A candidate for the post of Kotwar is not required to be a resident of the village, but a resolution from the Gram Panchayat is mandatory for appointment.

Order on Board

18.07.2025

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal;

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ, order or direction and quash/set aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2016 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./05/R/A-56/82/2009 and the revision filed by the petitioner under section 50 of C.G. land Revenue Code 1959 may kindly be allowed; and

10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The facts of the present case are that pursuant to an order passed by the Additional Tehsildar, Bemetara, respondent No.1 was appointed to the post of Temporary Kotwar' of Gram Panchayat, Khandasara. The villagers moved an application for the appointment of a permanent Kotwar, and the Additional Tehsildar passed an order on 29.02.2008 and appointed the petitioner as a permanent Kotwar. The said order was challenged by respondent No. 1 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, and it was allowed vide order dated 28.06.2008 on the ground that the petitioner is not a resident of Village Khandasara and a resolution was not passed by the Gram Panchayat in his favour. The petitioner, herein, challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2009 and a revision preferred before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2016 and against orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that according to the Rules, it is not necessary for Kotwar to be a resident of the same village. He would further submit that though a resolution was not passed by the Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha in favour of the petitioner, he was eligible for the post of Kotwar, and he should have been considered by the respondent authorities. He would pray to set aside the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue.

4. On the other hand, the learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Soni. Mr. Bhagat would submit that by virtue of an order passed by the Tehsildar, respondent No.1 is discharging the functions of Kotwar of Gram Panchayat Khandasara. He would further submit that the Kotwar should be a resident of the same village, and there should be a resolution duly passed by the Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha in favour of such a person. He would contend that the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue have rightly dismissed the petitions preferred by the petitioner

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

6. The Rules have been framed under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 , dealing with the appointment, punishment and removal of Kotwars and their duties. Rule 4 states that 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 an eligible person to the post of Kotwar, if such a person fulfills the qualification prescribed in Rule 2.

7. Rule 2 says no person shall be eligible for the post of Kotwar who is in the