1 2025:CGHC:17172 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 451 of 2017 1 - Mahettar Das S/o Sufaldas Manikpuri, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Basha, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Santosh Kumar Gandharva S/o Sudharam Gandharva, R/o Village Basha, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Additional Collector, Bilaspur, Division, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Nayab Tahsildar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For respective : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer and Respondents Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.04.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue in Case No. R.N./R/02/A-56/409/2012, Village Basaha, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) dated 03.05.2017, whereby the REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the present case are that initially, respondent No.1 was appointed as permanent Kotwar vide order dated 15.07.1993. On a complaint, he was removed vide order dated 03.12.1997 and the petitioner was appointed as temporary Kotwar vide order dated 09.01.1997. 3. Respondent No.1 challenged that order by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and vide order dated 13.04.1998, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) remitted back the matter to the Nayab Tehsildar to pass an order afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The concerned Tehsildar passed an order on 22.07.1998 and appointed respondent No.1 as Kotwar. 4. The petitioner moved an application for the execution of the order dated 09.01.1997 before the Nayab Tehsildar and that was rejected vide order dated 29.01.2007. He challenged that order by filing an appeal and revision before the Collector, Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 5. Mr. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as temporary Kotwar according to the provisions of Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. He would further submit that the right accrued in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the learned Revenue Courts ought to have appointed the petitioner to the post of Kotwar. Mr. Patel would pray to quash the orders passed by the 3 Revenue Courts. He would seek a direction to the Tehsildar to appoint the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 09.01.1997. 6. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respective respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Patel. They would submit the petitioner was never appointed as permanent Kotwar of Gram Panchayat Basaha. They would further submit that there is a concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below. It is also contended that the petitioner moved an application for execution and that was rejected by the learned Nayab Tehsildar whereas the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 22.07.1998 whereby respondent No.1 was appointed as permanent Kotwar has not been challenged by the petitioner. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the order whereby respondent No.1 was appointed as Kotwar of the Gram Panchayat Basaha and the petitioner was appointed as a temporary Kotwar for the time being and that order was set aside by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. 9. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha