1 2026:CGHC:18863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5694 of 2018 1 - Santosh Das S/o Puni Das Panika, Kotwar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Khaira, P. H. N. 41, Tahsil Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Mogaru Das S/o Chain Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Khaira, P. H. N. 41, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Board Of Revenue Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Commissioner Division Raipur, District District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar Lawan District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate along with Mr. D.D. Mahant, Advocate For State/respondents : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. No.2,3 & 4 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.04.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s) : “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue order/orders, writ/writs and direction/directions by directing to respondent authority that he shall not be removed from his -2- present post of Kotwar. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly affirm the order dated 31- 08-16 passed by the learned Tahsildar and give appointment as Kotwar, further be issue direction and direct the respondent authority to strictly comply rules for appointment of the Kotwar in future. 10.3 Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 That the Hon'ble court may kindly quash the order dated 30-11-2016 (Ann. P/6) passed by the Lt. S.D.O. (R) in R.A. Case no 62A/56 Year 2015-16, in furtherance to quash the order dated 13-07-2017 (Ann. P/7) passed by Resp. no 3, and also quash the order dated 16-07-2018 (Ann. P/1) passed by the Lt. Board of Revenue (Resp. no. 2) and further the Hon'ble court also affirm the order dated 31-08-2016 passed by the Lt. Tahsildar (Ann. P/4).” 3. The facts in brief are that an advertisement was issued for appointment of Kotwar, Gram Panchayat Khaira on account of vacancy arose due to death of earlier Kotwar namely, Puni Das. The petitioner herein, is son of Puni Das. The petitioner and respondent No.1 submitted their applications along with relevant documents. The Tehsildar issued a proclamation but no objection was raised. Subsequently, the Tehsildar scrutinized the suitability of both candidates and issued an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 31.08.2016. The said order was challenged by respondent No.1 before the Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue) by filing an appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 30.11.2016. The petitioner herein preferred a Second Appeal before the Commissioner, Raipur Division which was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2017. The order passed by the Commissioner was assailed by the petitioner by filing a revision before the Board of Revenue and it was dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2018. 4. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner was a Kotwar, therefore, he has preferential right of appointment to the post of Village Kotwar. It is argued that the Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the order passed by 3 the Tehsildar on the ground that there was no resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner. He would contend that an evaluation of recommendation of Gram Panchayat is not mandatory and in every case, it is not necessary for Gram Panchayat to pass a resolution in favour of any of the candidates who applies for post of Kotwar. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the matter of Khemlal Yadav Vs. Chacharam and others, passed in Writ Petition No.2261 of 2009 decided on 17th of October, 2013. It is also argued that respondent No.1 has already attained age of 63 years i.e. age of superannuation, therefore, he has no right to claim appointment on the post of Kotwar. He would submit that the Tehsildar had passed order strictly in accordance with the provision of Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’) and Rules made thereunder. He would pray to set aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue and to restore the order passed by the Tehsildar. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would oppose the submissions. Mr. Kesharwani would submit that initially, Chain Das, father of respondent No.1 was appointed as Kotwar of Gram Panchayat Khaira in the year 1979. He would further submit that at the time of his death, Mogaru Das/respondent No.1 was minor, therefore, Sheetal Das was appointed as temporary Kotwar. After death of Sheetal Das, father of the petitioner namely, Puni Das was appointed Kotwar of Gram Panchayat Khaira and subsequently, his services were terminated and appeal preferred by Puni Das was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balodabazar vide order dated 23.11.2012 and he was reinstated in service. Mr. Kesharwani would contend that according to Rules made under -4- Section 230 of the Code of 1959, a resolution passed by Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha is a mandatory requirement for appointment of Village Kotwar. He would further contend that as no resolution was passed in favour of the petitioner herein, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar and remitted back the matter to the Tehsildar to decide it afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. He would submit that there is concurrent finding recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Commissioner Raipur Division and Board of Revenue, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the matter of Smt. Laxmi Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, passed in WPS No.4832 of 2007, decided on 08.08.2009 and the matter of Prahlad Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, passed in WPS No.6586 of 2024 decided on 08.11.2024. 6. Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No.2 to 3 would support the contentions made by Mr. Kesharwani. 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 5 Vindhya Pradesh region shall be deemed to be a kotwar under this section.” 9. The Rules made under Section 230 of the Code of 1959 are reproduced herein below for ready reference : “4. General.-[1] Applications were invited for appointment of a Kotwar and the Tahsildar was of opinion that the petitioner was literate and younger in age than the other person who had applied and consequently selected the petitioner for appointment as Kotwar. On appeal by the other candidate who was not selected, the Sub-Divisional Officer took into account opinion of the Gram Panchayat that the petitioner because of his general reputation was not a fit person to be appointed. The appeal accordingly was allowed. The Additional Commissioner agreed with the Sub- Divisional Officer and dismissed the appeal as also Board of Revenue to which the matter was taken further in revision. On a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the orders setting aside the selection as made by the Tahsildar. Held, that the Tahsildar even though a Revenue Officer and acts as a Court, he does not act so always. Section 31 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code clarifies the distinction and confers the status of a Court upon a Revenue Officer only when such officer is enquiring into or deciding any question arising for determination between the State Government and any person or between parties to any proceedings before him. The Revenue Officer would not be a Court while discharging any other function. The Tahsildar while making selection for appointment as a Kotwar discharges an executive function and is not bound by the law of Evidence. Inspite of it, his obligation is to act in a just and fair manner and in accordance with the M.P. Land Revenue Code and the rules made thereunder. The opinion of the Gram Panchayat was obtained and on the basis of the said opinion it was found that the candidate concerned did not hold a good reputation, the Gram Panchayat having passed resolution against him. Anything which is not obtained through the judicial process is not irrelevant or extraneous. If general reputation of a candidate is relevant and about which there could be no doubt, then the authority selecting a particular person would be entitled to gather information from its own sources to arrive at its own conclusion. The information is not required to be gathered by summoning a person giving the information to give evidence and subjecting him to cross examination. This is so because the purpose is not to punish the person nor stigmatise him in any manner. The purpose being only to judge his suitability for appointment, this was exactly what the authority -6- had done. A Village Panchayat is an authority responsible for conducting the affairs of the village and therefore its opinion about general reputation of a par- ticular candidate would be relevant. Ayodhya Prasad v. Board of Revenue, 1986 MPLJ 717 (HC). 4.[2] Under section 230 of the Code, Kotwars are appointed in accordance with the rules under sections 230 and 231. The appointment of Kotwar shall rest with the Collector, Sub- Divisional Officer, Assistant Collector of the first grade, Assistant Collector of the second grade, if specially empowered by the Collector in this behalf under section 231, the Collector shall fix the remuneration of the Kotwars in accordance with rules as may be made under section 238. Section 230 and 231, therefore, shows that the Kotwars are appointed by the Revenue Officers and their duties are also prescribed under the rules. In view of this, it is apparent that a village Chowkidar could not be termed as a police officer and any extra Judicial confession made to him voluntarily could not hold to be inadmissible. [3] A confession made to a village Chowkidar is not a confession made to a policeman within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act because a village Chowkidar is not a police officer though he may be performing certain functions which are performed by police. This is obvious that a village Kotwar is appointed under section 230 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. That being so it can never be termed, at least at this stage, that a village Chowkidar can be termed as a police officer and any extra Judicial confession made to him voluntarily could be held to be inadmissible. [4] Under Rule 2, Cl. (4) of the Kotwari Rules framed under section 258 read with S. 230 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 a woman is made uneligible for the appointment as a Kotwar even if she is otherwise eligible for the appointment. Thus this rule embodies a provision discriminating against women on the ground of sex alone This clause is clearly repugnant to Art. 15(1) of the Constitution and ultra vires. [5] A Chowkidar before the Code or a Kotwar thereafter, holds a civil post. AIR 1961 SC 1245 relied on. A on holding such post is entitled to the guarantee under Art. 311 of the Constitution. He cannot be dismissed without an enquiry merely on a police record. [6] Tehsildar has jurisdiction to appoint a Kotwar temporarily. Order should not be interfered with. No right of hearing to anyone. 7 [7] New temporary Kotwar appointed by Tahsildar cannot claim to be a party in proceedings. [8] Daughter of son of ex-Kotwar cannot be refused appointment only on the basis of her being a woman when otherwise she was found to be quite eligible. [9] Provisions specifying duties of kotwar are primary and disobedience thereof may result in dismissal. [10] Allegations of encroachment made against Kotwar. They cannot be investigated in his service case. [11] There cannot be discrimination on the ground of gender. Educational qualification imposed after order not applicable. Appointment supported by majority of Gram Panchayat. Appointment is valid. [12] Kotwars having service land and monthly emoluments cannot be deemed to be economically or socially weak to approach the court. [13] If both the candidates possess equal qualifications, then preference will have to be given to the near relative of ex- Kotwar. In such case, the exact relationship must be determined so as to ascertain the nearness of the relationship. [14] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [15] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [16] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 10. Perusal of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that the appointment of Kotwar shall rest with Tehsildar. According to Rule 4 made under Section 230 of the Code of 1959, on the occurrence of vacancy for the post of Kotwar, the Tehsildar after receiving resolution duly passed by Gram Panchayat shall appoint an eligible person if such person fulfills qualification prescribed in Rule 2. The eligibility criteria for the post of Kotwar are : (i) he should be a person of good character; (ii) there should be no infirmity of body or mind and (iii) he should be above the age of 21 years. Preferential right should be given to the member of family of earlier Kotwar. 11. In the present case, though there was no resolution in favour of the petitioner but the Tehsildar after scrutinizing merits of both candidates, passed order of appointment in favour of the petitioner. -8- 12. In the matter of Khemlal Yadav (supra), where there was a resolution in favour of only one candidate. The Coordinate Bench held that in absence of any material and when recommendation of the Panchayat is in innocuous based on majority opinion and not by any method of evaluation, the said recommendation would not be binding on the appointing authority. The Court further held that the recommendation/resolution of the Gram Panchayat would not be binding on the appointing authority rather the appointing authority has to follow sub-rule(2) of Rule 4 of the Rules framed under Section 230 of the Code of 1959 while appointing a Village Kotwar. It is further observed that the primacy of the recommendation/resolution of Gram Panchayat and Rule 4(2) of the Rules would gain importance if while making recommendation, the concerned Gram Panchayat has evaluated the relative merits of the candidates. Relevant para 9 is reproduced herein below : “9. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner should not detain this Court because, there is no statutory prescription giving binding effect of the recommendation/resolution of the Gram Panchayat. What is binding on the appointing authority is the mandate of law in the form of sub- rule(2) of Rule 4 of the Rules framed under Section 230 of the Code, 1959. The primacy of the recommendation/resolution of the Cram Panchayat vis a vis sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 would gain importance if while making the recommendation, the concerned Gram Panchayat has evaluated the relative merits of the candidates and has recorded a finding based on undisputed facts that a particular candidate is more meritorious. However, in absence of any such material and when the recommendation of the Panchayat is innocuous based on majority opinion and not by any method of evaluation, the said recommendation would not be binding on the appointing authority in any manner.” 13. In the matter of Smt. Laxmi Bai (supra), the Coordinate Bench held that the resolution of the Gram Panchayat is one of the parameters for selection and appointment of Kotwar. Para 9 is reproduced herein 9 below : “9.In the case at hand, the resolution of the Gram Panchyat was in favour of respondent No.4. Therefore, the resolution being one of the parameters provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4, which has a bearing on the entire selection process, it is not a matter where other things were equal in between the petitioner and respondent No.4. Thus, sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 would not apply to assist the petitioner in the present case.” 14. In the matter of Prahlad Yadav (supra), it is held that for appointment to the post of permanent Kotwar, process of issuance of advertisement, calling applications, passing of resolution by Village Panchayat recommending names of candidates to be appointed as Kotwar should be followed by the appointing authority. Para 12 is reproduced herein below : “12. From perusal of the Rules of appointment, in particular, Rule 4 for appointment of permanent Kotwar, fresh process of issuing advertisement, calling applications, passing of resolution by Village Panchayat recommending names of a person to be appointed as Kotwar, to be forwarded to the appointing authority is mandated.” 15. In the present case, name of the petitioner or respondent No.1 was not evaluated or recommended by the Gram Panchayat rather it is a case where the appointing authority passed order in favour of the petitioner in absence of any such resolution. The appointing authority extended benefit of preferential right as father of the petitioner was a Kotwar and further considered his age which was 32 years at the time of appointment. 16. The Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue) set aside the order on the ground that the appointing authority failed to follow the Rules made under Section 230 of the Code of 1959. 17. In the present case, the appointing authority without complying with the provision of Rule 4 of the Rules made under Section 230 of the -10- Code of 1959 passed order of appointment in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue) rightly set aside said order and remitted back the matter to the Tehsildar to decide it afresh. The Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue affirmed said order. 18. I have no hesitation to hold that the Tehsildar passed order of appointment in favour of the petitioner in utter violation of provision of Rule 4 made under Section 230 of the Code of 1959 and thus, the order passed by the Board of Revenue does not require interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The matter is remitted back to the appointing Authority. The appointing Authority shall issue a fresh advertisement and shall follow procedure contemplated under Rule 4 made under Section 230 of the Code of 1959 in its letter and spirit. Respondent No.1 has already attained the age of superannuation i.e. 63 years, therefore, his name shall not be reconsidered either by Gram Panchayat or by the appointing Authority. The appointing Authority shall conclude selection process within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. In the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 20. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier in favour of the petitioner is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha