, \•\ ^. v ..^ ,'\ IN TF?E HIGH COURT OF JUDIC.ATURE AT JAB.a.PUR .M»P. WRIT PETITION NO^ ^l»l^f 2000. Petitioner^ "V. f^eLluir sss Ghanshyam ^ s^n ^f Kapr^^r^ , j aged abr^ut 55 years^ occipaticcs- | K^twar^ R/rt village- san-^dh T^h» Guru^ -r^ Disttg Durg MoP* Respondents • s ^-l) Versus^ The State r»f M.P. Thr^ug'h the Secretary Revenue- Depte Mantraiaya^ valiabh-Bhavjai. BTirlpai» -2) • Tbe C^llect-nr, Durg, Distt^ Durg M.Pe 3) • Sarpanc^hGran Panchayat san^dh^ Ta^. Gurur, Distts Durg M.P. h- 4) » Gramwasi Gran san^dh^ TaT^-Gurur^ Distts Durg. M.P. (JL-.5) . Naib Ta^sildar Tah. Gurur, Distt: Durg M.P. ^6). sub-Divisi-.nai officer, (l-<evenue) Bailr'd- Dist't; Durg M.P. ^?)"^ addL<» C<8^nmissi^ner^ Raipur Divn^ Raipur M.P. -^ Bnard of Revenue^ Gx-jali^r M»P» .. DT • I.okestec.r. £ahu,^W<kR^ A^ R/o Vill Sanocih.Tah.Gurur, Durg. WR^_i:£T^I^__^^^_akRTICLE^126/222^F^Tt?E (L: CCN3TITUTION CF INDI^. /" '^^T1!1!^'t^^'1^;"yt.,.^ XI-HC-22 W^T^T C^t^^n^T ^[f^^iN •;/z- 3F^ ^NI^^, ^Tfl^^Ko, fa<rtl<yy _.^PJ^3~^Llw- ^IWdl ^b^llcb -^--^-----^4 ^; 200 3TI^T ?^<TTS$K ^rf?cT 07-07-2005 Miss Saageeta Mishra, Shri P.S. Koshy, Dy. Ad Chhatdsgarh/respondents No. Shri P.R. Pataakar, 3 and4. c^unsel for the petitioner. l^ocate General for fhe State of |1, 2, 5, 6 aad 7. c|lounsel for respondents No, Smt, Meera Jaiswal, couijisel for respondent No. 9. Heard learaed counsel fo| agg4eved The petitioner^bemg passed by fhe Board of Revenijie in case No. R/170-2/99, filed 226/227 of the Constitutioi]| termination order dated 31.3,1 the Nayab Tehsildar, Gurur, be| The relevaat facts ia bri< are that fhe petitioner was tihie year 1965 aad thereafter, viUage Saaodh, Tehsil Gurur, dat^d On the basis of foUowiagl issued a show cause notice to why fhe petitioner be not the M.P. Laad Revenue Code chl^Id41^ ^l*4<nT^f^l'<Rl^l< ^>3Tf^lT3TI^T r fhe pardes. by order dated 21-2-2000 ijie, Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior jthis writ petition under Article of India, praying fhat fhe 97 (Annexure-P/13) passed by jquashed. ^f for adjudication of this case app^in.ted on the post of Kotwar ia |he was workiag as Kotwar of Djlstrict-Durg. complaints, rcspondent No. 5 7-9-1996 to the petitioner as si^spended under Section 230 of Rule 5 (1) of Rules regardiag a4d i4^ (^^r) ^ XI-HC-22 3^ ^IHId<4, ^itl^^Ko, fadwy 311^1 ^51^ ^O^ 3^'?T^/703D ^l^dl *^1* -----------^ 200 .^^...............^. 3n^T^T /%^3:n^?T ^-IW^TI^ 3TT^?T ^cTT^K ^cT -^ Appoiatoaient, Punishmient aii{ duties : 1) tre^s For cutting 40 land in Khasra J1 Village Sanodh proifed before dated 31-5-199dt Rs.2,000/- anda^ proceeditig for ten^ from the Govemment jVb.267 Rakba 3:33 in ^fnd the offence being Cdflecfor and inde order was penalized of al^o orderedfor initiatmg \uttatirig his seruice. 2) That he has\ Govermnent land\ Khasra No.52 an^ hoase. Have vioV[ited Fnereportofthe making improper Court encroached upon in Village Sanodh in having constructed a the order of stay. J\imctdaar states ofyour \comments against the 3) 4) For z^sing the Gov^ hinifor the purpo^ also illegal excava^ The Gram Pan^hayat passed a resolut^ had charged him service land, illegcd excavation, and for encoizragfyig artdprayedfor ren Ahd The petitioner was al$ 7-9-1996 by respondent No. 9 Section 230 ofthe M.P. Laad Rules regardiag Appoiataient Kotwars aad ftieir duties. <t)i^I<n<flri ^i^dT^te^iRi^K ^^rf^TW^T Removal of Kotwars aad their mment land aUotted to of making bricks and WTL Sanodh had |on on 20-8-1996 and y constructing house on for encroachment, 1not pairolling properly ^ig crimes in the area ^oualfrom the postw ^o suspended by order dated in exercise of his power under pevenue Code and Rule S (1) of Punishment aad Removal of (ift^^N") XI-HC-22 ^n^i'^T ^^Tt^3:H^T ^TT^^iicT SF^T -^NKrl^, ^Tfl^4!^, ^KrtWy 3^^^ WtTFTTgiWW *""""""""" ^F^ 200 f^R^ 3T1^T^<[T^K^f^T The respondent No. petitioner ui Revenue Case issuing notice to fhe petition^i aad exaaimed his witae^ses arguinents of bofh fhe par|ies respondent No. 5 by order petitioner has encroached upc|n cuttiag oftrees & iUegal niiainlg conunitted serious ndscondudt found proved agaiast hioi, i^ services offhe petitioner. 5 examiaed the case of fhe No. 3-A/56 Year 96-97 after T. The petitioner filed his reply Having considered fhe aiid perusiag fhe records lated 31-3-1997 held that the fhe forest laad aad conrmitted operations. The petitioner has aad ia view of serious charges ?spondent No.5 tenninated the The petitioner filed aa Officer (Revenue), Balod, Dis|bict 69-A/56 Year 1996-97. (Reveune)/ respondent No.6 parties aad considering aU ffc^c the fuidiags aad order passe^ was accordiagly dismissed on The peUtioner has agarn) order dated 20-8-1997 passetl (Revenue) in. fhe Court of A( Divisibn, Raipur. The Addji Division, Raipur, ia appeal <=bl^Td^1Tl ^i<4<nT^tel:A<t^^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T |ippeal before fhe Sub Divisional Durg as revenue case No. FThe Sub Divisional Officer [after haviag heard bofhi fhe papers of fhe case confinned by fhe TehsUdar, The appeal 120-8-1997. preferred an appeal agamst fhe by fhe Sub Divisional Officer |ditional Commissioner, Raipur jttional Coiuniissioner, Raipur |case No.22-A/56/97-98, afier (^^fe^) XI-HC-22 7^f -^ww^, ^^w\e, facni^y V)f'7>^^|^0 ^l^dlA^lch ----------r-^ 200 ^TT^T^T ^?TO3TI^T : ^[t^^i^T liif;^^:^^^^^s^^ ^y-- •-—-^-•^-S;-^?^5^<^;- subinilssions havuig considered the perusiag fhe records, dismiss^d confirmed fh.e fiadisigs recordt oider dated 31-3-1997 pass^d subsequentiy order dated 2p- Divisional Officer (Revenue), wjere The petitioner tiiereafteil of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh| 2/99. The Board of Revenue of bofh tfie pardes aad facts| firtdings recorded by fhe Cou|rts passed by the Nayab Teh{ (Revenue) ia first appeal an|d second appeal, This petition is under A|rticle India i.e, fhe super^isoiy juris^iction The petitioner has no( irreguladty or aay error m He had sufficient opportunitie| fhe petitioner was respondent| has filed reply aa.d conteste^ appeUaat before fhe Sub Cominissioner and fhe petitio^ chi^Td41^ ^i^<nT^:tel^t<(^^i< ^^Tf^T3TI^T of both fhe parties aad fhe appeal on 11-1-1999 aad d by fhe Courts below aad fhe by fhe Nayab Tehsildar aad )-8-1997 passed by the Sub upheld, filed a revision before fhe Board at Gwalior as case No.R/170- |agam considered the argiiuients of the case and confirmed fhe below aad upheld fhe order ^ildar, Sub Divisional Officer Additional Conunissioner ia 227 of the Constitution of ofthe High Court, poiated out any procedural ap^Ucation or appreciation of law. beforc aU the Courts below as |before fhe Nayab Tehsildar aad fhe case. Thereafter he was Divisional Officer, Additional (er before the Board of Revenue, (^y^) ^ XI-HC-22 W^T^T f^Tf^3T[^T ''^n^i^rf^T Gowri ^ 3^T ^I^Id^, ^Tfl<rt41<o, [^crtl^y 3TT^T Hm^TT^w^ ^T55T^» ^^L^^l^ 200 3n^T?^n"^K^f?cr <=hl^?d<lflT1 ^ll^dT^IWt^^K ^^ ^33rf^'R'3T1^?T I have gone fhrough fbj leamed cozinsel for fhe parde^ Haviaig considered fhe case and niaterial on record procediiral irreguladty or aiiy In view of fhe above, th< as to costs, e record of the case and heard facts aad circurastances of tiie I aoi of view that there is no error ia appUcation oflaw. petition is disinissed. No order Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge