HIGB GOtJRT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASEUR S.B. : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNfflOTRI, J. WMTPETmONNo. 1844 of2007 PETITIONER "a- RESPONDENTS :-K^- i. : Baidhnath Nag S/o Devi Singh aged about 3Q years, Qccupation- Kotwar, R/o .Village Tahsil - Jagdatpur, Jagdalpur (Bastar) (C.G.^ VERSUS . • - : 1. The Board of Reveaue Bilaspur, Through theChairman, Circuit CourtJagdalpur(C.G.) 2. The Gollector, Jagdalpur, Distriet- Jagdalpur(C.G.). 3. The Additional Collector, Jagdalpur, Distiict-Jagdalpur (C.G.) ^ ..::/;.' 4. The Sub Divisional OfKcer, Jagdalpur, District-Jagalpur (C.G.) 5. The Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, Distriet- JagdalpurfC.G.) 6. Tulsi Ram S/o Rajibo Mehra aged about35years, 7. Smt. Padma Bai W/o -Jeevnath aged ahout 55 years, ; 8. Sonadhar s/o-Mala MeUra. aged about40years. 9. Phool Chand S/o Khogesllwar Mehraaged about24years. Res.No. 6 to 9 all R/o-ViIlage- KoKakapal, Tahsil-Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur (Bastar) (C.G.) Present: Sliri F.S.Khare, Adyocateibrlfae petitioner. ShriAryind Dubey, Paii^Lawyer ferthe State/KiSpondentsitQ 5. .. ; .,;:1 :- 1.:;: / .:;: ... .: . :,. . :.: . .^•, ..•^: /u"-^^^ ".—'^nm ii/r"—i..^AQ'?^ (F'assca ou 2y ~ iviarcn., ^uu l) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Coastitotion of India wherein the order dated 59.01.2007 (Annexure p/'8) passe.d by the Board of Revenue against fhe order dated 19.06.2006 (Arinexiire P/6) passed by the Additional Collector, Jagdalpur, is impugned. 2. Leamed counsel appeariag for the petitioner submits that tbe ordsr dated 19,01.2007 by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur is perv'srse, contraty to the facts and'not in consonance with the nrovisions of law, The leamed coungei further submits that one Shri Jeevnath, husband of Smt Padma Bai was vvorking as Kotwar in village Kohkapal, 'ehsil Jagdalpur tiil he resigned from the post in t_tte vear 2 The Naib Tehsildar. Bakawand bv riiiblic announcement made on 8.3.2000 invited applications. The said Naib Tehsildar re.gistered revenue case no. 08/A-56/99-2000 and heard the :oarties and examined their witnesses OB C39.05.2995. The Gram Panchayat proposed the name of respondent no. 8 Sonadhar Mehra vide its resolution dated 18.6.2000 for appointment on the post of Kotwar. The Naib Tehsildar Bakawand, appoi'ited Tulsi Ram, the respondent No. 6 as Koftvar keeping in view the fll educatioa as the petitioner was 9 Class passed, Smt. Padma and Sonadhar were illiterate, Foolchand was under age and against the netitiotier. a crianinal case under section 107-116 ofthe Cods of Criminal Procedure was "oending consideration. Accordirielv. t3ie respondent no. 6 was found most suitable for the post. Vide order dated 9.5.2001, the respondent no. 6 was appointed as Kotwar. .>. ifle responaent no. d aa appeal before the Additional Collsctor Jagdalpur, The Additional Collector, vide order date tlie apDeal partlv aiid ilirectecl tne villaee •-t^ - -.'1 kapal to send new proposal for appointmeat on the post ofKotwar. The Gi-am Panchayat Kohkapal in its resolution dated 19,04.2003 having cossidered the case, recommended the name ofrespondent no. 6 for appointment as Kotwar. 4. The Sub Divisional Ofiicer (Revenue) Jagdalpur by order dated 15.7.2005 di.smissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. resporident no. 7 and respondent no. 8, separately. 5. The Additional Collector, by his order dated 15.7.2005 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and directed to appoiflt the petitioner as Kotn'ar ofVillage Kohkapal. 6. Beiag aggrieved, the respondent no. 6 filed a revision bsfore the soard ofRevenue in Revenue Case No, R.N./01/R/A-56/596,'2006. The Board of P-.eveniie, after having heard all the parties came to the conclusion the appointment of the Kotwar is within the iurisdiction of Tehsildar/Additional Tehsildar and Naib Tahsildar. The Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to appoint the petitioner as Kotwar. The name of the respondent no. 6 was recommended by the Gram Panchayat,Kohkapal. Thus, under Rule 4(1) of the Rules Regardmg Appomtment, Punishment And 7. Removal ofKoUvars and Their Duties, the appellate authoritie.s can consider only the validity of the appointment of Tulsi Ram as per recommendatioa made by the Gram Panchayat to the extent asto whether the appointment was and proper. Accordingly, the order dated 19.06.2006 (Annexure P/6) pa.ssed by the Additional Collector, was set aside. The order dated 19.05.2003 (.^iinexiire P/4) passed by the Telisildar Jagdalpur, confinned by order dated 15.7.2005 (Ansexure P/5) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur were maintained. On perusal ofthe documents and having care&liy goHe through the provisions of law, the analysis ma.de and the order as a result thereof passed by the Board of Reveaue is unexceptionabie, and needs no interference, Thus. thi.s petition filsd under the sunen.'isorv iurisdiction ofArtic.Ie 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia is aismissea. Consequently, I.A. No. 1, application for intsrim relief and stay also stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aisit