Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 18647

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Nilesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 509 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Goutam Khetrapal
For the Respondents: Dashrath Prajapati, Anukul Biswas

An appointment process involving a mandatory consultative role for a Gram Panchayat under the Land Revenue Code is vitiated if the appointing authority acts in undue haste, failing to provide a meaningful opportunity for consultation, rendering the process procedurally illegal and liable to be set aside.

Headnote:(A) Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Section 230 - Appointment of Kotwar - Statutory consultative process - Mandatory nature - Failure of Tehsildar to afford meaningful opportunity to Gram Panchayat - Appointment made in undue haste - Held, findings of appellate and revisional authorities regarding procedural illegality are well-merited and do not suffer from perversity. (Paras 20, 21, 23, 25, 28)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of interference - Concurrent findings of fact - Revisional and appellate authorities affirmed procedural violations by the primary appointing authority - Supreme Court principle in Municipal Council, Neemuch v. Mahadeo Real Estate & Others (2019) 10 SCC 738 (undue haste violates law) and Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421 (scope of interference) apply - Held, no ground to interfere in concurrent findings. (Paras 26, 27, 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner was appointed as a permanent Kotwar by the Tehsildar after an application process where the Gram Panchayat's opinion was sought but it was given only one day, which the Tehsildar treated as tacit approval. The appellate authorities set aside this order on the ground that the consultation process was illusory, unfair, and contrary to mandatory procedures under the Code. The petitioner challenged these consecutive adverse findings up to the Board of Revenue and finally before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Tehsildar had acted in undue haste and failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the Gram Panchayat to submit its proposal as required by the Code. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower authorities and observed that judicial interference is not warranted when findings are not perverse.

Issues: Whether the appointment of the petitioner was made in accordance with the mandatory procedural requirements of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and whether the appellate and revisional authorities erred in setting aside the appointment due to procedural lapses.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative decisions, including the appointment of a Kotwar, must strictly comply with mandatory statutory procedural safeguards. Treating an unreasonably short period as 'tacit approval' constitutes a violation of the consultative process, and courts/authorities should not uphold actions taken in undue haste which bypass mandatory statutory mandates.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the kotwar appointment dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding procedural compliance. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. evaluation of procedure followed by the tehsildar. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. court's legal reasoning for affirming lower authority findings. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)

C A V Order

1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. Anukul Biswas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh (respondent No. 1 herein), whereby the revenue revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the order of the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, and holding that the concurrent findings recorded by the two Appellate Authorities regarding the appointment of Kotwar are well-merited.

3. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, and further may kindly be pleased to restore the order dated 02.11.2021 and also reinstate the petitioner on the post of Village Kotwar, in the interest of justice.

10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given. ”

4. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that one Bisauha Das, who was serving as the Kotwar of Village Temari, tendered his resignation on account of old age and ill-health on 20.06.2019. After the resignation of the ex-Kotwar, the Tehsildar/respondent No. 5 initiated proceedings for appointment of a new Kotwar for Village Temari and issued an Istahar for recruitment on 08.07.2019. The petitioner, being the grandson of the ex-Kotwar, submitted his application on 10.07.2019 before respondent No. 5. The Tehsildar called for a character verification report from the concerned police station and sought the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat submitted its recommendation dated 28.06.2019 in favour of the petitioner, and the police station also issued a character certificate.

5. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 recorded the statements of the petitioner and of Hemdas (son of the ex-Kotwar and grandfather of the petitioner) on 28.08.2019. After full enquiry, scrutiny of documents, considering the Gram Panchayat’s proposal, and noting absence of any criminal record, the Tehsildar/respondent No. 5 passed an order on 30.09.2019 appointing the petitioner as Kotwar, he being a close relative of the ex-Kotwar and accordingly, respondent No. 5 issued the formal order of appointment on 03.10.2019.

6. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2019, respondent No. 6 preferred an appeal before respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 allowed the appeal on 10.02.2020, set aside the order dated 30.09.2019, and remanded the matter for fresh recruitment of a temporary Kotwar. In compliance with the above remand order, respondent No. 5 initiated a fresh process for appointment of a temporary Kotwar. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 6 applied.

7. Upon calling for a fresh proposal from the Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 5 allowed the application of respondent No. 6 and passed order dated 06.02.2021 appointing him as temporary Kotwar under Section 230 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘CGLRC’).

8. The petitioner challenged the order dated 06.02.2021 before respondent No. 4. By order dated 17.09.2021, respondent No. 4 observed that the resignation of the ex-Kotwar had occurred long back, and therefore appointment must be made under Section 230 (1) of the CGLRC for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 18647

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURAmitendra Kishore Prasad, JNilesh Kumar – AppellantVersusBoard Of Revenue Chhattisgarh – RespondentWPS No. 509 of 2023

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Nilesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 509 of 2023