1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 21.11.2025 Order passed on : 11.12.2025 WPS No. 9388 of 2023 1 - Sohanlal S/o Late Bhagwatdas Aged About 39 Years R/o Vill. Bijai P.S. Pipariya, Tehsil Kawardha, District -Kabirdham, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - The Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh Circuit Court Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 3 - The Additional Commissioner Durg Division Durg, District - Durg, (C.G.) 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kawardha District - Kabirdham, (C.G.) 5 - Tehsildar Kawardha District - Kabirdham, (C.G.) 6 - Gram Panchayat Bijai Through Secretary, Vill. Bijai, Janpad Panchayat Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Radha Bai W/o Rohit Das Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Bijai P.S.- Pipariya, Tehsil Kawardha, District -Kabirdham, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Karunendra Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate For State/Resp. No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate For Resp. No. 7 : Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order 1. The present writ petition assails the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, whereby the Revision Application preferred by respondent No. 7 was allowed. The said Revision Application was directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Durg dated 31.03.2023, by which the appellate order passed by the SDO (R), Kawardha on 08.12.2022, as well as the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Tehsildar, Kawardha, had been set aside. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :- “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature to call for the records of the courts below. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature to quashing impugned order dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P/1) being bad in law. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as kotwar being a more suitable candidate and quash the order dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P/4). 10.4 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P/1) & order dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P/4). 10.5 Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court.” 3 2. The brief facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Bijai, Police Station Pipariya, Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh). The petitioner’s father, Late Shri Bhagwatdas, was serving as the Kotwar of the said village until his unfortunate demise in a tragic accident on 15.05.2022. After the death of his father, the petitioner, being eligible and willing to under take the responsibilities of the post, submitted an application before the concerned Tehsildar on 07.06.2022 seeking appointment to the same post of Kotwar. Subsequently, on 27.06.2022, the private respondent submitted an application before the competent authority seeking her appointment as Kotwar. On the very same day, the Tehsildar issued a letter to the Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat, requesting their recommendations regarding the appointment to the post. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat addressed a letter dated 06.07.2022 to the Tehsildar stating that they were unable to arrive at any decision regarding the appointment of the Kotwar and, therefore, requested that the matter be kept pending until 12.07.2022. After completion of the necessary procedural requirements and upon due consideration of the merits of both applicants, the petitioner was appointed as temporary Kotwar vide order dated 22.07.2022. The petitioner was found to be more qualified and suitable than the private respondent, and a positive and favorable report was submitted by the Patwari in support of his candidature. However, in a completely unexpected and 4 arbitrary turn of events, on 26.09.2022, the Tehsildar issued an order appointing the private respondent as Kotwar, purportedly on the basis of a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved by this abrupt supersession of his appointment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the S.D.O. (Revenue). The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 08.12.2022. The petitioner is undisputedly more qualified, more suitable, and more meritorious for appointment to the post of Kotwar in accordance with the prevailing rules and criteria governing such appointments. The authorities, without assigning cogent reasons and in disregard of the petitioner’s credentials, have acted arbitrarily in granting appointment to the private respondent. The impugned orders suffer from illegality, procedural irregularity, and violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Mr. Karunendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings culminating in the impugned order suffer from a fundamental legal infirmity. Rule 4 of the Rules Regarding Appointment, Removal and Punishment of Kotwars framed under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (“Rules of 1959”) nowhere provides that the recommendation or resolution of the Gram Panchayat is binding upon the appointing authority. The Tehsildar, therefore, acted in disregard of the statutory scheme by giving undue primacy to the Panchayat’s resolution, contrary to the mandate of law. The 5 authority was bound to assess merit strictly under Rule 4(2), and not mechanically follow the Panchayat’s view. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being the son of the deceased Kotwar, holds a legitimate and statutorily recognized preferential claim for appointment. Section 230 read with Rule 4(2) expressly provides that preference may be given to the near relative of the ex-Kotwar, all other things being equal. The petitioner fulfills all eligibility conditions and is supported by a positive character verification report. A majority of the villagers have also expressed written support for his appointment. These relevant considerations were completely overlooked by the authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tehsildar committed a grave error in treating the Gram Panchayat’s resolution as determinative. The legal scheme vests the appointing authority with independent responsibility to evaluate relative merit. The primacy of a Panchayat’s recommendation can arise only when the Gram Panchayat has undertaken an objective assessment of the candidates and has assigned cogent reasons demonstrating comparative merit. In the present case, the resolution relied upon is devoid of any such evaluation; it was merely a statement based on majority preference without any rational assessment of qualifications or suitability. Consequently, such an innocuous recommendation cannot bind or influence the statutory authority. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the alleged resolution itself is invalid. The Chhattisgarh Gram Sabha 6 (Procedure of Meeting) Rules, 1994 mandate that (i) meetings must be convened following prescribed procedure, (ii) quorum of at least one-tenth of total members, of which one-third must be women, must be present, and (iii) resolutions concerning appointments must be passed only when quorum is met. In Gram Sabha Bijai, 870 members were on the voter list; hence quorum required was 87 members. However, the resolution produced by the private respondent contains only 65 signatures, many of which also appear on the consent letter supporting the petitioner, demonstrating procedural irregularities and casting serious doubt on the authenticity and validity of the resolution. The initial page of the proceedings also carries no signatures, indicating lack of due process. Thus, the resolution relied upon suffers from complete lack of legal sanctity. It is submitted that the petitioner has been actively associated with the functions of the Kotwar during his father’s tenure and was appointed as temporary Kotwar after due procedure. The Patwari’s character report dated 12.07.2022 categorically states that the petitioner’s conduct is good and that he is suitable for appointment. Acting on this, the Tehsildar himself appointed the petitioner as temporary Kotwar, which was undisputed at that time. Moreover, the petitioner is more qualified, educated, and suitable than the private respondent, a fact acknowledged by villagers and Panchayat members who have submitted written consent letters in his favour (Annexure P/11 & P/12). The subsequent reversal in favour of the private 7 respondent is unexplained and arbitrary. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Gram Sabha’s own letter dated 06.07.2022 stated that it was not possible to pass a resolution within the stipulated 15 days, thereby raising doubts about the abrupt and unexplained issuance of a favourable resolution for the private respondent shortly thereafter. Such inconsistent conduct suggests procedural manipulation and lack of transparency. The villagers and Panch members later raised objections, upon which the petitioner discovered the defects in the resolution, which have been brought on record by way of rejoinder. It is further submitted that the Board of Revenue erred in interpreting the statutory provisions governing the appointment of Kotwars. Instead of applying Section 230 and Rule 4(2) in their correct perspective, the Board mechanically affirmed the appointment of the private respondent on the basis of an invalid Gram Sabha resolution. The Board failed to consider that the Additional Commissioner had correctly set aside the SDO’s order by restoring the petitioner’s lawful claim. The impugned order dated 03.11.2023 therefore suffers from perversity and non- application of mind. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities have failed to consider the legislative intention underlying Section 230 and the Rules of 1959, which give preference to near relatives of the deceased Kotwar in order to preserve administrative continuity and local familiarity. The Board ought to have adjudicated strictly in accordance with these 8 statutory provisions rather than placing reliance on a procedurally defective Panchayat resolution. The petitioner’s earlier appointment as temporary Kotwar and absence of objections at that stage reinforce his rightful claim. The learned counsel for petitioner places reliance on the judgment of Municipal Council, Neemuch v. Mahadeo Real Estate & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 738, 5. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate for the State / respondents No. 1 to 5 submits that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is well-reasoned and based on the material available on record. The Tehsildar was justified in considering the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, which reflected the collective preference of the local community. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s temporary appointment did not confer any vested right for permanent appointment. The Board has rightly held that the private respondent’s selection was made in accordance with the procedural requirements, and no illegality or perversity is apparent in the decision-making process. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, submits that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed, as the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue is a well-reasoned and lawful order. The Board has rightly allowed the revision preferred by Respondent No. 7 and restored the orders of the Tehsildar dated 26.09.2022 9 and the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 08.12.2022, while setting aside the contrary order of the Commissioner dated 31.03.2023. The petitioner’s challenge is essentially an attempt to reopen issues that have already been adjudicated upon by the competent authorities. It is submitted that the dispute pertains to the appointment of Respondent No. 7 as Kotwar of Village Bijai, District Kabirdham. After the demise of the earlier Kotwar, Late Bhagwat, on 15.05.2022, a vacancy arose. Both the petitioner, Sohan, and Respondent No. 7, Radha Bai (daughter-in-law of the deceased Kotwar), submitted applications for appointment. Respondent No. 7 is also a near relative of the deceased Kotwar and, therefore, fully eligible under the Rules framed under Section 230 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 submits that upon the occurrence of the vacancy, the Tehsildar, being the competent appointing authority, initiated proceedings strictly in accordance with the “Rules Regarding Appointment, Punishment and Removal of Kotwars and Their Duties.” As required under Rule 4, resolutions duly passed by the Gram Sabha and the Gram Panchayat of Village Bijai were obtained. Both bodies recommended the name of Respondent No. 7 for appointment. These resolutions, attendance registers, and the consent of villagers supporting Respondent No. 7 were placed on record. After due consideration of the recommendations and after inviting objections through public notice, conducting an enquiry, and verifying eligibility, the Tehsildar 10 issued a speaking order appointing Respondent No. 7 as Kotwar on 26.09.2022, followed by a formal appointment order dated 28.09.2022. It is argued that the said appointment was upheld by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 08.12.2022. Although the Commissioner reversed the appointment, the Board of Revenue, upon a detailed re-examination of the records, correctly reinstated the orders of the Tehsildar and SDO. The Board found no procedural irregularity and held that the Commissioner had erred in interfering with a lawful appointment. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 further submits that Respondent No. 7 has already assumed charge of the post of Kotwar, has been continuously discharging duties, and has drawn remuneration in accordance with law. The Board had even granted interim protection to her on 10.04.2023 during the pendency of the revision. Therefore, no case for any interim interference arises at this stage. It is contended that the Tehsildar followed the due process in letter and spirit. The opinion of the Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha is relevant under Rule 4, and the appointing authority is entitled to consider such recommendations while judging the suitability of a candidate. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ayodhya Prasad v. Board of Revenue, 1986 MPLJ 717, in the matter of Thanwarin v. Nayab Tehsildar, 1965 MPLJ 165. Thus, Respondent No. 7, being a woman, cannot be disqualified, and being the daughter-in-law of the deceased Kotwar, she is equally 11 a “near relative” under Rule 4(2). The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim an automatic or exclusive right to appointment merely by virtue of being a son. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 7 further submits that the resolutions of the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat recommending Respondent No. 7’s name have never been successfully challenged before any authority. The entire selection process was fair, transparent, and in conformity with law. Respondent No. 7 satisfies all eligibility conditions, enjoys the support of the village community, and has already been functioning effectively as Kotwar. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may uphold the order of the Board of Revenue dated 03.11.2023 and dismiss the writ petition, as no ground for interference is made out. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the entire record with utmost circumspection, this Court proceeds to consider whether any interference is warranted in the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh. 9. The core dispute pertains to the appointment to the post of Kotwar of Village Bijai, which fell vacant upon the unfortunate demise of the then Kotwar, Late Shri Bhagwat, on 15.05.2022. Both the petitioner, being the son of the deceased, and respondent No. 7, being the widow-daughter-in-law of the deceased, staked their claims to the said post. 12 10. From a perusal of the original record, it is quite evident that both contesting parties belong to the same family, and both fall within the category of “near relatives” of the deceased Kotwar as contemplated under Rule 4(2) of the Rules Regarding Appointment, Punishment and Removal of Kotwars and Their Duties, framed under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The authorities below have concurrently found that both the petitioner and respondent No. 7 possess the requisite eligibility and satisfy the prescribed qualifications for appointment to the post of Kotwar. Therefore, on the touchstone of eligibility alone, neither candidate stands excluded or disqualified. 11. This Court further notes that when two persons belonging to the same family and standing on substantially equal footing compete for the post, the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat are empowered to express their preference. The material on record reveals that a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat recommending the name of respondent No. 7. The explanation furnished indicates that preference was extended to respondent No. 7 on account of her being a woman and a widow, and therefore considered more suitable for social and humanitarian considerations at the village level. The recommendation reflects a conscious choice made by the local body which, being closest to the ground realities, is better positioned to assess who may more suitably discharge the responsibilities of grassroots revenue 13 administration. 12. It also emerges that the Tehsildar, after inviting objections and conducting an enquiry, passed a detailed order dated 26.09.2022 appointing respondent No. 7 as Kotwar. The said order was upheld in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 08.12.2022. The Commissioner, however, reversed these orders on 31.03.2023. On revision, the Board of Revenue re-examined the entire matter and, by a reasoned order dated 03.11.2023, set aside the Commissioner’s order and restored the findings of the Tehsildar and SDO. The Board recorded that the process adopted by the Tehsildar was neither arbitrary nor contrary to law, and that the Gram Sabha and Panchayat had properly exercised their advisory role. 13. The scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is extremely limited. This Court does not sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate facts or substitute its own view merely because another opinion is possible. Interference is warranted only when the findings of the authorities suffer from patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or violation of principles of natural justice. On close scrutiny, this Court finds no such infirmity in the orders of the Tehsildar, SDO, or the Board of Revenue. The petitioner has contended that he is more qualified and that preference ought to have been given to the son of the deceased Kotwar. However, Rule 4(2) only permits preference to “near relatives,” and does not create a hierarchy of preference 14 among relatives. In the present case, both the petitioner and respondent No. 7 stand on equal footing as near relatives. The Gram Panchayat, in the exercise of its democratic wisdom, accorded preference to the widow, which cannot be termed arbitrary or illegal. The law does not prohibit the appointment of a woman as Kotwar; 14. High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Thanwarin v. Nayab Tehsildar, reported in 1964 SCC OnLine MP 119, affirm that women cannot be disqualified from such appointments. It was held as under : “As clause (iv) of rule 2 is invalid, the petitioner's application for appointment as Kotwar could not be excluded from consideration solely on the ground of her being a woman. No doubt, having regard to the arduous nature of the duties and responsibilities of a Kotwar, the appointment of a woman as a Kotwar may not at all be desirable or suitable or conducive to the proper and efficient discharge of the duties that a Kotwar is required to do. But this is a matter which the appointing authority has to decide in each case having regard to the principle that the selection of a Kotwar is to be made on the basis of merit and merit alone, and it is only if in respect of suitability to the post the claimants are of equal merits that preference may be given to the near relative. In the present case, the petitioner was not ruled out of consideration on the ground that either of the two claimants; Mangloo and Rameshwar, was better suited to the post. In fact, before the Naib-Tehsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer and the 15 Commissioner the petitioner never contended that her claim to the appointment on merits was superior to those of the other claimants. Even before the Board of Revenue, while contending that clause (iv) of rule 2 was ultra vires, she did not put forward any such plea. The petition has also been filed some three years after the order of the Board of Revenue was pronounced. All these circumstances would have normally disentitled the petitioner to any relief. But having regard to the fact that the omission on the part of the petitioner to put forward her claim that she was superior to other claimants, and to substantiate it, might have been well due to the fact that the revenue authorities were not competent to pronounce on the validity of rule 2(iv), we think it proper that the petitioner should be given a chance to show before the Board of Revenue that she is better suited than Rameshwar for the appointment. The Board has ample power under section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, to investigate into the claim of the petitioner for her appointment as Kotwar, and it is necessary that the Board itself should decide the matter in order that there may be no dislocation or discontinuity in the appointment already made by the Naib-Tehsildar and affirmed by the Commissioner.” 15. The decision of the Gram Panchayat to support a widow candidate, when two family members are competing, is a legitimate and socially consonant factor. The argument that the Gram Sabha resolution lacked quorum or procedural compliance has not been substantiated in a manner warranting judicial 16 interference. The Board of Revenue has examined the record and affirmed that the resolution was duly passed and that the Tehsildar acted upon it after conducting an independent enquiry. The petitioner has not demonstrated any perversity or mala fides in these findings. Merely because the petitioner was temporarily appointed earlier does not confer any vested or preferential right for permanent appointment. Thus, upon an overall evaluation of the material and the findings of the authorities, this Court is satisfied that the appointment of respondent No. 7 is neither illegal nor arbitrary. The reasoning of the Board of Revenue is in accordance with law and consistent with the statutory framework. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, this Court must ensure that the decision-making process is lawful, rational, and free from perversity—which, in the present case, it is. 16. Accordingly, this Court is of the firm opinion that there is no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the appointment of respondent No. 7 as Kotwar of Village Bijai. 17. The writ petition, being breft of merit, stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge