1 2026:CGHC:27175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4944 of 2022 1 - Mitrabhanu S/o Puniram Aged About 36 Years Occupation-Village Kotwar, Resident Of Village Dhoram, Tahsil Gharghoda, District-Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Board Of Revenue Through The President, Revenue Board Chhattisgarh Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Additional Commissioner Link Court Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Naib Tahsildar Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Jagatram S/o Motiram Aged About 57 Years caste Gada Occupation Cultivator, R/o Village Dhoram, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For State : Shri Amit Nayak, PL. For Respondent No.5 : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Advocate. SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02/07/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the President, Board of Revenue Bilaspur Chhattisgarh in case No.R.N.13/A-56/105/2022 arising out of order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilaspur AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.06 10:58:29 +0530 2 Camp Court Raigarh C.G. in appeal case No.62/A-56/2019-2020. 2. By the order impugned, Board of Revenue has rejected the revision of the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner. 3. According to the petitioner, Motiram was working on the post of Kotwar at village Dhoram, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) and on 25.08.2018 he resigned from his post Kotwar, due to this, post of Kotwar was vacant, hence the petitioner filed application for appointment on the said vacant post of Kotwar before the Naib Tahsildar Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, which was registered as case no. 2/A-56/2018-19 wherein the private respondent no. 5 also filed application for the appointment of Kotwar post, learned Naib Tahsildar rejected the application of the petitioner on the basis that he is grandson of previous Kotwar namely Motiram, whereas Respondent No.5 is son of Motiram, as such, due to private respondent no. 5 being more closely related to previous Kotwar, was appointed as Kotwar vide order dated 21.05.2019 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner had filed an appeal before the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh against the said order dated 21.05.2019 of the learned Naib Tahsildar wherein case has been registered as revenue appeal case no. 65/A-56/ 2018-2019, whereby the learned Sub Divisional Officer has allowed the appeal of the petitioner and appointed to the petitioner on the post of Kotwar 3 assigning that both petitioner and Respondent No.5 are closely related to the previous Kotwar, however, if seen from the angle of educational and physical capabilities, petitioner is more capable for appointment on the post of Kotwar, thus directed for appointment vide its order dated 30.09.2019( Annexure P-4). Thereafter, the private respondent no. 5 had filed appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilaspur Camp Court Raigarh under section 44 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code against the order dated 30.09.2019 wherein the learned Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal of the private respondent no. 5 vide its order dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure P/2) in appeal case no. 62/A-56/2019-2020. In its order dated, 20.05.2022, the Additional Commissioner set aside the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the SDO holding the same to be not in accordance in law as there is no age benchmark for the post of Kotwar and held that Respondent No.5 being son of the previous Kotwar is more closely related and fit for the appointment for the post of Kotwar. Being aggrieved with the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Camp Court Raigarh passed in 62/A- 56/2019-2020, the petitioner has filed revision under section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code before the Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh Bilaspur District Bilaspur wherein the learned Board of Revenue has rejected the revision of the petitioner and upheld that findings arrived at by the Additional Commissioner, without considering 4 the material available on record vide its impugned order dated 07.09.2022. Hence this Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Camp Court Raigarh and dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. It is contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer had rightly considered the comparative merits of the candidates and found the petitioner to be more suitable for appointment to the post of Kotwar on the basis of his educational qualifications and physical capability. The Additional Commissioner erred in setting aside the well-reasoned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer solely on the ground that respondent No.5, being the son of the erstwhile Kotwar, was more closely related to him. It is submitted that hereditary succession is not the sole criterion for appointment to the post of Kotwar and the competent authority is required to consider the overall suitability and merit of the candidates. It is further submitted that the Board of Revenue failed to appreciate the material available on record and mechanically affirmed the findings of the Additional Commissioner without assigning any independent reasons. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is well merited which is not required to be interfered with. 5 6. The dispute pertains to appointment to the post of Kotwar after the resignation of the previous incumbent, Motiram. The petitioner is the grandson of the erstwhile Kotwar, whereas respondent No.5 is his son. The Naib Tahsildar appointed respondent No.5 primarily on the ground that he was more closely related to the previous Kotwar. Although the Sub-Divisional Officer interfered with the said order by holding the petitioner to be more suitable on the basis of educational qualifications and physical capability, the Additional Commissioner reversed the said finding and restored the appointment of respondent No.5. The revision preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue. 7. The principal question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the concurrent findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue call for interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is neither appellate nor intended to facilitate a re-appreciation of evidence. Interference is warranted only where the impugned orders suffer from patent illegality, jurisdictional error, perversity, violation of the principles of natural justice or where the findings are based on no evidence or are such that no reasonable person could have arrived at the same. 6 9. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the authorities below have acted without jurisdiction or in excess of the jurisdiction vested in them. It has also not been shown that any relevant material has been ignored or that any inadmissible material has been relied upon while recording the impugned findings. The reasons assigned by the Additional Commissioner have been independently examined and affirmed by the Board of Revenue. Thus, the findings recorded by the said authorities are concurrent findings of fact. 10.Merely because the Sub-Divisional Officer had taken a different view on the comparative suitability of the petitioner would not, by itself, furnish a ground for interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. When two views are reasonably possible on the basis of the material available on record and the competent appellate and revisional authorities have adopted one of the possible views, this Court would not substitute its own opinion for that of the statutory authorities. 11.The petitioner has also failed to establish that the interpretation adopted by the appellate and revisional authorities regarding the preference to a person more closely related to the previous incumbent is contrary to any statutory provision or settled legal principle. No material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that respondent No.5 was otherwise ineligible or disqualified for appointment to the post of Kotwar. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any such illegality, perversity or jurisdictional infirmity as would warrant interference under Articles 226 and 7 227 of the Constitution of India. The concurrent findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue are based upon appreciation of the material available on record and cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. 13.Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash