HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No.6708 of 2008 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Awadhram -Versus- State of Chhattisgarh and others POST FOR ORDER ON 19 - 12-2008 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 19-12-2008 ^^-^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No.6708 of 2008 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: -Versus- 4. 5. 6. 7. Awadhram, S/o Bisahu Tandon, aged about 54 years, R/o Taksiwa, (Kotwar) Tah. Berla, Distt. Durg (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) The Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh Circuit Court, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) The Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Distt. Raipur (CG) The Additional Collector, Durg, Distt Durg (CG) The Sub Divisional Officers (Revenue) Saja, Tah. Berla, Distt. Durg (CG) The Tahsildar, Tah. Distt. Durg (CG) Berla, Dharamdas, S/o, Dashrath Manikpuri, aged about not known, R/o Village Taksiwa, Tah. Berla, Distt. Durg (CG) Arti Das, S/o Dhaniram, aged about not known, R/o Village Taksiwa, Tah. Berla, Distt. Durg (CG) (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) 8. Present: Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the Petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.l, 3, 4, 5 and 6. ORDER (Passed on 15 December. 2008) Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. I.A. No.2, application for taking documents on record is allowed and the documents are taken on record. 2. Heard on admission, 3. Tehsildar, Berla vide his order dated 21-12-1991 (Annexure-P/2) appointed the petitioner as permanent Kotwar of village Taksiwa under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (for short 'the Code?). The Sub Divisional Officer, Saja (Bemetara) vide his order dated 8-2-95 allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.7 Dharamdas, set aside the order ofthe Tehsildar and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar with a direction to initiate fresh proceedings for appointment by inviting applications after due publication of notice in accordance with law. The petitioner's revision against the order of SDO was allowed by the Additional Collector. The Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division vide his order dated 28th September, 1998 set aside the order of Collector and the order of SDO was restored. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 22nd January, 2008 again dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner by the impugned order ofAnnexure-P/5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as temporary Kotwar. Respondent Dharamdas's appeal against his appointment as temporary Kotwar was rejected by the SDO as also by the Additional Commissioner and the petitioner wasworking as temporary Kotwar when the proceedings for appointment of permanent Kotwar were initiated by the Tehsildar. Since respondents No.7 and 8 were not party before the Tehsildar, they had no right to file appeal, as they were not aggrieved party. The appointment was made after publication of notice inviting applicatiohs. From perusal of the order ofAdditional Collector, it is apparent that except the petitioner no other person applied for appointment before Tehsildar. Since the petitioner had discharged the duties of Kotwar without any complaint, Tehsildar rightly appointed him as Kotwar. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The Sub Divisional Officer has allowed the appeal of respondent Dharamdas with a finding that: (i) respondent Dharamdas was party in the proceedings initiated for appointment of temporary Kotwar, he had also preferred first appeal and second appeal against the appointment of the petitioner and he was not made party, therefore, respondent No.7 was a necessary party; (ii) Tehsildar by order dated 30th October, 1991 directed issuance of proclamation and the last date for filing application was fbced as 20th November, 1991. However, notice for publication was received by the petitioner himself as temporary Kotwar on 19-11-91 and the same was published a day before the last date fbced for receiving application and thus sufficient tinie was not given to desirous candidates for filing application for appointment. 7. The Additional Collector, without considering the reasonings assigned in order of the SDO, allowed the revision on the grounds that the petitioner's appointment as temporary Kotwar was upheld by the Additional Commissioner; the former Kotwar Dashrath did not make any oral or written consent for appointment of any relative as Kotwar in his place, though, the respondents claimed themselves to be his relative/adopted son and the petitioner has discharged his duties as temporary Kotwar for a long period without any complaint. 8. However, the revision preferred by respondent No.7 was allowed by the Additional Commissioner. The Board of Revenue has dismissed the petitioner's revision with an obser^ation that learned Additional Collector has not taken into consideration the patent illegality in publication of proclamation whereby applications were invited from the villagers for appointment of permanent Kotwar. Setting aside the order of the Tehsildar dated 12-12-91 and that ofAdditional Collector dated 21-8-95, the order of SDO and Additional Commissioner has been affirmed and the matter has been remanded to the Tehsildar, Berla to decide the same as per the directions of the SDO and Additional Commissioner. 9. The three Revenue Courts i.e. SDO, Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, after carefully examining the record of the Tehsildar, have held that publication of proclamation for inviting application for appointment of Kotwar was made only a day before the last date fbced for receipt of applications and, therefore, the same is illegal and contrary to the rules. Villagers, including respondents No.7 and 8/ were not afforded sufficient time for applying for appointment, as a result no-one could apply except the petitioner. The objection, that the respondent was not a party before the Tehsildar and as such he had no right to file appeal, has been rightly rejected, particularly, when he had applied for appointment of temporary Kotwar and he had also preferred appeal against the appointment of the petitioner as temporary Kotwar before the SDO and the Additional Commissioner. Even otherwise, the order of Annexure-P/2 of the Tehsildar appointing the petitioner as permanent Kotwar does not mention that the appointment was made after following due procedure prescribed under Section 230 of the Code and the rules made thereunder. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned of 1^»] lis "<^^^s5 f Barve the Board of Revenue confirming the orders of Additional Commissioner and SDO is strictly in accordance with law. There is no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error committed by the Board of Revenue warranting interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. lO.The petition being devoid of substance deservres to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge f{