1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1946 of 2017 1 - Kamod Das S/o Shri Paltan Das Manikpuri, Aged About 35 Years R/o Mohtara, Tahsil - Bemetara, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Santram S/o Shri Rameshar, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Khandasara, Tahsil - Bemetara, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ, order or direction and quash/set aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2016 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./05/R/A-56/82/2009 and the revision filed by the petitioner under section 50 of C.G. land Revenue Code 1959 may kindly be allowed; and 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The facts of the present case are that pursuant to an order passed by the Additional Tehsildar, Bemetara, respondent No.1 was appointed to the post of Temporary Kotwar' of Gram Panchayat, Khandasara. The REKHA SINGH -2- villagers moved an application for the appointment of a permanent Kotwar, and the Additional Tehsildar passed an order on 29.02.2008 and appointed the petitioner as a permanent Kotwar. The said order was challenged by respondent No. 1 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, and it was allowed vide order dated 28.06.2008 on the ground that the petitioner is not a resident of Village Khandasara and a resolution was not passed by the Gram Panchayat in his favour. The petitioner, herein, challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2009 and a revision preferred before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2016 and against orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that according to the Rules, it is not necessary for Kotwar to be a resident of the same village. He would further submit that though a resolution was not passed by the Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha in favour of the petitioner, he was eligible for the post of Kotwar, and he should have been considered by the respondent authorities. He would pray to set aside the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. 4. On the other hand, the learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Soni. Mr. Bhagat would submit that by virtue of an order passed by the Tehsildar, respondent No.1 is discharging the functions of Kotwar of Gram Panchayat Khandasara. He would further submit that the Kotwar should be a resident of the same village, and there should be a 3 resolution duly passed by the Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha in favour of such a person. He would contend that the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue have rightly dismissed the petitions preferred by the petitioner 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. The Rules have been framed under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, dealing with the appointment, punishment and removal of Kotwars and their duties. Rule 4 states that on the occurrence of a vacancy in the post of a Kotwar, the Revenue Officer, who is empowered to make appointment, after receiving a resolution duly passed by the Gram Sabha in whose area the post of Kotwar is vacant, shall appoint an eligible person to the post of Kotwar, if such a person fulfills the qualification prescribed in Rule 2. 7. Rule 2 says no person shall be eligible for the post of Kotwar who is in the opinion of the appointing authority, not of good character and antecedents; unfit through infirmity of body or mind, to perform the duties of the post, is below the age of 21 years. 8. In the present case, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer on two counts: (i) the petitioner was not a resident of the Gram Panchayat, and (ii) a resolution was not passed in his favour by the Gram Panchayat. The first ground taken by the Sub- Divisional Officer appears to be erroneous. It is not necessary for a person to be a resident of the same Gram Panchayat for appointment to the post of Kotwar, as there is no such eligibility criterion in Rule 2 of the Rules made under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. -4- 9. With regard to the resolution, it is a mandatory requirement. In the absence of a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha, a person cannot be appointed to the post of Kotwar. 10.In the present case, no resolution was passed in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha; therefore, the Sub- Divisional Officer, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue rightly passed the orders against the petitioner. 11.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Courts below. 12.Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha