HJGMCOURTOFJUDICATURECHHATTIS<3ARH:B11-ASPUR SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLESHRIS.R.NAYAK.CJ. W%ITPEnTiQN ,52020F2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 11 la. 4. 5. 6. Bed Ram, S/o Roop Singh, Aged about 65 years, (Ex Kbtwar), resident 6f Pouta, Patwari Halka No.6, Tahsil and Thana Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, lyiantralay, D.K.S. Building, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). The Collector (Revenue Branch), Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa (CG). Additiohal Collector, Janjgir Champa, Tahsil and District Janjgir Champa(CG>. Sub D'Msional OfRcer (R), Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (CG). Naib Tahsildar, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa(CG). Rafan Lal, S/o Kisano, by caste Ghasiya, aged about 36 years; resident of vjllage Poyte; Patwari Halka No.6, Tahsil and Thana Malkharoda, DistricfJanjgir Champa (CG). :^ WRIT PETITIONNo. 10280F 2004 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ii ]Sli iii dS 1. Chandrika Singh, S/o Bed Ram Kawar, R/o village Pouta, Tahsit Matkharoda, Distnct Janjgir-Champa (CG). | Vereus State ofChhatHsgarh, Through BoardofRevenue,Bilaspur (GQ) Departmerrt of M Minerals, D.K.S. BHawan, Raipur (CG). —a,- <*-' •<. . 2. Sub Divisional Cfficer, Sakti, Dist. Janjgir Charapa (CG). 3. Collector, Dist. Janjgir-Champa, (GG). 4. Naib Tahsildar, Malkharoda, Dist Janjgir Champa (CG). — 5. RatanLal,S/oKishnoGhasia.R/o Vill. Pouta, District Janjgir Champa (CG). i^l ]• Present: Shri N.K. Chatterjee& Smt. Mala Dubey, leamed counsel forthepetitioners. Shri UtKarsh Verma, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for respondent - Ratan Lal. : • ; ! ' -• . ORALORDER (Passedon 5tn May, 2006) Writ Petition No.5202/2005 is filed by Bed Ram, whereas Writ Petition No.1028/2004 is filed by Chandrika Singh, who is the son of petitioner in W;P.Np.5202/2005. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.5202/2005 is that his forefathers were appointed as Jhakhar of village Pouta even prioi- to 1920 and they confinued to hold that posttill the year 1945. Bed Ram's father died in the year 1945. Bed Ram was appointedasJhakharofwllagePoutaintheyear1945afterthedemiseof his father and he continued to hold that post till ttie year 2000. Bed Ram submitted his resignation to the post of Jhakhar due to his old age and his resignation was accepted by Naib Tehsildar, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, the fifth respondent herein on 19-12-2000. Thereafterwards,GhandrikaSingh,petitionerinW.P.No.1028/2004, was appointed as village Kotwar on a temporary basis. Thereafterwards.the flfth respondent byhis order datecf 20-4-2001 appointedRatan Lal, S/o Kisano, the sbdh respondent in W.P.No.5202/2005 as village Kotwar. Ghandrika Singh feeling aggrieved by the said order of the fiftH y V.) -3- , — • ' ' ' respohdent, preferred an appeal to Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti, the fourth respondent herein. The fotirth respondent byhis order dated 15-7-2002 dismissedthe said appeat. Chandrika Singh, feeting aggrieved by the order of the fourth resppndent dated-15-7-2002, preferred second appeal to Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue also by its order dated 29-1-2004 dismissed the appeal of Chandrika Singh. Feelingaggrieved by the said order ofthe Board of Revenue, Chandrika Singh has preferredW.P.No.1028/2004. 2. BedRam, after acceptance of his resignation by Naib Tehsildar, Sakti, moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti,forgrantofBhoomiswamJrighteofthesubjectlandonthet3!asisof the order made by this Court dated 3-5-2001 in W.P.NO. 2064/2000and the batch. The Sub Dh/isional Officer, Sakti, by his order dated 18-10- 2004 (Annexure-PI 3) granted the Bhoomiswarni rjghts of the subject land infavour ofBedRam. Ratan Lal, feeling aggrieved bythe above order of the Sub Divisional OfRcer, prefen-ed an appeal to the Collector (Revenue), Janjgir-Champa. The Cotlector vide his order marked as ./: ..'..•.', ... .....'•.. • ...' .. ..' • . '.' ", .... . ,::..'. •.,-.' i Annexure-P/20 dated 7-9-2005 alloweclthe appsal and set aside the orderoftheSubDivisionalOfficer,Sakti,dated 18-10-2004 ontheground that Bed Ram could not have been granted Bhoomiswami rightsofthe subject tand on the basis of the above order. of this Court dated 3;ii5-2001, because, well before that day, Bed Ramliad tendered his resignatioh to the post of Kotwar. Bed Ram, feeling aggrieved by the above orderofthe Collector, has preferred writ petition N0.5202/2Q05. \, 3. I have heard leamedcounselforthepar'ties. The^only contentiOn uigecfon behalfof |thepetitioner inW.P.No.1028/2004 JsthatChanclrika -H- ^ fr,.;«l Singh being the son of Bed Ram, he ought to have been appointed as Kotwar of village Pouta in preference to Ratan Lal after resignation of Bed Ram. With regard to the grant of Bhoomiswami rights ofthesubject land, it was eontented that in terms of the order of thts Court dated 3-5-2001 passed inW.P.No.2064/2000 andthe bateh, the Sub Divisional Officer, Sakti, had rightly granted We Bhoomiswami rights and such a grant ought not to have been set aside by the Cotlector (Revenue), Janjgir-Champa District. 4. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State Govemmentand its authorities and learned counsel for Ratan Lal, one of the respondents in both the writ petitions, contended that the post of Kotwar is not a hereditary post and therefore, Naib Tehsildar did not commit any irregularity or illegality inappointing Ratan Lal as Kotwar of Poutavillage. Itwas also pointed out by learned counsel forthe respondents that after acceptance of resighationof BedRam, ChandrikaSingh, in fact, was appointed on temporary basis and during his tenure, as per the report of the Gram Panchayat sent to the Naib Tehsildar, Sakti, an uncle of Chandrika Singh clandestinely cut and removed the trees from a Government land and though that fact was known to Chandrika Singh, the same was not reported to Naib Tehsildar.Sakti as required in lawand looking from that angle also, non-appointmBht of ChandrikaSingh as Kotwar ofPouta village could not be faulted. 5. Having heard leamed counsel for theparties, a short question that arisesfor decision is whether appointment pfChandrjKa Singh as Kotwar of Poute village can beinterfered with on any permissible ground and whether Bed Ram is entitled to se^k Bhopmiswami rights of the subiject 6- V land in terms of the order of this Court dated 3-5-2001 passed in W.P.No.2064/2000 and the batch after he ceased to be Kotwar of village Pouta. 1 am ofthe considered opinion that boththe writ petitipns do not meritacceptance and the petitioners have not made outapy ground for interference. The post of Kotwar is not a hereditary post. Neverthetess, after the acceptance ofresigriation of Bed Ram, ChandrikaSingh was appointed on temporary basis, but, during his short tenure, it was notieed that he did not discharge thedutiesand functions attached to theoffiee in the way expected of him and he did notreport the clandestine act of his uncle in cutting and removing the Government trees to Naib Tehsildar and therefore, in terms oflaw and facts, Naib Tehsildar, Sakti, isjustified in appointing Ratan Lal, S/oKisano as Kotwarof RoutaVillage. 6. Coming to the grant 6f Bhoomiswami rights of the subject land.in favour of BedRam, at thethreshold, it needs to be noticed that Bed Ram tendered his resignation to the post of Kotwar.in the month of December, 2000 and the same was accepted by the Naib Tehsildar, Saldi on 19-12-2000. Therefore.inthe firstptace, theSub Divisional Officer, Sakti, ought not to have granted Bhoomiswami rights of thesubject land in favourof Bed Ram on the basis ofthe orderofthis Court dated 3-5-2001 passed in W.P.No.2064/2000 and the batch. Secondly, Bhoomiswami rights ofthe subject land which are attached tp the office of-Kotwar,ought not to have been granted in favour of Bed Ram after he ceased to be Kotwar. Therefore, the Collector (Revenue), Janjgir-Champa Distrfct is justified in setting aside the order of Sub ©msipnalCfficer (Revenue), Sakti. Both the writ petitionsare devoid of merit and consequently both of ^ £;r' t^- -fc- them are dismissed. However, in the factsand cireumstances of the case, the parties shall beartheir respective costs. 7. Before parting with these cases, the interim order made by this Gourt on 15-12-2005 in W.P.No.5202/2005 requires to be noticed. It appears that Bed Ram, petitioner in W.P.No.5202/2005, on the basis of the order made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sakti, dated 18-10-2004 had taken over the possession of the subject land and harvested the crops raised therein. This fact is reflected in the report submitted by the Collector, Janjgir-Champa, as stated by this Court in its interim order dated 15-12-2005. In the circumstance, this Court, vide its interim order dated 15-12-2005, permitted Bed Ram to cut the crops standlng on the subject land. While doing so, this Courtdirected the Collector and the Sub Divisional Officer to assess the value of the crops standing on the subject land. Liberty was also reserved to Ratan Lat to seek aRpropriate compensation, in the event of he succeeding in the writ petition. Since thisCourt has dismissed the writ petitions and the order is in favour of Ratan Lal, in terms of the interim order ofthis Court dated 15-12-2005, Ratan Lal is entitled to seek refund of the value ofthe crops permitted to becutand removed byBed Ram, from Bed Ram. As per the assessment made by the Collector and the Sub Divisional Officer, the value of the crops isRs.1,30,199/- (Rupees One Lakh, Thirty Thousand, One Hundred and Ninety Nine only). Therefore, Bed Ram, the petitioner in W.P.No.5202/2005, is directed to refund a sum ofRs.1,30,199/-toRatan Lal,S/o Kisano, within a period ofone month from today. Subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Judge