~~*s. 'Itll- .f ^ir:i-rR^'<!t ^^ 3^1 W R;"< 'tpn'sn^iT 8)*ii<;t* 's^l -^wiw^, wv\ww, f^v^wy. *11*<CTI tl»*11<ti s^?i '^^? ('jqlai^) wnwgfeiaii^i (Sinole Bench; Honble Mr. W.P. Fsl ^k. 7075/08. Petitioner Respondents (Petition U/A 226/2271 Purshott4m Na^archi Dhamtaril Vs 1. Taplal R/o \|'il (C6) 2. Stat^ of Chhattisgarh Through the Collector, Janjg|ir-Champa (C6) 3. The 4ddiTional Collector, tihamtari (CG) 4. Sub qivisional Officer (R) tlhamtari (C6) 5. Naib |Tahsildar, Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C6) 6. Rever|ue Board, Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (C6) Presenti Mr. &.N. Prayapati, Ad<r. for the peti'j'ioner. Mr. P. Shrivastava, Panel Laiwyer for |t'he Stote. igcfnst 3.02.2009 Heard. This petition is directed Annexure P-l whereby the Board ofl revision of the oetitioner filed aaalnst Dhomtari dated 30.12.2006. From perusal of the petition i] respondent No.l applied for appoii^tment Village Darba, Tehsil Kurud, &istrict becamevacant, as the erstfhile Kotivar 4)H[ct41'i fwf^ ^ i^^s <^T<-$R i?3ifima?i^t Justiee Dhirendm Mishru) if Constitution of India) Lal, Aged about 23 years, S/o Shanker Lal R/o Village Ddrba, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. (C6) , S/o Itwari Satnami, Aqed about 23 years, illage [Sarba. Tahsil Kurud, t)istt. Ohamtar'; the order dated 26.9.2007 of Revenue Chhattisaarh hcs re.iected ttie order of Uooer Collector. appears thot the petitioner as also on the post of Kotwar of &hoffltari after the post of Kotwor namely Kachra Bai tendered her' mra-^kdjM U!;"11-><1 TianRlriiT—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. .—....^e&aSSSBE^'iSi--; -I ^K^^'^^Q-.^.. sn^i^ift=m; WI 3ITOI *N ^ ^5[ ^w\v\^, -s^^, fa^iyy MINdl <(>*tl<fc s\^\ w* .("pfs^?) ^(IRR ^afcf ai^f '2^ pppir(tment resignation. Case of the petitioner i| of Kachra Bai was entitled for Kotwar- in her place os per Rule 4 Section 230 of the C.6. Land Reven<i< appointed only on the ground that village recommended nome of res| Kotwor <aid also on the ground that t| of 21 years on the date of apppirjl petitioner before the S.t>.0 (R) ond] and ther'eafter revision was also re.iet I have heard leafned counsel •fr After going'thi^ough the imp(i oetitioner had not comDleted the appointment <md therefore, he wa^ Kotwar in view of Rule 2 (iii) of the 14 230 of the Lond Revenue Code,19S91 concurrent findinci of fact and ther^ calls for interference in exercise of Accordingty, the petition is itself. pr^ferential »!ll'll!fl41-{WRtf 'SIWSt UV^K ^? sifwi an^i that he being the son of d<ni9hter right to be appointed as [2) of Kotwari Rules framed under •e Code, 1959. however, he was not 6ram Poichoyat of the concerned [londent No.l for uppoin+ment as ic petitioner has not completed oge Appeals referred by the lAdditionol Collector were.rejeeted :ted bv the imDuqned order. |or the parties. order It is evident that the |aae of 21 vears on the date of not eligible to be cppointed cs lotwari Rutes framed-urKter Section The courts below hme recorded a is no illegality or infinnity which Ixtraordinary jurisdlction. tlismissed at the admission staqe impiiqned Judge !iiraO.!i^*r5S»iTCiiiCTTiRm<T—i;s/95—11/2008—i,oo,ooo.