1 / 7 2026:CGHC:6516 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1419 of 2026 Kishanlal Banjare S/o Late Najru Prasad Banjare, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Barbaspur, Post P.S. And Tahsil Kawardha District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 5 - Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Barbaspur, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 6 - Indradas S/o Hira, R/o Village Barbaspur, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.02.07 17:29:09 +0530 2 / 7 For Petitioner : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 05/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 23/12/2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Learned Collector, Kabirdham in revision. 10.2 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash and set- a- side appointment order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P/2). 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 17/07/2025 passed by respondent no. 4 (ANNEXURE P/5) 10.4 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceeding by respondent no.4 from 12.12.2025 to 24.12.2025 (ANNEXURE P/6). 10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to proceed further from the order dated 02.04.2025 (ANNEXURE P/4) were by the petitioner was recommend for the post of village patel. 10.6 Any other relief, deem fit in the present facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of vacancy of Village Patel arisen in Village – Barbaspur, respondent No.1 has called applications from interested candidates for 3 / 7 appointment on the post of Village Patel and published advertisement. Petitioner as also respondent No.6 have applied for their appointment on the post of Village Patel of village Barbaspur. As there were two candidates for one post, respondent No.4 has called for resolution of Village Panchayat for appointment of one person as Village Patel . Initially name of petitioner was recommended for appointment on the post of Village Patel on 13.06.2023 and accordingly resolution is also passed. Thereafter Village Panchayat has passed another resolution on 20.08.2023 recommending name of respondent No.6 for his appointment as Village Patel. After getting knowledge about the two contradictory resolutions passed by village Panchayat, Tahsildar has directed to pass afresh resolution to avoid controversy. Order was put to challenge by respondent No.6 before respondent No.3 SDO and respondent No.3, considering that against one post two persons have applied for appointment on the post of Village Patel and further that Rules for selecting one out of many candidates for appointment on the post of Village Patel has not been followed, has directed to pass afresh resolution following rules as provided under Rules 8 & 9 of the Appointment of Patels, Remuneration, Duties, Removal and Punishment Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1960”) based upon which Village Panchayat called owners of agricultural land of Village, initiated proceeding of election out of two candidates, which was done on 24th December 2025. Out of two candidates i.e. petitioner and respondent No.6 for appointment on the post of Village Patel. Respondent No.6 has been elected by villagers to be appointed as Village Patel and accordingly appointment order is issued in favour of respondent No.6. He contended that procedure followed by villagers 4 / 7 and also appointment of respondent No.6 is put to challenge by petitioner in revision before the Collector and Collector vide impugned order has dismissed the revision observing that there is no error of law in initiating proceeding of appointment of Village Patel. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that respondent No.2- Collector has rightly rejected revision filed by petitioner considering Rules of 1960 as formulated under Section 222 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. True it is that pursuant to advertisement issued by respondent No.4 -Tahsildar for appointment of Village Patel of village Barbaspur, applications were called . Two residents of village Barbaspur have submitted their applications. Village Panchayat has passed multiple resolutions one after the other recommending initially name of petitioner and thereafter respondent No.6 and so on. Recommendation made in favour of petitioner was put to challenge by respondent No.6 before Sub Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Officer finding that resolution was not passed by Village Panchayat/Proceeding was not initiated in terms of Rules 1960 as mentioned above, has remanded back the case to Village Panchayat again. Village Panchayat thereafter following Rule of 1960 has initiated proceeding of election through voting by registered owners of land of Village Panchayat and accordingly respondent No.6 was elected by villagers for his appointment on the post of Vilage Patel. 5 / 7 6. Relevant portion of Rules of 1960 applicable to facts of case are extracted below for ready reference: “1. इन निनयमों मों- (क) "संनिता" सं तात्पय छत्तीसंगढ़ भू-राजस्व संनिता, 1959 सं ; (ख) "प्ररूप" सं तात्पय इन निनयमों सं संलग्न प्ररूप सं । (ग) "धारा" सं तात्पय संनिता क& धारा सं । 2. क'ई व्यक्ति+ता पटेल क पद क पत्र न/ 'ग यदिद व- (एक) 21 वर्ष सं कमों क ; (द') संबंधिधाता ग्रामों क भू-अभिभूलख मों भूधिमोंस्वमों क रूप मों अभिभूलिलखिखता न/ । (तान) 2[ (अ) जबं पटेल क& निनय:क्ति+ता निकसं ऐसं ग्रामों क लिलए ' ज' अधिधावलिसंता , व उसंमों स्थाय रूप सं न/ रा रा ; (आ) जबं पटेल क& निनय:क्ति+ता निकसं ग्रामों क संमों क लिलए ', व ऐसं ग्रामों मों सं निकसं ग्रामों मों न/ रा रा ।] (चारा) अन:न्मों:+ता दिदवलिलय ; (पचा) निवत्तीय क्तिस्थानिता क कराण अय'ग्य ; (छ) पटेल क पद सं पव मों टेय ज चा:क । (संता) ननिताक अधामोंता क' अन्तावलिलता करान वल अपराधा क य राज्य क' उखड़न क कयकलप क' अभिभूग्रास्ता करान वल अपराधा क द'र्ष लिसंद्ध हुआ , जबं ऐसं द'र्षलिसंद्धिद्ध अपल य प:नराक्षण मों पलटेH न/ गई ; (आठ) दुष्चारिरात्र ; (नM) पटेल क कताव्य क' प्रभूवपण रूप सं निNयन्विन्वता करान क लिलए मोंनलिसंक य शारारिराक रूप सं अय'ग्य ; (दसं) पढ़-लिलख न/ संकता य उन अभिभूलख क अन:राक्षण करान मों अक्षमों  द्धिजन् पटेल क कताव्य क' निNयन्विन्वता करान क अन:Nमों मों अन:राभिक्षता करान 'ता ; य 6 / 7 (ग्यरा) भू-राजस्व य अन्य संवजनिनक दय क भू:गतान क जनबंझकरा व्यनिताNमों । परान्ता: संचालक, भू-अभिभूलख] निवशार्ष कराण सं निकसं भू निवशार्ष क्षत्र मों क निकसं भू व्यक्ति+ता य व्यक्ति+ताय क वग क' उपय:+ता खण्ड (दसं) क प्रवतान सं मों:+ता करा संकता । x x x 4. तासंलदरा य वसं करान क लिलए कल+टेरा द्वारा निनदलिशाता क'ई भू अन्य राजस्व अधिधाकरा 17 मों निवनिता प्रनिNय क अन:संरा ग्रामों मों एक उद्घो'र्षण जरा कराग द्धिजसंक द्वारा एक निनयता दिदनक ताक ज' उ द्घो'र्षण क दिदनक सं 45 दिदन सं पवतारा न/ 'ग, पद क ता: आवदन आमोंनित्रता निकए जएग ताथा उसं दिदनक औरा स्थान क' निनयता निकय जएग जबं औरा ज आवदन क& जचा क& जएग। x x x x x x x x x 8. यदिद उन आवदनकताओं क& संख्य ज' पटेल क पद क ता: अपत्र पए गए Z, भूरा जन-वल रिराक्ति+ताय क& संख्य सं अधिधाक ता' जचा अधिधाकरा mn~?kks र्षण द्वारा निनर्दिद\ष्ट दिदनक क' ग्रामों क अभिभूलिलखिखता भूधिमोंस्वधिमोंय क& इच्छा क' अवधारिराता कराग। 9. निनयमों 8 क अधान निनर्दिद\ष्ट दिदनक क' जचा अधिधाकरा य उसंक द्वारा प्रधिधाक_ ता क'ई भू अन्य अधिधाकरा अभिभूलिलखिखता भूधिमोंस्वधिमोंय क' पत्र पए गए यथाक्तिस्थानिता एक य अधिधाक आवदनकताओं क लिलए मोंतादन करान क' कग। मोंता चा ता' था उठन क द्वारा अथाव यदिद आवश्यक ' उन् व्यक्ति+ताशाa एकता मों बं:ल करा य ऐसं निकसं अन्य रानिता सं द्धिजसं संबंधिधाता अधिधाकरा उपय:+ता संमोंझ, लिलए ज संक ग।" 7. Under Rule 8 of Rules of 1960, it is specifically provided that upon scrutiny of application forms if it is found that number of applicants are 7 / 7 more than that of vacant post then voting is to be casted in favour of candidates who have submitted their application and became eligible for their appointment or their consent is to be taken in accordance with norms as mentioned therein. 8. Admittedly, in the case at hand, after receipt of case in remand by the Village Panchayat, a meeting was called on 24.12.2025 and thereafter villagers were asked to vote for two candidates i.e. petitioner and respondent No.6 for their appointment on the post of Village Patel. It is also not in dispute that thereafter higher votes were found in favour of respondent No.6. 9. In the aforementioned facts of case, in the opinion of this Court, there is no error in the decision taken by revenue authority and the procedure adopted by village Panchayat for electing one out of two persons applied for their appointment on one post of Village Patel. In the order impugned revisional authority i.e. Collector while taking note of provision under the Land Revenue Code, 1959 and Rules framed thereunder for appointment of Village Patel, categorically observed that there is no error of law in adopting procedure for appointment of the Village Patel and dismissed the revision filed by petitioner which cannot not be said to be erroneous or illegal, and therefore I do not find any error in the decision of respondent No.2- Collector in rejecting revision filed by petitioner. 10. Accordingly writ petition being sans merit is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen