HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition No.1042 of 2005
Raturam
...Petitioners
VERSUS
The Board of Revenue & others
...Respondents
! Shri Rajeev Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner
^ Shri Shashank Thakur, P.L. for the
respondents No. 2, 3 & 4
Smt Sudha Agrawal, counsel for respondent No. 5
Hon Mr Justice Pritinker Diwaker
Dated:22/07/2009
: Judgment
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA
O R D E R
(22.07.2009)
In the instant petition the petitioner has challenged
the order dated 13.1.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Board
of Revenue directing the respondent No. 5 to move an
application for his reinstatement on the post of Kotwar for
village Kherdongri or village Madanpur. Respondent No. 5 was
initially appointed as Kotwar of village Kherdongri.
However, on account of registration of a criminal case
against him, his son Shatrughan was temporarily appointed as
Kotwar of village Kherdongri on 03.11.1989. It is not
disputed that earlier the village Madanpur was a dependent
village of Kherdongri and Kotwar appointed for village
Kherdongri used to look after the affairs of dependent
village Madanpur. This practice continued till 6.3.1991 when
in Revenue Case No.13-B/21/90-91, a decision was taken to
appoint a separate Kotwar for village Madanpur. Pursuant to
this decision, on 26.3.1991 after following due procedure
the petitioner was appointed as Kotwar of village 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 cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner as
Kotwar of village Madanpur. This request of respondent No. 5
was allowed by the Tahsildar and he was directed to be
reinstated as Kotwar of village Madanpur. This order of
Tahsildar was assailed before the Sub Divisional Officer,
Pandariya who vide order dated 30.5.2000 set aside the order
passed by the Tahsildar and directed the respondent No. 5 to
move an application for his reinstatement as Kotwar of
Village Kherdongri. It was further directed by the Sub
Divisional Officer, Pandariya that if the appointment of the
son of respondent No. 5 namely Shatrughan as Kotwar of
village Kherdongri has been confirmed, in order to fill 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 challenged
by respondent No. 5 before the Board of Revenue. The Board
of Revenue vide order dated 13-01-2005 allowed the appeal of
respondent No. 5 and quashed the order dated 30-05-2000
passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Pandariya. However,
liberty was given to respondent No. 5 to file an application
for his reinstatement as Kotwar of either village
Kherdongari or village Madanpur within a period of seven
days there from. In compliance with this order respondent
No. 5 had already moved an application for appointment as
Kotwar of village Madanpur on 24-01-2005 before Naib
Tahsildar, Pandariya which is still pending there. It is
relevant to mention here that when Criminal case was
registered against respondent No. 5, his son namely
Shatrughan was temporarily appointed as village Kotwar.
4. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that
initially village 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
following 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 submits that at best Board of
Revenue could have directed for appointment of respondent
No. 5 as Kotwar of village Kherdongari where his son is
already working as Kotwar.
5. On the other hand counsel for respondent/State as also
counsel for respondent No. 5 submit that appointment of the
petitioner was temporary in character and once the
respondent No. 5 was appointed as Kotwar of village
Kherdongari and was taking care of the dependent village
Madanpur also, he has a right to be appointed as Kotwar of
village Madanpur.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material
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 also 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 temporarily appointed
as Kotwar of that village.
8. After creation of new post of Kotwar for village
Madanpur vide Revenue Case No.13-B/21/90-91 w.e.f. 26-03-
1991 and after following due procedure of law as prescribed
in the Rules framed under Section 230 of the M.P. Land
Revenue Code, the petitioner was appointed as Kotwar of
village Madanpur. It is nobody’s case that appointment of
the petitioner on the post of Kotwar was illegal in any
manner. The only grievance 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 Kotwar
of village 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 appointment as Kotwar of village
Madanpur. Respondent No. 5 was Kotwar of village
Kherdongari and against the said post his son Shatrughan was
temporarily appointed in his absence. If respondent No. 5
has any grievance, he can claim the post of Kotwar of
village Kherdongari and not for village 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 totally 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.
J U D G E