1 CGHC010092502021 2026:CGHC:32175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2152 of 2021 1 - Kalyandas S/o Heeradas Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Baghamuda, Police Station Dashrangpur, Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur , Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Revenue Board Circuit Court Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner Durg, Division Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - The Tehsildar Tehsil Kawardha , District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 6 - Rameshwar Das So Laldas Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Baghamuda, Police Station Dashrangpur , Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. For respondent No.6 : Ms. Deeksha Jaiswal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.07.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s) : -2- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the instant case from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned common order dated 19.02.2021, passed by respondent no. 2 Revenue Board in revision no. revenue revision case no./RN/08/R/अ-56/17/2020 and revision no. revenue revision case no./RN/08/R/अ- 56/18/2020, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 07.01.2020 passed in case no./35/अ- 56/year 2018-19 and case no./230/ अ-56/year 2018-19 passed by respondent commissioner Durg Division, Durg. 10.4 That, any other relief which may dim fit by this Hon'ble Court may kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that initially, the father of respondent No.6, namely, Lal Das, was the Kotwar of Village Baghamuda, Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham. He tendered his resignation and accordingly, a vacancy for the post of Kotwar arose in said village. Consequently, the competent authority, i.e., the Tehsildar, issued an advertisement on 01.09.2017 to fill up the said post. The petitioner, respondent No.6, and other eligible candidates submitted their application forms. The Gram Panchayat passed a resolution in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Tehsildar, vide order dated 28.03.2018, appointed the petitioner as Kotwar. The said order was challenged by respondent No.6 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) by filing an appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.10.2018. Against the said order, respondent No.6 preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, Durg Division, which was allowed vide order dated 07.01.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the Commissioner by filing a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision vide order dated 3 19.02.2021, affirming the order passed by the Commissioner dated 07.01.2020 and setting aside the orders passed by the Tehsildar dated 28.03.2018 and the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 03.10.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. Ms. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the resolution was passed in favour of the petitioner by the concerned Gram Panchayat and according to the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules framed under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘the Code of 1959’), such a resolution is binding on the Tehsildar. She would further contend that the Board of Revenue ignored the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the Code of 1959 and passed the order in favour of respondent No.6. It is also contended that, though there were allegations of misbehavior against respondent No. 6, the Commissioner allowed the second appeal preferred by respondent No. 6. She would contend that the Commissioner, vide order dated 07.01.2020, set aside the orders passed by the Tehsildar dated 28.03.2018 and the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 03.10.2018; therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 19.02.2021 requires interference by this Court. She would pray to allow this petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose the submissions. Mr. Pandey would contend that the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the eligible candidates for the post of Kotwar is not binding. He would further contend that under the Rules framed under Section 230 of the Code of 1959, a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat -4- or Gram Sabha is a mandatory requirement for appointment of a Village Kotwar; however, the competent authority has to weigh several factors, including honesty, integrity, overall suitability, and preferential right, while passing an order regarding appointment of Kotwar. He would submit that an amendment was inserted in the Rules on 17.03.1997, whereby it was provided that the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat shall not be binding on the competent authority. He would further submit that the Board of Revenue has passed a well-reasoned order and thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Ms. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 would contend that during the pendency of this petition, respondent No.6 has been appointed to the post of Kotwar vide order dated 05.04.2021 and said order has not been challenged by the petitioner though it was placed on record along with the application for taking document on record on 09.06.2021. She would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. Section 230 of the Code of 1959 reads as under: “230. Appointment of kotwars and their duties. (1)For each village or group of villages, there shall be appointed, in accordance with rules made under Section 258, one or more kotwars for the performance of such duties as may be prescribed : Provided that in the Madhya Bharat region the duties of kotwars under this section shall be performed by the Police Chowkidars who shall, on the coming into force of this Code, be deemed to be kotwars under this section, and be subject in all respects to the control of Revenue Officers. (2)Every person who at the coming into force of this Code holds the post of a village watchman in the Bhopal and Sironj regions or of a chowkidar in the Vindhya Pradesh region shall be deemed to be a kotwar under this section.” 5 9. Rule 4 of the Rules made under the Code of 1959 is reproduced herein below for ready reference : “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 in whose area the post of Kotwar is vacant, shall appoint on eligible person on the post of Kotwar, if the person proposed in the resolution does not fulfill 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 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.” Perusal of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that a resolution passed by Gram Panchayat is not binding. Though it is mandatory on the part of Gram Panchayat to pass a resolution in favour of eligible candidates. 10. In the present case, due to a vacancy, an advertisement was issued on 01.09.2017 to fill up the post of Kotwar. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution recommending the name of the petitioner for appointment. 11. It was also not in dispute that the father of respondent No. 6 was the Kotwar of Gram Panchayat, Baaghamuda, but tendered his resignation. As the father of respondent No. 6 was Kotwar, respondent No. 6 would be entitled to preferential right under the Rules made under Section 230 of the Code of 1959. 12. The Tehsildar issued the order of appointment in favour of the petitioner on 28.03.2018 solely on the strength of the resolution -6- passed by the Gram Panchayat and ignored the status of respondent No. 6. 13. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 6. The Commissioner considered the matter and passed an order in favour of respondent No. 6. 14. The competent authority has to further weigh honesty, integrity, suitability, and public opinion while exercising powers under Section 230 of the Code of 1959. 15. Respondent No.6 had already been appointed by order dated 05.04.2021. Despite having knowledge of the said appointment order, the petitioner has not challenged the same. This is also a ground to dismiss the writ petition. 16. In the present case, the Board of Revenue has passed a well- reasoned order, which does not warrant interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha