1 CGHC010259542026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 805 of 2026 1 - Chouthmal S/o Koduram Mahar Aged About 60 Years Resident Of Village- Gujra, Tahsil- Bhakhara, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Uttara Kumar S/o Late Shri Johatram Mahar Resident Of Village- Gujra, Tahsil- Bhakhara, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohan Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. The present is a writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against order dated 04.06.2026 passed by Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue in Revenue Case No. R.N./04/R/A- SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.07.14 10:29:17 +0530 2 56/115/2025, whereby the revenue revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after death of Kotwar of Village- Gujra, Tahsil- Bhakhara Dist- Dhamtari, on dated 21.07.2021, the post of Kotwar was vacant there and for appointment of the Kotwar, the petitioner, wife of the deceased Katwar namely Smt. Seema Patel and the present respondent No. 1 had applied. After the process under the appointment rules for appointing Kotwar, the Tahsildar, Bhakhara by its order dated 02/06/2022, appointed the wife of the deceased Kotwar namely Smt. Seema Patel as Kotwar of the Village- Gurja. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by Tahsildar, Bhakhara and challenged the appointment of Kotwar before the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Kurud, Dist- Dhamtari. The said appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Kurud, vide its order dated 29.05.2023 and the appointment of Smt. Seema Patel on the post of Kotwar is set aside and in her place, the petitioner was ordered to be appointed as Kotwar of the Village- Gujra. He would further submit that the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Kurud has considered the resolution of Gram Panchayat and he being the son of ex-Kotwar and entitled for preference as the near relative of ex-Kotwar. The order dated 29.05.2023 was further challenged by the present respondent No. 1 before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur by filing the second appeal against the order dated 29.05.2023. The Commissioner, Raipur, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by Sub 3 Divisional Officer, Revenue, Kurud, dated 29.05.2023 and after considering that in the resolution passed by Gram Panchayat, the name of both the persons i.e. the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 1 was recommended for appointment of Kotwar and also considering that the present petitioner has crossed the age of 60 years and therefore, directed the Tahsildar, Bhakhara to reinitiate the recruitment process of Kotwar for Village- Gujra under Section 230 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. 3. The order dated 25.02.2025, passed by Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, is challenged by the petitioner in revision before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, which is dismissed vide order dated 04.06.2026 and the same is under challenged in the present writ petitioner. He is further submit that since the resolution of the Gram Panchayat is in favour of the petitioner and he being highly qualified having post graduate decree cannot be denied appointment on the post of Kotwar, merely on the ground that he crossed the age of 60 years. The Commissioner, Raipur, without any sufficient reason allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 and remitted the matter back to the Tahsildar, Bhakhara for reinitiate the proceeding of appointment of Kotwar in the Village- Gujra. The reintiation of the appointment proceeding will create more complications in the appointment of Kotwar as the other surrounding circumstances including the age of the victim, may deprive him for his appointment, since the petitioner is the son of ex-Kotwar and eligible for his appointment, already appointed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Kurud, he cannot be deprived from the post of Kotwar only 4 on the ground that his age, therefore, the order passed by Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue as well as Commissioner, Raipur, may be set aside and the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Kurud, may be upheld. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned order passed by Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue as well as Commissioner, Raipur. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed with the petition. 6. From perusal of the order passed by Commissioner, Raipur (Annexure- P/10), it transpires that the Commissioner has considered that the resolution passed by Gram Panchayat for appointment of Kotwar in favour of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 1 and therefore, the appointment of Smt. Seema Patel was not proper. The Commissioner, Raipur has also found that the eligibility of all the candidate have not been considered by the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Kurud, including the age of the present petitioner who have been appointed as the Kotwar by the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Kurud and considering the entire facts of the case, the Commissioner, Raipur, set aside the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Kurud dated 29.05.2023 as well as order passed by Tahsildar, Bhakhara dated 02.06.2022 and directed him to reinitiate the appointment proceeding of Kotwar for Village- Gujra in accordance with the provision under Section 230 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It further transpires from the Rules made under Section 230 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, that the 5 resolution duly passed by gram sabha is required as per Rule 4 of the said Rule. It is necessary to quote Rule 4 which reads as under:- “4. (1) On the occurrence of a vacancy in the post of a Kotwar, the Revenue Officer, who is empowered to make appointment, after receiving a resolution duly passed by the [Gram Sabha or Gram Sabhas] in whose area the post of Kotwar is vacant, shall appoint an eligible person on the post of Kotwar, if the person proposed in the resolution does not fulfil the qualification prescribed in Rule 2, the authorised Revenue Officer shall reject the resolution after recording the reasons in writing and intimate the [Gram Sabha or Gram Sabhas) and call for a fresh proposal: Provided that immediately on occurrence of a vacancy, the appointing authority may temporarily appoint a suitable person to perform the duties of the office of Kotwar till the regular appointment under sub-rule (1) is made.] (2) In making appointment of a Kotwar under sub-rule (1) preference may be given to the near relative of the ex- Kotwar, other things being equal.” 7. Though the petitioner is claiming that the resolution has been passed by Gram Panchayat, Gujra, in his favour for appointment of Kotwar, although, the copy of resolution of Gram Panchayat, Gujra, has been annexed as Annexure-P/4, however, as per Rule 4 of the Rules made under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the resolution of Gram Sabha is required for appointment of Kotwar. further, it can also be relevant for the eligibility criteria of the applicants including their age. Although, the age has not been described in the Rules for appointment of Kotwar, however, considering the suitability and eligibility criteria for appointment of Kotwar, the age may be a ground for its consideration. Considering all these aspects of the 6 matter, the Commissioner, Raipur, set aside the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Kurud and Tahsildar, Bhakhara and remitted the matter back to the Tahsildar, Bhakhara for reinitiation of the proceeding afresh under the provisions of Section 230 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Board of Revenue has also considered all the aspect of the case while passing its order dated 04.06.2026 and affirm the order passed by Commissioner, Raipur by which the Tahsildar, Bhakhara, was directed to reinitiate the proceeding for appointment of Kotwar for Village- Gujra and right of the petitioner was also reserved that he may apply for the post of Kotwar at Village- Gujra. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the document annexed with the petition, I do not find any perversity or palpable infirmity which warrants interference in the present writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika