1 - (Deleted) Smt. Shyam Bai Panika (Died) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court v. 1 - State Of Chhattisg
Case Details
1 RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.08.23 16:39:50 +0530 2025:CGHC:41037 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 381 of 2020 1 - (Deleted) Smt. Shyam Bai Panika (Died) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 24-04-2023. 1.1 - (A) Manharan S/o Late Khedu Das Aged About 48 Years R/o Village And Post Bhatbhera, Tehsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 1.2 - (B) Chameli W/o Lachhi Das Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Budera, Post Budera, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhatapara District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Nayab Tahsildar, Suhela Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh., District : 5 - Milan Das Panika S/o. Barisan Das Panika Aged About 47 Years R/o. Village Bhatbhera, Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate. 2 For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 14/08/2025 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs: “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the impugned order dated 26.08.2019 (Annex.P/1) passed by Board of Revenue may kindly be set-aside and the case of the petitioner may kindly be directed t o be consider for appointment of village Kotwar of village Bhatbhera, Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar- Bhathapara Chhattisgarh and the petitioner may kindly be granted all the consequential benefits. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur on 26.08.2019, upholding order dated 08.06.2017 (Annexure P/7) passed by Upper Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, whereby order dated 29.06.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (herein referred to as “SDO”) (Revenue), Bhatapara in Revenue case No.22/v-56/2007-08 was upheld. Vide order dated 29.06.2009. SDO(Revenue), Bhatapara upheld order passed by Naib 3 Tehsildar whereby Naib Tehsildar in exercise of powers under Section 230 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short “the Code”), appointed respondent No.5/ Milan Das Panika on the post of Kotwar of Village – Bhatbhera, Tehsil – Simga, District – Balodabazar-Bhathapara. 4. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners are that upon death of Kotwar Khedudas of Village – Bhatbhera on 18.07.2007, Naib Tehsildar, Uptehsil – Suhela published ishtehar (advertisement) for appointment on the post of Kotwar of Village – Bhatbhera. Original petitioner Smt. Shyam Bai Panika, who was wife of deceased Kotwar – Khedudas Manikpuri and respondent No.5/Milan Das Panika filed their application for appointment on the post of Kotwar. Report was sought for from the concerned Gram Panchayat. After scrutiny of the applications, private respondent No.5/Milan Das Panika was found more educated and recommendation of Gram Panchayat – Bhatbhera was also in his favour, therefore, Naib Tehsildar passed order appointing private respondent No.5/Milan Das Panika on the post of Kotwar of Village – Bhatbhera, which was challenged by the original petitioner before SDO (R), Bhatapara by filing appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 29.06.2009. The second appeal filed before Additional Commissioner under Section 44(2) of the Code, 1959 as well as Revision filed before Board of Revenue were also dismissed upholding order passed by Tehsildar. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed instant petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that original 4 petitioner Smt. Shyam Bai Panika was wife of deceased Kotwar – Khedudas and she is also literate. Further, her character has also been found good by Naib Tehsildar. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 4 of the Rules regarding Appointment, Punishment and Removal of Kotwars and their duties as applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh provides to grant preference to the near relative of the Kotwar. Though, at present original petitioner Smt. Shyam Bai Panika has also died, but being daughter of predecessor Kotwar – Late Khedudas, one of the petitioners are entitle to get appointment on the post of Kotwar. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Tehsildar has unnecessarily given weightage to higher education of private respondent No.5/Milan Das Panika and recommendation made by Gram Panchayat – Bhatbhera which is against the aforesaid rules. Hence, he prayed that petitioner may be allowed and relief(s) sought for may be granted to the petitioners. 6. State has filed its reply. Learned State counsel, while referring to its reply, would submit that though original petitioner Smt. Shyam Bai Panika was wife of deceased Kotwar – Khedudas but private respondent No.5/Milan Das Panika is son of earlier Kotwar Barison Das Manikpuri and his maternal grand father Bahorik Das was also a Kotwar. Further, he is more educated than petitioner, as private respondent No.5/Milan Das Panika has passed Class 5 12th. Gram Panchayat Bhatbhera has also recommended to appoint Milan Das Panika on the post of Kotwar. He further submits that there is concurrent findings of all the Revenue Courts including Board of Revenue. Hence, the petition is liable to the rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 8. Though, original petitioner Smt. Shyam Bai Panika was wife of deceased Kotwar Khedudas and her other conditions like character etc. were also found good as of private respondent No.5, but private respondent No.5/Milan Das Panika is more educated (12th passed) than petitioner and Gram Panchayat Bhatbhera had also made recommendation in his favour. 9. Bare perusal of Rule 4 of the Rules regarding Appointment, Punishment and Removal of Kotwars and their duties as applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh would clearly discern that the person in whose favour resolution has been passed by the Gram Panchayat, is entitled for a preference if he/she is otherwise not suffering from any disqualification as mentioned in Rule 2. If the resolution is proposed in favour of a person who does not fulfill the qualification to mean he does not suffer from any disqualification prescribed in Rule 2, the Tehsildar shall reject the resolution after recording the reasons in writing and intimate the Gram Panchayat. 6 10. True it is that sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the aforementioned Rules enables the Appointing Authority for according preference to the near relative of the Kotwar but the same would occasion only when other things are equal. 11. In the instant case, private respondent No.5/Milan Das Panika is more literate and recommendation of Gram Panchayat Bhatbhera is also in his favour. Further, his father/maternal grand father were also Kotwar of the village. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by Revenue Officers right from Naib Tehsildar to the Board of Revenue for appointing private respondent No.5/ Milandas Panika on the post of Kotwar of Village Bhatbhera. Further, original petitioner Smt. Shyam Bai Panika has died. Candidatures of petitioners have not been scrutinized, therefore, they are not entitled to get preference against private respondent No.5 /Milan Das Panika. 12. In view of above discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned orders as there lies no any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by Revenue Courts including the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi