildar, Nawagarh appointed respondent-7, Shriv Prasad, S/o Ramdhan Suryavanshi as Kotwar of the village-Amori, vide order dated 08.05.2001. Said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), District-Janjgir-Champa, which was dismissed on 29.10.2001. He again filed Second Appeal before the Collector, Janjgir-Champa, which was also dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2006. Petitioner further challenged the order dated 21.02.2006 by filing a revision petition before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, and after hearing the parties, learned Commissioner, Bilaspur vide its order dated 26.02.2013 allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, and set aside the order passed by the sub-ordinate

¶26

Wpc 744 of 2015

¶27

3

¶28

Revenue Authority, against which respondent-7 approached before the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur by filing revision, which was allowed vide order dated 19.03.2015, setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur dated 26.02.2013, and affirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar, as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer, and the Collector, Janjgir, by which respondent-7 had been appointed as Kotwar of village-Amora, Nawagarh, which is under challenge in the present petition.

¶29

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Board of Revenue had exceeded its jurisdiction ignoring the rule framed under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘Land Revenue Code’), which provides that preference should be given to the near relative of Ex-Kotwar, however, no preference was given to the petitioner, who is the son of Ex-Kotwar. He would further submits that learned Board of Revenue has decided the revision considering that respondent-7 is having more educational qualification than the present petitioner, which is absolutely not there in the rules framed under Section 230 of the Land Revenue Code. He would also submit that the Board of Revenue has also considered that the retirement age of Kotwar is 60 years, whereas, there is no provision in the rule made under Section 230, and no maximum age is prescribed. He would further submit that the learned Board of Revenue has also erroneously considered that the age of the petitioner is higher than the age of respondent-7, and he is more qualified than the petitioner. He would

¶30

Wpc 744 of 2015

¶31

4

¶32

also submit that the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division has rightly assessed the material available in the case, and passed order in favour of the petitioner, whereas, the well reasoned order of the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division has been set asides by the Board of Revenue without considering the provisions of the Kotwari Rules, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside.

¶33

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent-7 would support the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue, and submits that apart from the educational qualification, age of the parties, and the preferences provided in the Kotwari rules framed under Section 230 of the Land Revenue Code, the Board of Revenue has also considered that there is that there is no proposal in favour of the petitioner from the Gram Panchayat, or Gram Sabha, whereas, the subordinate Revenue Code has considered that there is proposal of Gram Panchayat in favour of respondent-7 to appoint him as Kotwar of village Amora. Therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue is absolutely justified, and there is no infirmity, or irregularity and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the State would support that the appointment of Kotwar is disputed between the parties, and based on the documents available on record, in support of their respective claims, the authorities have passed the order.

¶35

Wpc 744 of 2015

¶36

5

¶37

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material annexed with the petition.

¶38

7. In order to consider the correctness of the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue with respect to appointment of Kotwar under Section 230 of the Land Revenue Code, and the rules, framed therein, it transpires that the Rule 2 of the Rules, made under Section 230 of the Land Revenue Code provides the eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Kotwar, and Rule 4 of the Rules provided that the authority, after receiving a resolution, duly passed by the Gram Panchayat in whose area the post of Kotwar is vacant, the authorized Revenue Officer shall appoint an eligible person on the post of Kotwar.

¶39

8. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 4 of Kotwari Rules provided that preference may be given to the near relative of the Ex-Kotwar, other things being equal. It is necessary to notice here the Rules 2 and 4 of the Kotwari Rules, which read as under:

¶40

“Rule-2. No person shall be eligible for the post of Kotwar, who—

¶41

i. is, in the opinion of the appointing authority, not of good character, and antecedents;

¶42

ii. is, in the opinion of the appointing authority, unfit through infirmity of body or mind, to perform the duties of the post;

¶43

iii. is below the age of 21 years;

¶44

iv. (omitted)

¶45

Rule 4. (1) On the occurrence of a vacancy in the post of a Kotwar, the Revenue Officer, who is empowered to make appointment, after

¶46

Wpc 744 of 2015

¶47

6

¶48

receiving a resolution duly passed by the [Gram Sabha or Gram Sabhas] in whose area the post of Kotwar is vacant, shall appoint an eligible person on the post of Kotwar, if the person proposed ;in the resolution does not fulfil the qualification prescribed in Rule 2, the authorised Revenue Officer shall reject the resolution after recording the reasons in writing and intimate the [Gram Sabha or Gram Sabhas] and call for a fresh proposal]

¶49

Provided that immediately on occurrence of a vacancy, the appointing authority may temporarily appoint a suitable person to perform the duties of the office of Kotwar till the regular appointment under subrule(1) is made.

¶50

(2) In making appointment of a Kotwar under sub-rule (1) preference may be given to the near relative of the ex-Kotwar, other things being equal.

¶51

Note.— If the vacancy is caused by the suspension or dismissal of the previous incumbent for bad character, misconduct or disobedience and the effect of the dismissal would be lost if a member of his family is appointed to succeed him, relatives of the previous incumbent may not be appointed.”

¶52

9. When the provision of Rule 4 of Kotwari Rules specifically provides that there shall be a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat (before amendment), there should be a resolution passed in favour of the parties concerned by the Gram Panchayat concerned.

¶53

10. From perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, it transpires that the SDO Revenue vide its order dated 29.10.2001, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that no

¶54

Wpc 744 of 2015

¶55

7

¶56

proposal of Gram Panchat has been passed in favour of the petitioner. It is also been observed that the Board of Revenue has also considered that resolution of Gram Panchayat was in favour of respondent-7, Shiv Prasad, and he was being appointed as Kotwar of the village-Amora vide order dated 08.05.2001, whereas, there is no resolution by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner for appointment of Kotwar. The petitioner has neither pleaded, nor filed any document showing that any resolution was passed in his favour by the Gram Panchayat concerned for appointing him as Kotwar, and in absence of any such resolution, it cannot be said that he is qualified to be appointed on the post of Kotwar for Village-Amora, which is the requirement of Rule 4 of the Kotwari Rules. Further, although, learned Board of Revenue has considered the education qualification of the parties, that respondent-7 is 10^th passed, whereas, petitioner herein is 10^th failed, and therefore, respondent-7 is highly qualified, and also that age of the petitioner is 50 years, whereas, age of respondent-7 is 26 years, and he is more suitable than the petitioner. However, this court does not find any provision of education qualification, or age, or other considerable factors. The minimum educational qualification has not been provided in the Rules. The minimum age of 21 years has been provided, in Rule 2(iii) of the Kotwari Rules, but the maximum age has not been provided, and therefore, even if these two grounds, are not available to respondent-7 to give preference, however, on the ground that no resolution of Gram Panchayat, Amora is in favour of the petitioner, but resolution of Gram

¶57

Wpc 744 of 2015

¶58

8

¶59

Panchayat is in favour of respondent-7 is sufficient to decline the appointment of Kotwar at village-Amora to the petitioner. Although the educational qualification and age may be considerable factor for deciding suitability for appointment of Kotwar, however, in all probability, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as documents produced in the case, respondent-7 is found suitable to be appointed on the post of Kotwar under the Kotwari Rules, framed under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

¶60

11. Accordingly, I do not find any perversity, or illegality in the order passed by the Board of Revenue, consequently, the writ petition is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed.

¶61

12. No order as to costs.

¶62

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE

¶63

padma

Preetam Das v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preetam Das v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Binda Bai and Ors. Vs Samaru and Ors.

Mahesh Kumar and Anr. Vs Ishwarsingh and Ors.

Krishna Kumar Vs Ram Kumar

M/s Laxmi Tobacco Company Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pradip Singh Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anuj Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh