1 2025:CGHC:47682-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 686 of 2025 Jailal Baghel S/o Mannolal Baghel, Aged About 36 Years R/o Nagarnar, Tehsil Jagdalpur, Police Sttion Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh. Through- Near Relative/ Nephew Sanu Baghel S/o Sukhlal Bhagel, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Nagarnar, Tehsil- Jagdalpur District - Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh.(Proposed LRs) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ) 2. Board Of Revenue, Circuit Court Jagdalpur, Through Its Member, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District - Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3. Commissioner, Bastar Division, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh 4. Collector District- Bastar Chhattisgarh. District- Bastar ( Jagdalpur ) Chhattisgarh 5. Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District - Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 6 . Tehsildar Jagdalpur, Dsitrict Bastar Chhattisgarh 7. Munna Besra S/o Sudarshan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Dhanpunji, (Wrongly Mentioned As Nagarnar In The Impugned Order), Tehsil Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh 8. Sadashiv S/o Kamlochan Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Nagarnar, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.09.18 10:19:13 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocates For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Pravin Tulsyan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 17.09.2025 1. The appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 3886 of 2018, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/ writ petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner in writ petition is that after the retirement of Kotwar Jagannath, a fresh recruitment process of the appointment of Kotwar was initiated and the Tehsildar appointed one Jailal (died) as village Kotwar of Village Nagarnar. Further, the said appointment was challenged by respondent No. 7 before the Sub Divisional Officer ( R) , Jagdalpur which was allowed in favour of the respondent No.7 by order dated 8.8.2013. Subsequently, the second appeal of Jailal was dismissed by the Commissioner and thereafter, the revision of Jailal was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 27.3.2018. 3 Thereafter, Jailal preferred the writ petition bearing WPS No.3886/2018 before this court challenging the order of Board of Revenue wherein interim relief was granted by order dated 18.05.2018, and the wirt petitioner Jailal started working in the post of Kotwar. However, subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 11/1/2024. Thereafter, the legal heir of the original petitioner namely; Sanu Baghel moved an application for restoration of WPS No.3886/2018 stating therein that during pendency of the peition the original petitioner died on 9/1/2024 and as such no one represented on his behalf. After considering the entire facts, by order dated 9/1/2025 the MCC was allowed and the WPS No.3886/2018 was restored to its original number. Subsequently, the writ petition was heard finally and dismissed the same by the order impugned by observing that the candidate who participated in the recruitment process and was initially appointed as Kotwar had died and therefore the petition cannot be continued by his nephew as a matter of right. Thus, this appeal. 3. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/legal heir of original petitioner reiterating the same plea challenging the order dated 05.08.2025 passed in WPS No. 3886 of 2018 and praying for substituting the LRs in the writ petition. 4 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the post of Kotwar is a hereditary post in the sense that the near relative of the previous kotwar is given preference in the appointment. He further submits that the substitution of LRs is not governed by Hindu Succession Act. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would support the impugned order and submits that the writ appeal is not maintainable. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 7. Upon bare perusal of the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, as the writ petition was filed by the original petitioner Jailal challenging the order of Board of Revenue and during pendency of the petition, an interim protection was granted and on the strenght of the said order, the petitioner was discharging duties. However, before adjudication on merits, the original petitioner expired and consequently, the writ petition itself stood dismissed. The subsequent application for substitution of legal representatives by the nephew cannot be entertained, as the claim for appointment on the post of Kotwar is purely personal in nature and does not survive to the legal heirs. Since no inheritable or transferable right 5 subsists in favour of the appellant. 8. Considering the facts of the present case and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 9. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti