1 2025:CGHC:26566-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 380 of 2025 Bhagwantin Bai D/o. Kanhaiya Das Aged About 40 Years By Caste Panika, R/o. Village - Chalan, Tahsil - Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) (Respondent No. 7) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Chameli Bai W/o. Shri Laxman Aged About 40 Years By Caste - Panika, R/o. Village - Chalan, Police And Tahsil - Mungeli, Revenue Distt. Mungeli, Civil Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 1) 3 - Board Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Through Its Chairman, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (Respondent No. 2) 4 - Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 3) 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) (Respondent No. 4) 6 - Tahsildar Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) (Respondent No. 5) 7 - Naib Tahsildar Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) (Respondent No. 6) ---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.06.24 10:28:59 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 2 3 .0 6 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.S. Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. I.A. No.1 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of 124 days. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. With the consent of the parties, we proceed to hear the matter finally. 5. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 3278 of 2015 (Chameli Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 has already been appointed on the post of permanent Kotwar at Village- 3 Chalan vide order dated 18.02.2011 passed by the Tahsildar, Mungeli, but the same could not be brought into notice of the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur and therefore, the aforesaid observation and direction made in the order dated 17.07.2015, are challenged by respondent No.1 by filing a writ petition being WPS No.3278 of 2015, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Being aggrieved with the order passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.3278 of 2015 vide order dated 05.11.2024, the appellant who is respondent No.7 in the writ petition, instant writ appeal has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.11.2024 has quashed the para No.6 of the order dated 17.07.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the Board of Revenue had directed for initiation of proceedings for appointment of Permanent Kotwar of the village holding that respondent No.1 has already been appointed as Permanent Kotwar vide order dated 18.02.2011. He further submits that the said direction is improper because no review petition or any modification application was preferred by the appellant before the Board of Revenue, who passed the direction in the absence of knowledge of appointment of appellant already as Permanent Kotwar. It has been contended that she has made efforts to get the entire records of the revenue case on the basis of which, she was appointed as permanent Kotwar, but no record 4 was found and the learned Single Judge has erroneously passed the impugned order, which deserves to be set-aside. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein, in which no interference is called for. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 11. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has held that respondent No.1 herein has already been appointed to the post of permanent Kotwar at Village-Chalan vide order dated 18.02.2011 and the same has not bee questioned by any of the parties or respondent No.7/appellant herein. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material on record, learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in the following terms:- “5. In the case at hand, since the petitioner has already been appointed to the post of permanent Kotwar at village –Chalan vide order dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure P/3) and the same has not been questioned by any of the parties or respondent No.7, in that view of the matter, the observation and direction 5 made by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in para – 6 of order dated 17.07.2015 (Annexure P/4) is hereby set aside. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s).” 13. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu