1 2025:CGHC:38763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5330 of 2021  Kiritram Gada S/o Shri Nathuram Aged About 58 Years By Caste Gada, Occupation Service Working As Village Kotwar Of Village Dhandhani, R/o Village And Post Dhandhani, Thana And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloudabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, New Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Additional Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Collector Baloudabajar District Baloudabajar Bhatapara. 4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaigarh District Baloudabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 5. Nayab Tahsildar Sub Tahsil Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloudabajar Bhatapara. 6. Jeewanlal S/o Shri Awadhram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post Dhandhani, Thana And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloudabajar Bhatapara. 7. Mangaluram S/o Shri Budaluram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village And Post Dhandhani, Thana And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloudabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 8. Gangaram S/o Shri Shivmangal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post Dhandhani, Thana And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloudabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State : Ms. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 6 to 8 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Supriya Upasne, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.06 14:55:54 +0530 2 05. 08.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 19.03.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue by dismissing the application under order 1 rule 10 C.P.C. 10.2 That the respondent’s authority may kindly be directed the produce all the records which relates to passing of the impugned order for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner, who was working on the post of Kotwar at village Dhandhani, was removed on the complaint of villagers vide order dated 16.11.2015 pursuant to the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Bhatgaon. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaigarh, and it was dismissed vide order dated 22.02.2016. A Second Appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, and some of the villagers, who were complainants, moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC before the learned Commissioner, Raipur, seeking permission to be impleaded as party respondents. The learned Commissioner allowed the said application vide order dated 14.07.2017. Against the said order, a revision petition was preferred before the Board of Revenue, which has been dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2021 and against the said order, this petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondents No. 6 to 8 are neither a necessary party nor a proper party, and in the service matter, the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC would not apply. He would further submit that the learned Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue 3 committed an error of law while allowing the said application. He would pray to set aside the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that a complaint was made by more than 100 villagers, but they were not impleaded as parties; therefore, at the second appellate stage, respondents No. 6 to 8 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC on the ground that they are necessary parties. They would further submit that learned Commissioner allowed the application vide order dated 14.07.2017, and against the said order, a revision was preferred, which has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue. They would contend that the Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner is still pending consideration before the Commissioner. They would further contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. The proceedings against the petitioner were initiated according to provisions of Section 230 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “Code, 1959”). It is not in dispute that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code apply in proceedings under the Code, 1959. Admittedly, a complaint was made by the villagers, including respondents No. 6 to 8, before the competent authority against the petitioner. The Naib Tahsildar took cognisance and passed an order against the petitioner, and he was removed from the post of Kotwar vide order dated 16.11.2015. An appeal was preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer by the petitioner, but the complainants were not arrayed as respondents in that proceeding. The first appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional 4 Officer (Revenue). A Second Appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, and at that stage, respondents No. 6 to 8 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, and that was allowed vide order dated 14.07.2017. The Commissioner, as well as the Board of Revenue, has categorically held that the complainants are necessary parties; therefore, in my opinion, when the complaint was made by the villagers, including respondents No. 6 to 8, they are necessary parties and the Commissioner rightly allowed the application moved by them under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant