1 2025:CGHC:57380 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on : 07.11.2025 Order Delivered on : 25.11.2025 WPS No. 509 of 2023 Nilesh Kumar S/o Hemdas Bandhe, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh Bilaspur, Circuit Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Durg Division, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Tahsildar Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Santosh Kumar S/o Tilkudas Chaturvedi R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 7 - Ranjit Sonkar S/o Hemant Sonkar R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 8 - Chandraprakash Patre S/o Ramkumar Patre, R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 9 - Jayram Yadav S/o Rajaram Yadav R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 10 - Pradeep Kumar S/o Bhuruwa Satnami R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 11 - Thakurram S/o Prabhudas Satnami R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.25 18:31:07 +0530 2 12 - Bhanupratap S/o Bhagwati Satnami R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 13 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - In-Charge Of Police Station - Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge C A V Order 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. Anukul Biswas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh (respondent No. 1 herein), whereby the revenue revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the order of the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, and holding that the concurrent findings recorded by the two Appellate Authorities regarding the appointment of Kotwar are well-merited. 3. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- 3 “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, and further may kindly be pleased to restore the order dated 02.11.2021 and also reinstate the petitioner on the post of Village Kotwar, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given. ” 4. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that one Bisauha Das, who was serving as the Kotwar of Village Temari, tendered his resignation on account of old age and ill-health on 20.06.2019. After the resignation of the ex-Kotwar, the Tehsildar/respondent No. 5 initiated proceedings for appointment of a new Kotwar for Village Temari and issued an Istahar for recruitment on 08.07.2019. The petitioner, being the grandson of the ex-Kotwar, submitted his application on 10.07.2019 before respondent No. 5. The Tehsildar called for a character verification report from the concerned police station and sought the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat submitted its recommendation dated 28.06.2019 in favour of the petitioner, and the police station also issued a character certificate. 5. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 recorded the statements of the petitioner and of Hemdas (son of the ex-Kotwar and grandfather of the petitioner) on 28.08.2019. After full enquiry, scrutiny of 4 documents, considering the Gram Panchayat’s proposal, and noting absence of any criminal record, the Tehsildar/respondent No. 5 passed an order on 30.09.2019 appointing the petitioner as Kotwar, he being a close relative of the ex-Kotwar and accordingly, respondent No. 5 issued the formal order of appointment on 03.10.2019. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2019, respondent No. 6 preferred an appeal before respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 allowed the appeal on 10.02.2020, set aside the order dated 30.09.2019, and remanded the matter for fresh recruitment of a temporary Kotwar. In compliance with the above remand order, respondent No. 5 initiated a fresh process for appointment of a temporary Kotwar. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 6 applied. 7. Upon calling for a fresh proposal from the Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 5 allowed the application of respondent No. 6 and passed order dated 06.02.2021 appointing him as temporary Kotwar under Section 230(4) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘CGLRC’). 8. The petitioner challenged the order dated 06.02.2021 before respondent No. 4. By order dated 17.09.2021, respondent No. 4 observed that the resignation of the ex-Kotwar had occurred long back, and therefore appointment must be made under Section 230(1) of the CGLRC for a permanent Kotwar. The Tehsildar was 5 directed to complete the process within 30 days. Pursuant to the above direction, respondent No. 5 initiated fresh recruitment for appointment of a permanent Kotwar. The petitioner as well as private respondents submitted applications. Respondent No. 5 scrutinized all applications and verified all documents. Considering the time period prescribed and noting that the petitioner is the real relative of ex-Kotwar Bisauha Das, the application of the petitioner was accepted, and an order appointing him as permanent Kotwar was passed on 02.11.2021. 9. Accordingly, respondent No. 5 issued the appointment order dated 02.11.2021 under Section 230(4) of the CGLRC, and the petitioner continued to work as permanent Kotwar. Respondent No. 6 again challenged the order dated 02.11.2021 by filing an appeal before respondent No. 4. The appeal was allowed on 22.04.2022, the order dated 02.11.2021 was set aside, and the matter was again remanded to respondent No. 5 for decision on merits. 10. Thereafter, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.04.2022 by filing an appeal before respondent No. 2/Commissioner. During pendency of the appeal, respondent No. 2 granted interim stay on 28.04.2022. However, respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal on 08.12.2022, affirming the order of respondent No. 4. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 52(1) of the CGLRC before respondent No. 2 6 seeking protection till filing of revision before respondent No. 1 and the stay was granted for 30 days vide order dated 09.12.2022. 11. The petitioner then preferred a revision before respondent No. 1 against the order dated 08.12.2022. respondent No. 1 dismissed the revision at the motion stage on 26.12.2022, without calling for records of the Courts below, and passed the impugned order which is illegal, arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to law. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 12. Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh (respondent No. 1) is manifestly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law. It is argued that the Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision at the motion stage without calling for the records of the Courts below and without examining the correctness, propriety and legality of the orders passed by the subordinate Authorities, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, as well as the Additional Collector, Bemetara (respondent No. 4) have completely misdirected themselves by ignoring the material facts, documentary evidence and the statutory scheme contained in Section 230 of the CGLRC, which confers a preferential right 7 upon the legal heirs/relatives of the erstwhile Kotwar for appointment to the said post. 13. Mr. Khetrapal further submits that the petitioner, being the real grandson of the ex-Kotwar Bisauha Das, had been duly recommended by the Gram Panchayat and found suitable after due enquiry by the Tehsildar. Earlier also, after full scrutiny and verification of documents, the competent Authority had appointed the petitioner as permanent Kotwar on 02.11.2021. The subsequent interference by the Appellate Authorities is wholly mechanical, perverse and contrary to the factual record. It is contended that the finding recorded by both the Appellate Authorities, treating the claim of respondent No. 6 as superior, is contrary to law and suffers from perversity. The Authorities have failed to appreciate that the petitioner has a rightful preferential claim being an eligible family member of the ex-Kotwar, and his appointment made after a full-fledged enquiry could not have been set aside without assigning cogent reasons. 14. Mr. Khetrapal submits that the Board of Revenue has adopted a hyper-technical approach by merely upholding the concurrent findings without independent application of mind. It is urged that the order impugned is vitiated, being contrary to the settled principles of natural justice, fairness in administrative actions, and the statutory mandate. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 be quashed, and the petitioner’s appointment as 8 permanent Kotwar pursuant to the order dated 02.11.2021 be restored in the interest of justice. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned State counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5, opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. He submits that both the Appellate Authorities have concurrently held, on due appreciation of the material available on record, that the appointment of the petitioner as Kotwar was not in accordance with law and that respondent No. 6 was rightly considered for the post on the basis of the Gram Panchayat’s proposal and the enquiry conducted by the competent Authority. He further submits that the revisional Authority was justified in declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Authorities, and the scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction being limited, the Board of Revenue has rightly dismissed the revision at the motion stage. It is therefore contended that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 16. Mr. Anukul Biswas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6, also opposes the writ petition and supports the impugned orders. He submits that respondent No. 6 is fully eligible and more suitable for appointment to the post of Kotwar, and his 9 candidature was duly recommended by the Gram Panchayat during the subsequent recruitment process initiated pursuant to the remand order. He further submits that the initial appointment of the petitioner dated 02.11.2021 was illegal, irregular, and contrary to the direction issued by the Appellate Authority requiring fresh consideration strictly in accordance with law. 17. Mr. Biswas submits that both the Additional Collector and the Commissioner, upon detailed examination of the records, have concurrently held that the petitioner’s appointment suffered from procedural lapses and that respondent No. 6 had a superior claim based on the valid proposal of the Gram Panchayat. It is argued that these concurrent findings of fact cannot be lightly interfered with in revisional jurisdiction, and the Board of Revenue has rightly declined to reopen the matter. 18. Mr. Biswas contends that the petitioner is attempting to misuse the hereditary claim, which in itself does not guarantee automatic appointment, particularly when the Gram Panchayat in its later proposals has recommended respondent No. 6 based on his suitability. He submits that no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error has been pointed out by the petitioner in any of the orders passed by the authorities below. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition with costs. 10 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the material available with the writ petition with utmost circumspection. 20. The Tehsildar, Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.), vide order dated 02.11.2021, has observed that upon receipt of applications for appointment to the post of Kotwar, a public notice was issued inviting objections, and no objections were received within the stipulated period. Panchanama opinions from Village Temari and character verification reports from Police Station Bemetara were obtained. The report of the Station House Officer, Bemetara, indicated that applicant No. 1, Santosh Kumar, had a criminal record in FIR No. 869/2009 under Sections 151, 107 and 116(3) of the Cr.P.C., whereas no criminal case was reported against applicant No. 2, Nilesh Kumar, or against applicants No. 3 to 9. It was further noted that despite issuance of a reminder, no proposal was received from Gram Panchayat Temari and, therefore, the silence of the Panchayat was deemed as implied consent. The Tehsildar recorded that applicant No. 2, Nilesh Kumar, aged about 35 years, is a resident of Village Temari, educated up to Class 12, and is the grandson and nearest legal heir of former Kotwar Bisauha Das. Considering that the petitioner belongs to the family of the ex-Kotwar, possesses requisite knowledge of Kotwari work, and has an unblemished character, he was held entitled to preference under Section 230 of the CGLRC. Relying on the judicial precedents in Ramgopal v. Chhotelal (1988 RN 399) 11 and Anandram v. Mokhitram (1988 RN 290), the Tehsildar concluded that the petitioner had a superior claim over the other applicants. Consequently, concurring with the report of the Naib- Tehsildar, the Tehsildar appointed applicant No. 2, Nilesh Kumar, son of Hemdas Bandhe, as the permanent Kotwar of Village Temari by order dated 02.11.2021. 21. The said order dated 02.11.2021 was assailed by Santosh Kumar, applicant No. 1 before the Tehsildar, by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Berla, District Bemetara. Upon a careful scrutiny of the record and after hearing learned counsel for both sides, the Appellate Authority found that the Tehsildar had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements prescribed under Section 41 of the CGLRC. It was observed that although a memorandum was issued to the Gram Panchayat, Temari, seeking its proposal/opinion regarding the eligible candidates, only one day’s time was given to the Panchayat despite its written intimation that the matter would be placed in the monthly meeting scheduled on 30.10.2021. The Appellate Authority held that treating the absence of a response within such an unreasonably short period as “tacit approval” and thereafter proceeding to appoint Nilesh Kumar on 02.11.2021 amounted to a clear violation of the mandatory statutory procedure. The Appellate Authority also noted inconsistencies in the statement of Nilesh Kumar, particularly his incorrect assertion that he had previously been appointed as Kotwar on 03.10.2019, which was contrary to the 12 appellate order dated 10.02.2020 setting aside the earlier appointment. It was held that the Tehsildar had acted in undue haste, relied upon misleading material, and ignored the factual record. Accordingly, by a reasoned order dated 22.04.2022, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) allowed the appeal of Santosh Kumar, set aside the order dated 02.11.2021, and directed the Tehsildar, Berla, to conduct the process of appointment of permanent Kotwar afresh, strictly in accordance with law and after providing adequate opportunity to the Gram Panchayat and all eligible candidates. 22. Thereafter, the petitioner further challenged the order dated 22.04.2022 before the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg (C.G.). During the pendency of the said appeal, respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, stayed the operation of the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Berla, vide interim order dated 28.04.2022. Upon final hearing of the matter, the Commissioner, by a detailed order dated 08.12.2022, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.). The Commissioner observed that the Tehsildar, Berla, while passing the order dated 02.11.2021, had failed to adhere to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 230 of the CGLRC, particularly with regard to obtaining a reasoned and timely proposal/opinion from the Gram Panchayat, Temari. It was held that the Gram Panchayat was not afforded adequate opportunity 13 to submit its recommendation, and therefore, treating the absence of response as “tacit approval” and proceeding to appoint the appellant as Kotwar was contrary to the statutory scheme. The Commissioner further observed that the Sub-Divisional Officer had rightly remanded the matter for fresh consideration after providing due opportunity to all concerned, and no illegality, perversity, or procedural irregularity was found warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the Appellate order dated 22.04.2022 was upheld as lawful and in consonance with the provisions of the Code. 23. Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg (C.G.), the petitioner preferred a further revision before respondent No.1, the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, upon hearing learned counsel for the applicant and the counsel for the caveator on the question of admissibility and the prayer for stay under Section 52(2) of the CGLRC, vide order dated 26.12.2022, dismissed the revision. The Board observed that both the appellate authorities had concurrently held that the Tehsildar had granted only a one-day opportunity to the Gram Panchayat, Temari, to submit its proposal, and in the absence of a response, had erroneously treated it as tacit approval and proceeded to appoint the petitioner as permanent Kotwar. The Board of Revenue further held that such a course of action was in clear violation of Rule 4(1) read with Section 230 of the CGLRC wherein the opinion of the Gram 14 Panchayat is a mandatory requirement and adequate opportunity must be afforded for furnishing its proposal. The Board of Revenue also held that the Sub-Divisional Officer had rightly set aside the order of the Tehsildar dated 02.11.2021 and directed a fresh decision after due compliance with the statutory procedure, and the Commissioner had correctly affirmed the said finding. In the absence of any legal ground to interfere with the concurrent and well-reasoned findings of the two Appellate Authorities, the Board of Revenue declined to admit the revision and upheld the orders as lawful and proper. 24. Having considered the rival submissions, perused the original record, and examined the matter in the light of the governing legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), the Commissioner, and the Board of Revenue. 25. The record clearly demonstrates that the Tehsildar, Berla, while issuing the order dated 02.11.2021 appointing the petitioner as permanent Kotwar of village Temari, provided only a one-day opportunity to the Gram Panchayat, Temari, to furnish its opinion/proposal. Such an opportunity was neither reasonable nor meaningful, thereby defeating the mandatory consultative requirement prescribed under Section 230 of the CGLRC. Both Appellate authorities have concurrently held that the consultative 15 process was rendered illusory and the appointment was made in undue haste, resulting in a clear violation of the statutory scheme. 26. In Municipal Council, Neemuch v. Mahadeo Real Estate & Others, (2019) 10 SCC 738, the Supreme Court emphasized that decisions taken in undue haste or by bypassing mandatory statutory requirements are liable to be struck down even if taken in good faith. 27. Further, the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421, reaffirmed that concurrent findings of fact recorded by statutory Appellate Authorities are not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or vitiated by patent illegality. 28. Applying these principles in the facts of the present case, it transpires that the Tehsildar, Berla, while considering the appointment to the permanent post of Kotwar of village Temari, failed to adhere to the mandatory statutory requirements enshrined under Section 230 of the CGLRC. The Gram Panchayat, Temari, which plays a crucial consultative role in the selection process, was afforded only a one-day opportunity, which is wholly insufficient and falls short of the standard of a “real, effective and meaningful opportunity”. The undue haste exhibited by the Tehsildar, coupled with the assumption of “tacit approval” in the absence of a Panchayat resolution within such an 16 unreasonably truncated period, clearly demonstrates a breach of mandatory procedural safeguards. 29. Upon a detailed scrutiny of the record, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Berla has rightly found that the statutory requirement of meaningful consultation had been vitiated, and therefore set aside the order dated 02.11.2021. The Commissioner, Durg Division, in appeal, affirmed the said finding. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue, in the revisional jurisdiction, independently examined the matter, and upon confirming that the procedural illegality went to the root of the appointment process, dismissed the revision petition as being devoid of merit. 30. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings recorded by all three authorities. On the contrary, their conclusions are fully consistent with the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Neemuch (supra), which cautions against sustaining administrative decisions taken in undue haste or contrary to statutory mandate. Likewise, the principles laid down in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) squarely apply to the present case, limiting the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the findings are concurrent, well-reasoned, and founded on sound appreciation of statutory requirements. 31. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any procedural irregularity, violation of natural 17 justice, or jurisdictional error on the part of the appellate or revisional authorities. The challenge raised in the writ petition is essentially an attempt to re-agitate factual issues already examined and conclusively determined by the statutory forums, which this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot re- appreciate or substitute by its own view, particularly when the findings are neither perverse nor arbitrary. 32. Consequently, in view of the foregoing discussion and applying the settled legal principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds no ground whatsoever to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as being devoid of merit. 33. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 07.11.2025 25.11.2025 ------ 25.11.2025