2025:CGHC:26932 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved on 27-3-2025 Pronounced on 23-06-2025 WPS No. 79 of 2014 Rajkumar S/o Shri Bhagirathi Bansod, Aged About 24 Years Caste Mahar, Occupation Service, Working As Kotwar Of Village Archedabri, R/o Village Archedabri, Police Station Khairagarh, Tahsil Khairagarh, Civil And Revenue Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Mannulal S/o Shri Pheruram Mahar Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Archedabri, Police Station Khairagrh, Tahsil Khairagarh, Civil And Revenue Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G., Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas and Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) C A V Order 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition (s) under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India assailing the order dated 11-12-2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench, Raipur in Revenue Revision No.R.N./15/R/A-56/4102013 by which the learned Board of Revenue has affirmed the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division dated 26-7-2013 (Annexure P/2), order dated 27-5-2013 (Annexure P/3) passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Khairagarh in Revenue Appeal No. 26/A-56/2012-2013 and set aside the order dated 18-9-2012 passed by the Tahsildar, Khairagarh (Annexure P/8) by which respondent No.1 Rajkumar has been appointed as Kotwar of village Archedabri. 2. Brief facts. This Court has called the records of proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar for appointment of Kortwar and further proceedings of the case from which following facts have been revealed:- (a) The then Kotwar namely Mahattar due to old-age and health issue tendered his resignation on 8-4-2010 stating that after his resignation his elder brother’s grandson who is resident of same village Archedabri, Tahsil Khairagarh be appointed as Kotwar. Thereafter a resolution of the Gram Panchayat (Ex.D/10) regarding appointment of Kotwar was passed and same was sent to Tahasildar, Khairagarh for doing the needful. (b) The Tahsildar, Khairagarh vide order dated 2-9-2010 accepted the resignation of Kotwar Mahattar and on the same day the petitioner was appointed as ad hoc Kotwar by Tahsildar of village Archedabri, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon. Thereafter, on 2-12-2010 a declaration was issued by the Tahsildar and proceedings for appointment of Kotwar were initiated. The Tahsildar issued proclamation on 31-1-2011 granting 15 days’ time to the individual candidates to apply for the post of Kotwar. The respondent Mannulal had also applied for appointment of Kortwar and along with his application he submitted his primary school certificate and other relevant documents. (c) The objections were called from the villagers wherein they raised objection regarding appointment of the petitioner as Kotwar. The petitioner Rajkumar remained absent on 13-9-2011 before the Tahasildar, therefore, proceedings were initiated and the Tahsildar had directed to call report from the concerned Police Station about character of the petitioner and also the proposal from Gram Panchayat, accordingly he has directed to issue notice to the Gram Panchayat and fixed the matter on 28-9-2011. On that day the proceedings were adjourned as neither report regarding character of the petitioner from concerned Police Station nor report from Gram Panchayat were received. (d) On 13-10-2021 the report regarding character of the petitioner from the Police station was received, on 14-11-2011 proposal sent by the Gram Panchayat was also received and the matter was taken up on 21-11-2011 for recording the statement of respondent No.1, Respondent No.1 appeared on that day and his statement was recorded Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 8-12-2011 and on that day witness on behalf of the petitioner Rajkumar was examined and also cross-examined by the respondent. Thereafter, the matter was fixed on 30-12-2011 for arguments which was adjourned to various dates. (e) On 8-1-2012 an application was filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC and the proceedings were adjourned upto 12-8-201 for the reasons mentioned in the order sheet. On 12-8-2011 the case was transferred to Tahsildar, Khairagarh in view of Section 30 of the Land Revenue Code. Thereafter the proceedings were re- started by the Tahasildar, Khairagarh and objection was also made before the Tahasildar, Chhuikhadan stating that due to dispute the proposal for appointment of Kotwar could not take place. Thereafter, the Tahasildar, Chhuikhadan vide order dated 18-9-2012 has ordered for appointment of petitioner Rajkumar as Kotwar. The learned Tahsildar while passing the order directed for appointment of petitioner Rajkumar as Kotwar taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses holding that the respondent Mannulal performed four marriages and his second wife had lodged a complaint against him under Section 498-A and 34 of IPC and another case bearing No.243/09 was registered against him before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, though the witnesses examined by Mannulal have denied this fact stating that the names mentioned in the evidence are not wives of the petitioner and he is presently living with Anita Bai. The witness has also stated that in criminal case registered against him bearing No. 243/09 he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 17-8-2008. Still, the Tahasildar has recorded a finding that allegations against respondent that he kept four wives have been found proved, therefore, he does not fall within the category of having good character, particularly when his past character is also not good. Accordingly, he has directed for appointing the petitioner as Kotwar as per Rule 2 Clause (I) of appointment of Kotwar Rules. (f) In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was appointed as Kotwar on 21-5-2012, Being aggrieved with this order, respondent No.1 Mannulal has preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional officer. The Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 27-5-2013 allowed the appeal by recording a finding that the assent of Gram Panchayat is in favour of the respondent Mannulal and he has been acquitted from the criminal charges. It has also recorded a finding that he is also grand-son of Kotwar who has resigned, therefore, it has held that the appointment of the petitioner as Kotwar is not legal and accordingly the order dated 18-9-2012 was set aside. (g) Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Durg who vide order dated 26-7-2013 has rejected the appeal by affirming the finding of the Sub Divisional Officer. The Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division has recorded its finding that though the petitioner is having higher qualification than the respondent for appointment of Kotwar, but the educational qualification is not binding and the proposal made by the Gram Panchayat is in favour of the respondent, therefore, nearest relative of previous Kotwar has to be given priority. It has also recorded a finding that the respondent has also been acquitted from the criminal charges under Section 498-A of IPC and even the proposal made by the Gram Panchayat is not subject matter of challenge before any authority, therefore, it has dismissed the appeal. (h) Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the revision before the Board of Revenue. By the impugned order dated 11-12-2013 the same has been rejected. Learned Board of Revenue has recorded its finding that since the respondent has been acquitted from the criminal charges, therefore, it cannot be held that the character of the petitioner is doubtful and it has also taken note of fact that while appointing Kotwar, nearest relative of Kotwar should be given priority which has not been followed by Tahsildar. It has also recorded a finding that as per Section 230 of the Land Revenue Code, educational qualification is not binding and the Sub Divisional Officer and Additional Commissioner after appreciating the entire evidence and material pertaining to the appointment of Kotwar have passed the orders which are not liable to be interfered and accordingly it has rejected the revision. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the finding recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer, Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue suffers from perversity and illegality as it has been passed ignoring the provisions of Section 230 of the Land Revenue Code and Rules with regard to appointment of Kotwar. It has been further contended that the order passed by the Tahsildar was legal and justified which has been erroneously set aside by the Sub Divisional Officer, Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division and Board of Revenue and the same needs to be interfered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that he does not dispute that the respondent is nearest relative of earlier Kotwar, but the petitioner is also belonging to same family of earlier Korwar namely Mehattar. The petitioner and earlier incumbent Mehettar are descendants of one Lubia who had one son Bisahu and three daughters namely Phulia, Kulwan and Dukhia. Petitioner is the grandson of Bisahu while Mehettar is son of Phulia. Respondent herein is the grandson of brother of Mahettar. As such, the petitioner being son of Bhagirathi happens to be the first cousin of Mahettar and the petitioner being more qualified and experienced is entitled to be appointed as Kotwar and would pray for quashing of the impugned order passed by the authorities and would also pray for restoration of the order passed by the Tahasildar appointing the petitioner on the post of Kotwar with all benefits. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as per Rule 4 (2) of Land Revenue Code, preference has to be given to nearest relative of ex -Kotwar, but the same was not followed by the Tahasildar which has been rightly interfered by the Sub Divisional Officer, Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division and Board of Revenue. He would further submit that the respondent has also been acquitted from the criminal charges on 17-8-2010. As such, there is no embargo in appointing the respondent on the post of Kotwar. He would further submit that the petitioner is not relative of outgoing Kotwar. He would further submit that plea of same finding has not been taken before all the authorities and for the first time it has been taken before this Court which is not permissible under law as no foundation has been placed before the trial court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with utmost satisfaction. 6. From the submissions made by the parties, the point emerged for determination of this Court is :- “Whether the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division and the Board of Revenue is legal and justified ? 7. To appreciate this point, it is expedient for this Court to consider the rules regarding Appointment, Punishment and Removal of Kotwar and their duties. Rule 4 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 reads as under:- “4. (1) On the occurrence of a vacancy in the post of a Kotwar the Revenue Officer, who is empowered to make appointment, shall invite application by means of a proclamation in the village and after considering the claims of the applicants shall select suitable person for such appointment within a reasonable time and shall briefly record his reasons for his selection. The Police should invariably be consulted before making appointments: 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, pending regular appointment as required by sub- rule (1) to fill up the vacancy permanently. (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. Note. If the vacancy is caused by the suspension or dismissal of the previous incumbent for bad character, misconduct or dis-obedience 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”. 8. From perusal of the said Rules, it is quite vivid that no person shall be eligible for the post of Kotwar who is not of good character, who is mentally and physically unfit by body or mind to perform the duty of the Court. Rule 4 (2) of the Code provides that preference may be given to the nearest relative of the ex-Kotwar, if other should be equal. From the record, it is quite vivid that respondent No.1 was grand-son of Kotwar’s elder brother, as such he is near relative of Ex-Kotwar whereas the petitioner has no where pleaded before all the authorities that he is relative of Ex-Kotwar. No such pleading or evidence has been raised and even no foundation by way of genealogy or the family tree has been produced before the trial Court and it is for the first time, this plea has been taken which is not permissible. All the authorities have taken into consideration that the Gram Panchayat has made a proposal Ex.D/10) in favour of the petitioner which reads as under:- “cSBd dh dk;Zokgh dk laf{kIr fooj.k&loZ mifLFkr lnL;ksa ds QSlykuqlkj xzke vjpsMcjh ds dksVokj fu;qfDr gsrq cgqer ds vk/kkj ij Jh eUuwyky firk Jh Qs:jke ekgj ds i{k esa 08 ¼vkB½ lnL;ksa us cgqer fn;s blfy, bls dksVokj fu;qfDr ds fy;s U;k;ky; rglhynkj NqbZ[knku ftyk& jktukanxako dks izsf"kr fd;k tkus dk izLrko fd;k x;kA izLrko tks ikl gqvk& cgqer ds vk/kkj ij izLrko ikfjrA” 9. Thus, from the discussions made above, it is amply clear that all the authorities have taken into consideration that the Gram Panchayat has recommended the opinion of majority for appointing respondent No.1 as Kotwar and on the basis of recommendation and also the fact that the respondent No.1 has been acquitted from the criminal charges, there is no impediment in issuing the appointment order in favour of the respondent No.1 which cannot be found fault or suffers from perversity warranting interference by this Court. The orders passed by all the authorities are legal and justified and there is no illegality in setting aside the order passed by the Tahasildar, Khairagarh by the authorities. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.06.23 18:05:19 +0530