IN T;* mimma. *‘ 94 BEIWEEN Applicant: Rohanc‘xas, aged 26 yaars, $011 of .53hri Itwaridas: resident 0f village Kharoda Khurd, Post Office- . raveli, ’l‘ahSil Kawardha, Di strict Rajnandgadn. AND Res‘oan&emts3lu Mangandas son of $hri Latel:ias, rasi dent o f vill age Kh are da Khur‘, Di strict Raj nanc'igaon; Ma P” I 2. 3tate of M.P.,through, Collector Rajnandga 3. Boarci o£ Revnue, M.P.'fziotimalhal,Gwaliora V 4. Cémmissioner‘ Raipur Division, Raipur. 5a N aib~T ah si 1 dar, K awar c'lha, Di stri ct Qajnandgaon, 1 P DETAEL$ OF A PLICATIUN: o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.965 of 2005 (SB: Hon’ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Smt. Renu Kochar, counsel for the petitioner Present : Shri S.R.J.Jaiswa1, P.L. for the respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (15.09.2011) Initially, the petitioner filed this petition assailing the order of Board of Revenue (Annexure A—l) passed in Revision Case No.9— 3/R/93—94, dated 15.06.1994 under Section 19 of the State Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. After abolition of State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and is registered as WP. No. 965 ‘2. ,) Brief facts of the case are as under: f Jhulha Das was village Kotwar of village Kharoda Khurd, Patwari Halka No. 9, Tahsil Kawardha, District Rajnandgaon. tenderedrher;resignation from the post of Kotwar. Her resignation was accepted and for appointment of a new the Naib Tahsildar, Kawardha invited The petitioner and respondent No.1 - (i) *‘v‘rrene Mst. Mangtin Bai, widow o She Kotwar, applications. Apglicant Rohandas ' Petitioner Versus Respondents Mangandas and others. Mangan Das submitted their applications in pursuance of said invitation. (ii) The petitioner was claiming himself to be adopted son of EX—Kotwar of Mst. Mangtin Bai Whereas respondent No.1 was brother-in—law. of Ex—Kotwar Mangtin Bai. The Naib Tahsildar, after due enquiry, appointed respondent No. 1 as Village Kotwar. (iii) The petitioner went in appeal. The S.D.O. holding the petitioner near relative of Ex—Kotwar, allowed his appeal. Respondent No.1 preferred second appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner, having found the petitioner failed to prove that he is adopted son ofiEx—Kotwar of Mst. Mangtin Bai and having found other circumstances in favour of respondent No.1, allowed the second appeal of respondent No.1 and restored the order passed by the Naib-Tahsildar. The Board of Revenue, vide impugned order, also dismissed the revision preferred Flay—the petitioner-affirming the order passed by the Additional Cqnmissioner as well as Naib Tahsildar. ‘. 3. Smt. Renu Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend: Mst Mangtin Bai, Ex—Kotwar of village Kharoda Khurd, has admitted that petitioner was her adopted son. Ignoring the above material piece of evidence, the authorities below have passed the order in respondent No.1’s favour, which is per se 34 illegal and deserves to be set aside and order passed by the S.D.O. in appeal deserves to be upheld. 4. On the other hand, Shri S.R.J.Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the VVState supported the order impugned and submitted: as per petitioner’s application, petitioner was living with EX—Kotwar Mst.Ma_ngtin Bai like her son, which does not mean, he was living with her as her adopted son. Therefore, for want of proof of adoption, the petitioner cannot be said to be adopted son of EX—Kotwar Mst. Mangtin Bai and the petition is devoid of merit. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 6. As per para—4 of order of Naib Tahsildar, the petitioner has stated before him that EX-Kotwar Mst. Mangtin Bai has kept him as son. A person may treat a child like a son but it does not mean that the said person adopted him. In order'to prove adoption, ingredients of adoption are required to be proved. The authorities below have, based on appreciation of evidence adduced in this case: concurrently held that the petitioner has failed to prove he was adopted son of EX—Kotwar Mst. Mangtin Bai, in the absence whereof, his candidat’ure cannot be preferred against the candidatures of respondent No.1. Further, the Naib Tahsildar himself, on appreciationwofrentire evidence adduced before him, has found respondent No.1 more fit to be appointed as village Kotwar. 3 _ _. 7. In View of above, I do not flnd any illegality in the order impugned warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversityr illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 9. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. CK Sd/¥ N.K. Agarwal Judge ‘X