Residency within the concerned village is a mandatory criterion for appointment as Kotwar; failure to meet this disqualifies candidates, making any appointment null and void.

ORDER :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs by way of this writ petition:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 15.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue.

10.2 That the respondent's authority may kindly be directed to produce all the records which relates to passing of the impugned order for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court.

10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

2. The case, as presented, is that the earlier Kotwar of village Udka, one Mahendra Kurre, resigned from his post after several complaints were made against him, and it also came to light that he had illegally sold portions of the Kotwari land. Following his resignation, one Raju Diwaker was appointed as a temporary Kotwar under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Respondent No. 4, Smt. Suniti Bai @ Sunti Bai, wife of the former Kotwar, challenged this temporary appointment through an appeal and subsequent revisions, which culminated in an order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the learned Board of Revenue directing that a regular Kotwar be appointed strictly in accordance with the rules. Pursuant to this direction, an advertisement was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates, and thirteen candidates, including the petitioner, submitted their applications. The Tahsildar sought reports from the concerned Police Station and called for the Gram Panchayat’s proposal regarding the conduct and suitability of all applicants. The Police Station, as well as the Secretary and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, submitted their reports and forwarded a recommendation in favour of the petitioner. After considering these materials and complying with the procedure prescribed under the rules framed under Section 230 of the Code, the Tahsildar appointed the petitioner as Kotwar of village Udka by order dated 30.01.2016. Respondent No. 4, who was also an applicant and the wife of the ex-Kotwar, challenged this appointment before the SDO (Revenue) on the ground that she was entitled to preference under Rule 4(2) of the Kotwar Appointment Rules. The SDO, after examining the entire record, dismissed her appeal on 27.06.2016, holding that the petitioner was more eligible and meritorious. Her second appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division was also dismissed on 24.07.2018, affirming the findings of the Tahsildar and SDO. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which allowed the revision by setting aside all previous orders and directed the Tahsildar to reconsider all applications afresh on the basis of a fresh proposal from the Gram Panchayat. This direction was issued solely on the erroneous assumption that two different proposals had been passed by the Gram Panchayat on the same day, despite there being only a single valid proposal passed in an adjourned meeting and forwarded by the Secretary and Up-Sarpanch. The Board of Revenue also failed to consider the mandatory legal bar that prevents the appointment of relatives of an ex-Kotwar who has resigned due to misconduct or negligence. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.02.2023, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the learned Board of Revenue is wholly unsustainable in law, being contrary to the statutory provisions contained under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (CGLRC) and the