1 CGHC010202882016 2026:CGHC:37239 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 727 of 2016 1 - Ram Das S/o Manbodh Satnami Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Khamhi, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh................... Non Applicant No.1, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division,District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 3 - Collector, Bilaspur Now Mungeli Chhattisgarh......................Non Applicant No.2, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Mungeli, District Bilaspur Now Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5 - Nayab Tahsildar, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sukh Das S/o Rup Das Manikpuri Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Khamhi, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh................Revisioner, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr.B.P.Banjare, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 19/08/2026 The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, in Case No. RN/02/R/A-56/329/2007, whereby the revision preferred by respondent No.6 was allowed and the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur, dated 24.04.1998, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mungeli, dated 31.08.1995, and the Naib-Tahsildar, Mungeli, dated 09.01.1992, were set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute pertains to appointment to the post of Kotwar. Initially, one Govind Das was appointed as Kotwar of village Khamhi Kurmi, Tahsil Mungeli. After his death, his son Roop Das was appointed as Kotwar of the said village. However, on account of ill health, Roop Das resigned from the post. Thereafter, respondent No.6, being the son and near relative of Roop Das, was appointed temporarily as Kotwar of village Khamhi Kurmi. Subsequently, the Naib-Tahsildar issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of permanent Kotwar of the said village. The petitioner and two other aspirants applied for the post. Upon due verification of the relevant records, the petitioner was 3 appointed as permanent Kotwar vide order dated 09.01.1992, and respondent No.6 was relieved from the post of temporary Kotwar. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.6 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mungeli, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.08.1995. He thereafter challenged the said order before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.04.1998. Respondent No.6 then preferred a revision before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, which, vide impugned order dated 03.10.2016, allowed the revision and set aside the orders passed by the subordinate revenue authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.6 had earlier been convicted for an offence under the Public Gambling Act in the year 1991. It is also submitted that the petitioner possesses the educational qualification of High School, whereas respondent No.6 possesses only the qualification of Middle School. According to learned counsel, the petitioner, being more qualified, was rightly appointed to the post of Kotwar by the Naib-Tahsildar vide order dated 09.01.1992. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner had discharged his duties as Kotwar from 1997 till 2016 and had acquired sufficient experience in the post. The concurrent findings recorded by the subordinate revenue authorities were set aside by the Board of Revenue in a mechanical manner, without properly considering the conduct and antecedents of 4 respondent No.6. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order suffers from perversity and illegality and deserves to be set aside, with a consequential direction for appointment of the petitioner as Kotwar of village Khamhi Kurmi. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the petition and submits that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is in accordance with law and has been rendered after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the impugned order does not warrant any interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the documents annexed with the petition. 8. Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, provides for appointment of Kotwar in accordance with the rules framed thereunder. Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the said provision, inter alia, provides preference to the near relative of an ex-Kotwar. The relevant provisions of Rule 4(1) and (2) read as under: Rule 4 – Appointment of Kotwar “4. (1) On the occurrence of a vacancy in the post of a Kotwar, the Revenue Officer who is empowered to make the appointment, after receiving a resolution duly passed by the Gram Sabha in whose area the post of Kotwar is vacant, shall appoint an eligible person to the 5 post of Kotwar. If the person proposed in the resolution does not fulfil the qualifications 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. Note.— If the vacancy is caused by the suspension or dismissal of the previous incumbent for bad character, misconduct or disobedience, and the effect of the dismissal would be lost if a member of his family is appointed to succeed him, relatives of the previous incumbent may not be appointed.” 9. Admittedly, respondent No.6 is the son of the erstwhile Kotwar, Roop Das, who had relinquished the post on account of ill health. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.6 had earlier been appointed as temporary Kotwar by the Naib-Tahsildar. The statutory rules governing appointment to the post of Kotwar specifically contemplate preference being given to the near relative of an ex-Kotwar. 10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner possesses a higher educational qualification than respondent 6 No.6 does not, by itself, confer any preferential right upon the petitioner, particularly when the rules do not prescribe any specific educational qualification as a condition for appointment to the post of Kotwar. Moreover, respondent No.6 also possesses a Middle School certificate. Thus, the comparative educational qualification of the candidates cannot override the preference contemplated under Rule 4 of the Rules. As regards the previous conviction of respondent No.6 under the Public Gambling Act, it is borne out from the record that the conviction was of the year 1991, whereas the order of the Board of Revenue was passed on 03.10.2016. It is significant that respondent No.6 had thereafter continued to serve as Kotwar and, as submitted before this Court, there is no material on record to indicate that he had misused his position or indulged in any unlawful activity while discharging his duties as Kotwar. The petitioner himself has admitted that respondent No.6 was convicted under the Public Gambling Act in the year 1991, whereas his appointment was considered and upheld by the Board of Revenue much subsequently. The long intervening period, coupled with the absence of any subsequent complaint regarding his conduct while discharging the duties of Kotwar, is a relevant circumstance while examining the validity of the impugned order. 11. The fact that the petitioner had served as Kotwar for a considerable period may constitute a circumstance in his favour; however, such experience cannot, in the absence of any statutory provision conferring such preference, override the preference expressly contemplated under Rule 4 of the Rules. 7 12. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the order passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue dated 03.10.2016, as also keeping in view the provisions of Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and the Rules framed thereunder, I do not find any perversity, jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.08.24 11:20:21 +0530