%.. 1S THE BBQH CQVRT OF CHHATTISaAHH AT BII.ASFUS W.P. No. _i°. ..••"'.'3s'' .A ^y^ ><l;y^ !%^ RESTONDENT^ 5^ ^f^' —A* PETITIONER : Ratiiram, 8/ o 8hri Prem Sataami, aged about yenrs, OccUpation - KotKrar, \ R/ o filadanpur, Pativari Halka No. S, Tahsil - Pandaria, District- Kawardha (C.G.) -Versus - 1. The Board of Reveniie, Through ite Mem.ber Judge, Bilaspiir (C.G.l. /•• 3. The CoUector, Distorict - Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. Tfae Sub liBasional Of&cer, (Revenue), Pandaria, TolisU - Paadaria, Distdct - Kabirdham (C.Q.), 4. TheTahsffldar, Tahsil- Paudaria, District- Kabirdham.. 5. Shrl Sita Ram, S/o Shri Rainesh, AgeA about 45 years, R/ o Vfflage- Khair Dongari, TahsU- Paadaria, Distnct - Kabirdhani (C.O.) WRIT PBTITIOS UHDEa ARTICI^ 336/337 OF THE COHSTITOTOIi OF IHBIA FOR ISSO'ABCE OF A SSTTTTAHT.IR WCTT, ORDER OR limBCTIOff TO DO JtTBTICE III THE MATTEK. -?v Details oftfie petition. ftf-X H!GH COURT QF CHHATTJSGH ir. Justice Pri VERSUS Raturam The Board of Revenue & others. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava counsel fBrthe petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, P.L. for the respondents No. 2, 3&4. Smt. Sudha Agrawsl, counsel for respondent No. 5. WRIT PETITiON UNDER ARTICLE ^26/227 OF THE CONSTiTUTI' In the instant petition the petitioner has chalienged the order dated 13.1.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Board of Revenue directing the respondent No. 5 to move an appiication for his reinstatement on the post of Kotwar for viltage erdongri or viliage Madanpur. Respondent No. 5 was initially appointed as KotA'ar of village Kherdongri. However, on account of registration of a criminai case against him, his son Shatrughan was temporarily appointed as Kotwar of viiiage Kherdongri on 03.11.1989. it is not disputed that earlier the viilage Madanpur vi/as a dependent village of Kherdongri and Kofwar appointed for viilage - Kherdongri used to look after the affairs of dependent village Madanpur. This practice continued tii! 6.3.1991 when in Revenue Case No.13- 3/21/90-91, a decision was taken to appoint a separate Kotwar for vlllage Madanpur. Pursuant to this decision, on 26.3.1991 after foliowing due procedurethe petitioner was appointed as. Kotwar of viilage Madanpur temporarily and this temporary appointment was subsequently confirmed on 17.6.1998. : 2. After acquittal of respondent No. 5 in the criminal.case he filed an application before the Tahsildar, Pandariya seeking canceilation of the appointment of the petitioner as Kotwar of village Madanpur. Thls request of respondent No. 5 was allowed bythe Tahsildar and he was directed to be reinstated as KQt^var of village Madanpur. This order of Tahsildarwas assaiied before the Sub Divisional Officer, Pandariya who vide order ") A liiLillta.J. '2-' dated 30.5.2000 set aside the order passed by the Tahsiidar and direeted the respondent No. 5 to move an appiication for his reinstatement as Kotwar of Village Kherdongri. It was further directed by the Sub Divisionai Officer, Pandariya that if the appointment oftheson of respondent No. 5 namely Shatrughan as Kotwar of viliage Kherdongri has been confirmed, in order to fil! up the said post the revenue proceedings should be initiated for his removal in accordance with law. 3. The order of the Sub Divisional Officer "was chalienged by respondent No. 5 before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 13-01-2005 allowedthe appeal of respondent No. 5 and quashed the order dated 30-05-2000^passed by Sub Divislonai Officer, Pandariya. However, liberty was given to respondent No. 5 to fiiean application for his reinstatement as Kotwar of either village Kherdongari or village Madanpur within a period of seven daysjthere from.in compiiance with this order respondent No. 5 had already moved an application for appointment as Kotwar of yillage Madanpur on 24-01-2005 before Naib Tahsiidar, Pandariya which is stitl pending there. It is retevant to mention here that when Criminal case was reglstered against respondent No. 5, hisson namely Shatrughan was temporarily appointed as village Kotwar. 4. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that initially viilage Madanpur was a dependent village of Kherdongari but with effect from 06-03-1991 a separate post of Kotwar was sanctioned for village Madanpur and the petitioner was appointed as Kotwar of this village after foilowing due procedure of law. He submits that subsequently appointment of the petitioner was confirmed on 17-06-1998 and thus under no circumstance the post of the petitioner can be filled up by respondent No. 5 as directed by Board of Revenue. He sybmits that at best Board of Revenue could have directed for appointment of respondent No. 5 as Kotwar of village Kherdongari where hisson is aiready working as Kotwar. 5. On the other hand counsel for respondent/State as also counsel for respondent No. 5 submit that appointmentof the petitjoner was tefflporary | in character and once the responderil No. 5 was appointed as l<totwarof| taking care of the dependent villaggj -3— Madanpur also, he has a right to be appointed as Kotwar of viilage Madanpur. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materiai available on record. 7. Admittedly respondent No. 5 was appointed as Kotwar of village Kherdongari and he was taking care of its dependent village Madanpur also. It Is aiso not disputed that when the criminal proceedings were initiated against respondent No. 5, he was removed from the post of Kotwar of village Kherdongari and his son Shatrughan was temporariiy appointed as Kotwar of that village. , •^- 8. After creation of new post of Kofrwar for village Madanpur vide Revenue Case No.13-8/21/90-91 w.e.f. 26-03-1991 and after foliowing due procedure of iaw as prescribed in the Rules framed under Section 230 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, the petitionsr was appointed as Kotwar of village Madanpur. It is nobody's case that appolntment of the petitioner on the post of Kotwar was illegal in any manner. The only jrievance of respondent No. 5 is that after his acquittal in the criminal case he has a right to be appointed as a Kotwar of village Madanpur. 9. I find force in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that post of Kotwar of village Madanpur w.e.f. 26-03-1991 has nothing to do with the earlier appointed Kotvvar of viliage Kherdongri. Once after following due procedure, the petitioner was appointed as Kotwar of Madanpur, respondent No. 5 has no right whatsoever to be appointed or even to be considered for appointmem as Kotwar of village Madanpur. Respondent No. 5 was Kofrwar of village Kherdongari and against the said post hls son Shatrughan was temporarily appointed in hisabsence. if respondent No. 5 has any grievance, he can claim the post of Kotwar of viilage Kherdongari and not for viliage Madanpur. 10. The direction given by the Board of Revenue to respondent No. 5 for filing an application within seven days there from for consideration of his case regarding appointment to the post of Kotwar of village Madanpur being unjustified is totaily uncalled for and therefore, it can not be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order of Board of Revenue to this effect is set-aside. Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge