The appointment of a Village Kotwar under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, must strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed under Rule 4, which includes inviting applications and obtaining a resolution from the Gram Panchayat/Sabha as a mandatory parameter for selection.

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 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 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 ‘