^ H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.3194 of 2007 Petitioner : Brij Lal S/o Peela Ram, aged about 39 years, by cast®Gada, resident of Village Raja Dera, Gram Panchayat Chibarra and Gondbahal, Patwari Halka No.21, R.l. Circte, Pithora, Police Station Pithora, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (CG). Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Revenue, Ministry of Revenue, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (CG). 2. The Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Biiaspur, through its President, Revenue Board, Cireuit Court Raipur (CG). 3. The Cotlector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG). 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Mahasamund (CG). 5. The Additional Tahsildar, Pithora, itrict Mahasamund (CG). 6. Kamla Bai D/o Peela Ram resident of Village Rajadsra, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (CG). 7. Bhagirathi S/o Ramai, resident of Rajadera, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of Indial SinaleBench: J^Otl'bteJystice Satish K. Aanihotri Present : Smt Renu Kochar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sushit Dubey, Govt. Advocate forthe State. (Passed on 11th June, 2007) The pstitioner and the respondsnt No.6 are the son and the daughter, respectively of Shir Peeta Ram, resident of Village Raja Dera, Patwari Halka No.21, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (CG). The petitioner claims appointment on the post of Kotwar of village Rajadera and Kokobhata. The respondent No.6 Kamalabai, belng daughter of the earlier Kobn/ar, Shri Peeta Ram filed revision before the Board of ¥- Revenue in the Revenue Revision Case No.12/R/A-56/720/2006. The Board of Revenue after hearing all the parties came to the conclusion that the appointments made by various orders.in favour of respondent No.6 and the petitioner also were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 230 of Land Revenue Code read wth Kotwar Rules. The matter was remitted to the competent authority for deciding the dispute afresh in accordance with the provision of Law. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed in favour of the petitioner is in accordance with the law and there was no reason to remand back the same for considering the dispute afresh. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that since the petition is continuing and performing the duties as Kotwar, he be permitted to continue on the post till matter is decided bythe competent authority. 3. Be that as it may, on perusal of the impugned judgment and order and other orders passed by various authorities, i do not find any perversity or irregularity in the impugned order so as to call for interference in the supervisory jurisdictton of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitutiffn of india. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make an appropriate apptication before the competent authority for interim relief, if so advised. On filing of such application, the competent authority may consider and decide the same in accordance with law. This order shall not come in the wayofdecision making by the statutory authority. 4. In view of the foregoing, the petition is accordingty dismissed. SdA . Satish K.Agmhotri Judge ^