The appointment of Kotwar must comply with statutory procedures under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code; failure to do so renders the appointment illegal.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 23-6- 2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (C.G.) in RN/14/R/A/56/36/2014 in case of Ghenu Ram vs. Duryodhan by which learned Board of Revenue has affirmed the order dated 19-10-2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur in Appeal Case No. 12/A-56/2011-12, the order dated 21-3-2017 passed by the Naib Tahsildar in Case No 6/A-56/2006-07 and quashed the order dated 30-10-2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, in case No. 4-A/56/2007-2008.

2. This court while hearing the petition has called upon the record of the Sub Divisional Officer, Gariyaband as well as record of the proceeding regarding appointment of Kotwar conducted by the Tahsildar, Mainpur, record of Revenue Board for perusal of this court and following facts are emerged from the records.

3. Tahsildar, Mainpur, District Gariyaband has initiated proceeding for appointment of Kotwar for village Madagmuda, Patwari Halka No 42, RN Mainpur, Tahsil Gariyaband, District Raipur as working Kotwar Sugba retired from services. Thereafter the proceedings for appointment of Kotwar was initiated by proclamation in the village and report was obtained. In pursuance of the proclamation only one application of Duryodhan/respondent No.1 was received by the Tahsildar. Thereafter, opinion from the Gram Panchayat was obtained and to verify the Caste Certificate was called, the statement of Sarpanch Madanguda and statement of respondent No.1/Duryodhan was recorded. The procedures were followed as per rules made by the State in exercise of power conferred under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code . The Gram Panchayat has given opinion to give priority to the son of Ex-Kotwar for appointment and the character certificate was also obtained. Thereafter, the Naib Tehsildar has recorded its recommendation to appoint the respondent No.1 on the post of Kotwar. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Tahsildar, who vide order dated 21-3-2007 has appointed the respondent No.1 on the post of Kotwar.

4. Being aggrieved with the appointment of Kotwar, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Gariyaband under Section 4 4 of the CG Land Revenue Code mainly contending that without following due process of proclamation the Naib Tahsildar with collusion of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch has fraudulently got their signatures and in fact no proclamation was made in the village regarding appointment of Kotwar, as such the aforesaid appointment is illegal. It has also been contended that respondent No.1/Duryodhan has taken bribe of Rs.1,000/- from the Beedi Leaf Merchants and this fact was also brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gariyaband, therefore, prayed for setting aside illegal appointment of respondent No. 1.

5. The said appeal was admitted by the Sub Divisional Officer on 30-10- 2007 and the record was called upon and thereafter arguments were heard and the order was passed on 30-10-2007 by which learned Sub Divisional Officer has allowed the appeal vide its order dated 30-10- 2007 and set aside the appointment of respondent No.1 on the post of Kotwar by recording its finding that no despatch number has been made and proclamation was served upon respondent No.1 who has been appointed as Kotwar, as such the entire proceeding is vitiated.

6. Being aggrieved with this order, an appeal was