VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1. Kaushal Kumar‘ S/o anga Ram NON-APPLICANTS \ G Tandon, R/o Village—Karman, Tah. Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.). Parvati Bai Wife of Bhikhu Ram Gandharv, R/o village—Karman, Tah. Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.).v Tahsildar, Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Sub Divisional Gfficer, Bemetra Distt. Durg (C.G.) Additional Collector, Bemetra Distt. Durg (C.G.) Board of Revenue, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur , Circuit Court Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA OF 2009 PETITIONER APPLICANT /: Dwarika Prasad S/o Bhakturam Gandharv, ag/d — at villagrefkarr‘rian, Tah. o A 1/ Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.). HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. 8222 of 2009 Dwarika Prasad Versus RESPONDENTS : Kaushai Kumar and others. NON-APPLICANTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONsTITUTION OF INDIA (Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aqarwal, J.) Present : ShriManoj K. Sinha, counselforthe petitioner. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.3 to 5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 05‘“ day of Jammy, 2011) Heard on admission. 2. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 29-08-2009 passed by Board of Revenue, Biiaspur in Revenue Revision No.R.N./05/R/A-56l661/2007 affirming the order passed by the Additional Coilector, Bemetara. 3. The facts in brief are as under: Applications were invited for appointment of. Viiiagev Kotwar of Village Karman in place of vacancy occurred due to death of village Kotwar. Out of 5 candidates, the Tahsildar on enquiry found Kaushal Kumar mOre educated, eligible and appointed him as Kotwar. The order of Tahsildar was assailed by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.). The S.D.O. allowed petitioner’s appeal and set-aside the order of Tahsildar and directed to appoint the petitioner as Kotwar. The same was challenged by respondent No.1 before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector on appreciation of entire material on record held: respondent No.1 was rightly appointed by the Tahsildar, set-aside the order of the S.D.O. and affirmed the order passed by Tahsildar. There against, a revision preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was dismissed vide order impugned. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would coniend: Rule 4(2) framed under Section 230 of M.PIC.G. Land Revenue Code, 1955 (for short “the Code’) gives preference to the near relative of ex-Kotwar, other things being equal in appointment of~ Kotwar. The petitioner being nephew of ex- Kotwar and is adopted son must have been given preference over the respondent Kaushal Kumar and Kaushal Kumar was selected contrary to the statutory provisions. 5. The learned Board of Revenue after discussing the matter at length held the petitioner Dwarika Prasad was resident of District Kabirdham and is not adopted son of Bhikhuram i.e. ex- Kotwar as claimed by the petitioner whereas the respondent Kaushal Kumar is unemployed, more educated i.e. has passed 12‘“ Class and thus, was rightly appointed by the Tahsildar as village Kotwar, has dismissed the revision 6. Smt. Parwati VBai, wife of ex-Kotwar nowhere stated in her affidavit that the petitionerjs her adopted son. She only stated that the petitioner is her husband’s nephew but the petitioner claims himself to be adopted ‘son of ex-Kotwar which is found incorrect. As per Patwari’s report, the petitioner was permanent resident of District Kabirdham and he only started living in the Village Karman two months prior to filing of the application for appointment of Kotwar. In such circumstances, this Conrt do not find any illegality in the concurrent findings recorded by the V Additional Collector as well as Board of Revenue warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia. 7. lt is well settled principle of’law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the . Constitution of lndia,_should refrain itself from Interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perVersity, iliegality. irregularity or juris&ictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 8. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of substance is liableto be and is hereby rejected. No order asto costs. \ ‘ Sci/— ‘ N.K.Agarwai Judge