YTOIWGAERSIH DYD17 Oi a g :tG 5 i e t 8 E: a : S2 l 2 l 0Hy 8 2 s + T6 igI.00Wn 53 e 3 A. d 10 R 6 bIy 2 026:C GHC : N 12 A 5 F 6 R 1

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Order on Board

1. By this petition, the review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 19.12.2025 passed in WPS No.1663 of 2023, whereby this Court had dismissed the writ petition by holding that the material produced by respondent No.4, including the voter list, is a primary public document, prepared in the discharge of statutory functions and carrying a presumption of correctness unless disproved by cogent evidence. The petitioner was unable to rebut the said presumption or produce any unimpeachable material to demonstrate his residence in Village Udka. In such circumstances, this Court found no infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the Board of Revenue and concluded that, considering residence within the same village is a mandatory criterion for appointment of a Kotwar, the order passed by the learned Board of Revenue did not suffer from any legal or factual error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, no case for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction was made out, and the writ petition was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case, as presented before this Hon’ble Court, are that the earlier Kotwar of village Udka, one Mahendra Kurre, resigned from his post following several complaints regarding his conduct, and it also came to light that he had illegally sold portions of the Kotwari land. Subsequently, 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Ag