1 2026:CGHC:26983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 694 of 2026 1 - Lochan Ram Durga S/o Baamdev Durga Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Dharnidhoda, Tehsil Amlipadar, Distt. Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Balkrishna Durga S/o Late Shri Mohan Murari Durga Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Dharnidhoda, Tehsil Amlipadar, Distt. Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Belar Singh Durga S/o Dular Singh Durga Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Dharnidhoda, Tehsil Amlipadar, Distt. Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1/Caveator : Mr. Siddarth Pandey, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 01/07/2026 The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality, validity and 2 propriety of the order dated 02.03.2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Case No. RN/22/R/A-56/627/2025, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 52 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 seeking interim protection has been rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute pertains to the appointment to the post of Kotwar of Village Amlipadar, District Gariyaband. By order dated 27.06.2025, the petitioner was appointed as Kotwar after due consideration of the prescribed eligibility criteria, educational qualifications and a comparative assessment with respondent No.1. 3. It is submitted that respondent No.1 challenged the said appointment before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mainpur, who, by order dated 03.09.2025, allowed the appeal and set aside the appointment order passed by the Tahsildar. The petitioner thereafter preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, which came to be dismissed by order dated 19.12.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, which is presently pending consideration. Along with the revision, an application under Section 52 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 seeking interim protection has also been filed. 3 4. It is further contended that despite the pendency of the revision, the petitioner continues to discharge his duties as Kotwar pursuant to the appointment order dated 27.06.2025 and no order has yet been passed removing him from the said post. It is, therefore, submitted that if the revision remains pending without interim protection, there exists a serious likelihood that the petitioner may be removed from service, resulting in multiplicity of proceedings and causing him irreparable loss, prejudice and hardship. Therefore he seeks that the impugned order rejecting the application for interim stay be set aside and appropriate interim protection be granted in favour of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposes the submissions and submits that the substantive revision preferred by the petitioner is already pending before the Board of Revenue. It is contended that the petitioner has also sought expeditious disposal of the revision and, therefore, no separate interim relief is warranted. According to respondent No.1, since the orders passed by the appellate authorities are presently operative against the petitioner, the Board of Revenue has rightly rejected the application under Section 52 of the Code of 1959. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings and documents placed on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Kotwar by order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Tahsildar. The said order was subsequently set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), 4 Mainpur, by order dated 03.09.2025. The petitioner's second appeal before the Commissioner, Raipur Division was dismissed by order dated 19.12.2025, against which a revision is presently pending before the Board of Revenue. 8. The principal contention of the petitioner is that he is the son of the erstwhile Kotwar, possesses educational qualifications comparable to those of respondent No.1 and had the support of a Gram Sabha resolution recommending his appointment. It is further contended that respondent No.1 is only a distant relative of the erstwhile Kotwar and therefore, the petitioner's appointment was fully in accordance with law. The petitioner also contends that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) erroneously interfered with the appointment solely on the ground that respondent No.1 possessed higher educational qualifications, although the Rules framed under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 do not prescribe educational qualification as the governing criterion for appointment. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1 is also a close relative of the erstwhile Kotwar, being his nephew, and is academically more meritorious than the petitioner. It is also the submission of the respondent No.1 that the petitioner has alienated a portion of the Kotwari land, thereby incurring disqualification for holding the post of Kotwar. According to respondent No.1, these rival claims raise disputed questions of fact which are required to be adjudicated by the Board of Revenue on the basis of the material available on record. 5 10. The present writ petition is directed against the order rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 52 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 seeking interim protection. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner's revision is admittedly pending before the Board of Revenue. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner, who was appointed as Kotwar by order dated 27.06.2025, continues to discharge his duties and has not been removed from the post by any specific order. 11. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Board of Revenue is directed to decide the pending revision within a stipulated time frame and until such decision is rendered, the parties shall maintain status quo as existing on the date of this order. 12. Accordingly, the Board of Revenue is directed to decide the petitioner's revision within a period of three months from the next date fixed before it, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.Till the decision of the revision by the Board of Revenue, the parties shall maintain status quo, as existing today, with regard to the petitioner's appointment to the post of Kotwar as well as possession over the Kotwari land. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.02 14:37:25 +0530