ii!(i r?'^^:'t K*'" I; i >'wsff'^ •'BtB^i1' f'!":!.1;^'' (l'll" i-'i! mGH COUltT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUK WritPetitionNo. PETITIONER : Mahendra Kumar Khosle S/o L.R. Khosle aged 32 years, r/o village Binori, P.S. Palari, tehsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Board ofRevenue, Gwalior. 2. Naib Tehsildar, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG). 3. Sub Divisional Otficer (Revenue), Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG). 4. Addl. Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur (CG). 5. Pawaii Kumar S/o Maksudan Banzare, Caste Sataairii, R/o Village Binori, Patwari Halka No. 82, Tehsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG). 6. State ot'Chhattisgarh. (WRTT PETTHON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF IND1A) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satfsh K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Vikram Dixit, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 20 day ofAagsist, 2008) 1. With the conseut of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the legality and validity of the order dated 07.07.2000 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, in Revision Case No. 316-11/97. 3. On perusal of the papers, it appears that the respondent No. 5 was appointed as Kotwar by the Naib Tahsildar on 05.03.93. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional OfBcer (for short 'SDO'), Baloda Bazar, which was dismissed on 17.04.95 (Aanexure P/l). Against the said order dated 17.04.95, second appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur. •;i;'ili'"ll";'; .it ;'!.. .!: f-1 5. The Additional Commissioner, by order dated 29.10.97 (Annexure P/3), remanded back the matter to the Naib Tahsildar, Baloda Bazar, setting aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar and SDO, Balodabazar, and directed to make fresh appointment, considering the qualification ofthe candidates. 6. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 5 filed a revision before the Board of Revenue stating therein that the petitioner became disqualified on account of the fact that the petitioner has mortgaged Kotwari land which is disqualification for being appointed on the post ofKotwar. 7. The Board of Revenue, after having considered all the submissions, passed tbllowing order: •^fTSR dg'tJlritiK S? W^ftHPftq sriiwNt ^ m^?T ^ tiRi'ilSid shrr t fii ai-ii^* wt^ 1?q? *i^-<<gii< T^ 'TH^ ftw cnre ^ f^s m^oTfto^fto ^t EIRT 34 ^ 447 ^ ?fS(T <*>i4tii^l ^ f. sfhr ?n <*)|4<11^1 ^T WS*f ail^qqi <t>*il"<0 i^ <^ f^-f 3(Pmn^ STCT ^ <^ ^T.T .i^t l^ar Trar ti »{Si 'SSS ^dcji^ ^qr sipi c^ Pprft -iRaT^ ^T g?.! t. .tPR ri^*i1et<ii<< ^ an^^r fl MReiBid etffl" t 1^ weft ^?R ^ ^ETFT ^ VfSS t fi; ar-n^®wv ^> ^ PtdT STCT <<>^(;<lt'S1 ^qr v^ <st pr^t ^gr ipff arT. (ran vp^r ^rq ^' 3f'ii4<;* ^'*ff^ 7^ ^r erar m l •TPR d^'rfScitii'i ^»r qs Pi'»<>4 ^tepptq ^^•j! TR gnqrRn f f^ ttilcqi-?! ^^T <ilil ft'i^t •^g^ ^ -^q ^ ^S ^ <q^ ^ f^ ^t 3f-nt?^ <t)*ll'* s^ ^ ftar ^ wreaR ^ -CK il ^sftw f^ir mj ur?r flw •ai'it^'i^ WS ^q» tpt 31(t^l"1cli f^ uIT^ q'T gw t. 1990 3(ROT?-IO VVB 343 ^W^Rra 1^^ ri|»-<<1<SI*1 ^a ^ 3T"B| ^ ^H ^l<ild<< STCT ~SfS '•^fTQ Ritil'd yRl4tRd feqr "'rar t fe " ^tcTBR W ^rare 'ERtft-tre'ST ^fel 'fff^T ?N ^ ^NET ^' Pra^ •^i4id'iiT ^ •ti'i<it5T ^r^^—aT&Trr-T'•r^t feff uir ^recir tl" ^a •W4 RlgfrT ^ TI^ra" 4 -fra? ri^'tflrit;l'( ^ srgl^trpfrEi srfSwr^ '4 ai-ii^q* v~efw '^ v! wfn'^n ~'i€t ^ 4 l^ft g^R qft ^N l^ ^ ^t t | 'W rtg'iflfl^l'! S? Si'aR'HHn^ 3rf6 Tf? SRT pRiT^ if^ ^TE^ qtSTTRI W^-ff 1T? •aninRn t. fti-rt' g'RT^q v^ w ^f ahi 't'i't"! WR srrgqa ^ 3n^?r ^' qWg ^ ti ^ift 1W?r 4 STT? ssfyag ^r w^v giTfeqyf •T^ ?N ^ ^BR '•F^ 'iff-t 1qtTq •^ft" 8. I have heard leamed counsel for the appearing parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. No reason for interference has been noticed in the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue. It is well settled that even ifa difterent view is possibie, the superior Court may not substitute view of the Court below, if the process of decision making is in accordance with law and there is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. This Court should refrain from intertering under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in nonnal course. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner does not make any other submission, except whatever is averred in the petition. For want of proper assistance, it is difficult to so into the details ofthe facts. 9. Tfae order impugned herein is just and proper and needs no interference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agaihotn ;>aha Judge .*