^ 03 c ^>\cyr-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. N0. t^^-:7-/2005 PETITIONER ^^,v£..w^ ^t. ^' ^. RESPONDENTS ...•"*"<.v.A.-y" ^?%T^ v>-^^ \^" y\ Harilal Jagat, S/o.Full Chand Gada Aged about 26 years, R/o.Village Mainpur Kala, Tahsil-Bindra Nawagarh, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS -': 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretory Department of Revenue D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) /2. Chairman (Revenue) Board Chhattisgarh, Circuit Court Raipur (C.G.) / 3. Sub-Divisional Officer (R) Gariyaband, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ,4. Additional Tahsildar Mainpur District Raipur (C.G.) . 5. Baijnath, S/o. Ghanshyam Gada Aged about 18 years, R/o.Village Mainpurkala, Tahsil Bindra Nawagarh District Raipur (C.G.) / 6. Rohit Kmar,S/o. Ram Singh Gada Aged about 21 years, R/o.Village Mainpurkala, Tahsil Bindra Nawagarh District Raipur (C.G.) 04 4 ^ // 2 // ^7. Chandan Singh, S/o. Pakloo Gada Aged about 18 years, R/o.Village Mainpurkala, Tahsil Bindra Nawagarh District Raipur (C.G.) ^8. Pareshwar, S/o. Bodhan Gada Aged about 21 years, R/o.Village Mainpurkala, Tahsil Bindra Nawagarh District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 QF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA *1lHrtl a?^TT^ ^Svcf ^i^irt<4, ^-al'<-i<i<o, Ric^it-iy M..P..Mo:J.5.?7/z'-1?.<S 24 ^200 OT^^T^f^H^ ^9TT3TT^^Ti>'q^p 3TT^$T q^l»(T3crf^Tg) ^cHWr;?Tf^TW^^T 30/09/2005 SIiri C.R. Sahu, leai-ne| Shri Arun Sao, Govt.] No, 1, 3 & 4on advaace copy] Heard. The petitioner nainely] Maiapur Kala, Tehsil Biadra| challenged fhe legaUty aiid passed by fhe Board of Re cpi^fo^'ri ^i+ic")T^fFsLcl KRii><-ci<< ^37f^R'3^^T A couusel for fhe petitioner. Advocate for the State/rcspondents Harilal Jagat, a resident of village Nawagarh Distdct Raipur (C.G.) has ^alidity of the iaipugned order dated 14/12/2004 passed in A^peal Case No.279/A-56/2000-2001 enue Chhatdsgarh, Bilaspur, Circuit Court, Raipur. By fhe inipugned orde|r, fhe Board has dirccted for inakiag fresh process of appoiatnien^ to fhe post of Kotevar by issuiag fresh uotification for fhe sacae by fhe concemed TehsUdar. The Board has further directed fhat tjie provisions of Section 230 of fhe Chhattisgarh Laad Revenue The case of petitioiier] caadidates for appointment Tehsil Mampur, TehsU Buic| The Additonal TehsUdar, M£ Code, 1959 would be foUowed aad fhe rules framed thereunder sp^ci&cally contaiaed ia Rule 2&4 wozild be followed by the appoj|nting aufhority ia the process of appoiataient. is fliat fhe petitioner was one of fhe to the post of Kotwar of vHlage/ Sub ra, Nawagarh, District Raipur (C.G). ipur vide his oider dated 14/8/2000 (Annexure P-2) appoiated l|he petitioner as Kotwar of fhe said vUlage under the provisions The appoiiitoaa.eiit of petitione of Section 230 of fhe aforesaid Code. r was given vide a Revenue Case No.5- .•^- SP/FS/2005-20,000 2.5 ^3's:ET?^n?TTc^, u>-a1^<ico, fcTc'n'say ^^g.^ .W.:£..M.o.....l.8.S:.^.^20o 3TT^5T <WI? (^cl^el^) OT^^T<^Tfe:rt<P ?faTr3TI^9T?P'qtEp ^Rn^: ^ff^T OT^^T -2\ Officer after hearing fhe ^l^frt^l^ HPTc^"^'fe^t ^FRR ^3Tf^lHOT^$T A/56 Year 1999/2QOO. 4gamst the aforesaid order dated 14/8/2000 passed by fhe Te|hsUdar, one Baijnath filed an appeal before the concemed Szib Di^isional OflEicer and fhe Sub Divisional parties passed his order dated 27/12/2000 allowuig fhe ap^eal seftmg aside the order passed by |back fhe niatter to TehsUdar. Agaiiist |by Sub Divisional OflScer, a Second fhe TehsUdar aad remanded the aforesaid order passed Appeal was fUed by fhe petiti^ner before fhe Board ofRevenne aad ultimately the Board pa|^sed fhe iaipugned order dated 14/12/2004 ia. which all tit^e orders passed by the Coiirt below were set aside aad the matte|r was reEaaiLded back to fhe Court of TehsUdar for lEiakirig fresl^ passed by Board of Reveniie appoiatoaaent under fhe aforesaid directions. Learaed counsel for t4e petitioner subinits fhat the orders .!• ^nd also by Sub Divisional OfiGicer are not ia accordance wifh law. pe further snbmits that for fhe post of Kotwor ia viUage, the Gram. Ifaiichayat foryyarded aa appUcation of a person who was below l^ years; ftierefore, Tehsildar had not accepted fhe reconiinendati(|>n of fhe Grain Paachayat aad had Tiltimatlety appoiated fhe pet^tioner as fhe Kotwar offhe village. He subraits that flie appointme^t ofpetitioner was not to be set aside aad fhe Siib Divisional OfiSc^r as well as fhe Board comniitted an error oflaw ia setting aside ti|ie sanie. I have hem'd leamed d have perused fhe records of tpie Writ Petition. -ounsel for fhe parties at lengtli mid SP/FS/2005-20,000 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^'