Advocates:
['AMBUJ AGRAWAL', '', 'KISHORE BHADURI', 'SANJEEV SAHU', 'SUNIL OTWANI', 'SUSHOBHIT SINGH', 'SUSHIL SAHU', 'VIKRAM DIXIT']

1

WPS No. 4832 of 2007

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPS No. 4832 of 2007

• Smt. Laxmi Bai, Aged about 35 years, Wife of Vikram Das Panka,

R/o Village Pisid, Tahsil Kasdol, District Raipur (CG)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Revenue, DKS

Bhawan, Raipur (CG)

2. The Collector Raipur (CG)

3. The Tahsildar Tahsil Kasdol District Raipur (CG)

4. Jitendra Kumar, Aged about 25 years, S/o Budhram Sahu, R/o

Village Pisid, Tahsil Kasdol, District Raipur (CG)

5. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Pisid, Tashil Kasdol, District Raipur

(CG)

---- Respondent

For Petitioner

Mr. Yash Kumar Maurya, Advocate

For Respondent/State

Mr. KK Singh, Government Advocate

For Respondent No.4

Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agarwal, Advocate

Order On Board By

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

8/8/2019

1. Heard.

2

WPS No. 4832 of 2007

2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the

Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh on 8.1.2007 rejecting the

petitioner's Revision Application, which, in turn, was preferred

against the order passed by the Additional Collector, Baloda

Bazar on 25.4.2006 (Annexure P/4), whereby, the Appellate

Order passed by the SDO(R), Bhilaigarh on 14.6.2004 has been

set-aside and the order passed by the Tehsildar, Kasdol on

20.3.2003 was maintained. By the original order passed by the

Tehsildar in exercise of powers under Section 230 of the CG

Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short “the Code”), respondent

No.4 Jitendra Kumar was appointed on the post of Kotwar of

Gram Panchayat, Pisid, Tehsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar.

3. Upon occurrence of vacancy in the o昀케ce of Kotwar of the

concerned Gram Panchayat on account of Kotwar Vikram Das

Manikpuri having su昀昀ered incapacity to function due to

paralytic attack, the proceeding for appointment of new Kotwar

was initiated. Respondent No.4 – Jitendra Kumar was initially

appointed as temporary Kotwar on 30.9.2002. Thereafter, in the

proceedings for appointment of new Kotwar, the Tehsildar

considered candidature of 10 persons including petitioner

Laxmin Bai and respondent No.4 Jitendra Kumar. The petitioner

claimed appointment being the near relative (wife) of former

Kotwar, whereas, respondent No.4 claimed appointment on

merits. In a duly drawn proceeding, the Tehsildar obtained

recommendation of the Gram Panchayat, which was made in

favour of respondent No.4 vide Annexure R/4-1. The Tehsildar

3

WPS No. 4832 of 2007

having considered the recommendation and having considered

the provisions contained in Rule 4 of the Rules regarding

Appointment, Punishment and Removal of Kotwar and their

Duties framed under Section 230 of the Code, concluded that

the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 do not su昀昀er from

any disquali昀椀cation as mentioned in Rule 2, therefore, both are

suitable and quali昀椀ed for appointment, however, on the

strength of the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat in

favour of respondent No.4 -Jitendra Kumar, he was o昀昀ered

appointment vide order dated 20.03.2003. Against this order,

Petitioner Laxmin Bai preferred an appeal before the SDO(R),

Bhilaigarh, which was allowed on 14.6.2004. Against the said

order, an appeal was preferred by respondent No.4 Jitendra

Kumar, which was allowed by the Additional Collector, Baloda

Bazar on 25.4.2006. Thereafter, against the order dated

25.4.2006, the petitioner preferred a Revision Application,

which was rejected by the Board of Revenue vide the impugned

order dated 8.1.2007.

4. Mr. Yash Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner,

would submit that the petitioner is not disquali昀椀ed to hold the

o昀케ce of Kotwar as she is not covered under any of the category

mentioned in Rule 2, therefore, the petitioner being the near

relative (wife) of the former Kotwar, should have been

preferred for o昀昀ering appointment. He would also submit that

the recommendation