Jems Toppo v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) whereby
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.10 10:31:54 +0530 2025:CGHC:11334-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 166 of 2025 Rajesh Kujur S/o Jwakim Kujur Aged About 50 Years R/o Village And Post - Sikari, Thana And Tahsil- Manora, Civil And Revenue District- Jashpur (C.G.), (Res. No. 4) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Nayab Tahsildar Manora, District- Jashpur (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
4 - Jems Toppo S/o Shri Palikar Toppo Aged About 46 Years R/o Village And Post- Sikari, Thana And Tahsil- Manora, Civil And Revenue District- Jashpur (C.G.), (Petitioner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel and Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Patel on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel and Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents / State as well as Mr. Rajendra Patel on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 on I.A. No.01/2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 322 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S). No. 3889 of 2015 (Jems Toppo vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the
Decision
writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No. 4 herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the Jon Kujur, uncle of the appellant was the Kotwar of the village Sikari, was dismissed from the post due to his misconduct committed under the influence of liquor in Samadhan Camp and the writ petitioner / Respondent No.04 being the near relative (nephew) of Jon Kujur has been appointed on the post of Kotwar. The suspension of John Kujur and appointment of Respondent No.04 as Kotwar was done vide 3 letter dated 30.03.2001. The Respondent No.04 / writ petitioner was also one of the candidate for appointment on the post of Kotwar and being aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2001, he preferred an appeal before the learned Sub Divisional Officer, which was allowed vide order dated 16.04.2002 and remanded the matter to the Court of Nayab Tahsildar for considering the educational qualification and past experience of Respondent No. 04, kin relative of sacked Kotwar Jon Kujur, appointed him as Kotwar. Thereafter again the Respondent No.04 preferred an appeal against the said order dated 27.09.2003 before the Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.), which was by order dated 14.09.2004 allowed setting aside the order dated 27.09.2003. Further, he challenged the order dated 14.09.2004 by filing second appeal before the learned Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2010 affirming the order dated 14.09.2004 passed by the Naib Tahsildar. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2010, the writ petitioner / Respondent No.04 filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, which was allowed, setting aside the orders of Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) and Commissioner, Ambikapur and restored the order dated 27.09.2003 of Nayab Tahsildar vide order dated 28.08.2015, granting appointment on the post of Kotwar. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2015, the Respondent No.04 / writ petitioner filed a writ petition (S) No. 3889/2015 before the learned Single Judge Court 4 and the same was allowed. Hence this present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law hence liable to be set-aside. The learned single judge, in para 18, held that, the writ petitioner / Respondent No.04 is the kin relative of the earlier Kotwar who was dismissed from the post on account of misconduct, this finding given by the learned Single Judge, is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. From the aforesaid submissions made, it is amply clear that the Tahsildar had not committed any fault or error while issuing appointment order in favour of the Appellant. Lastly, the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition of the Respondent No.04 / writ petitioner had committed gross illegality in not considering the applicability of the Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and has also failed to consider the fact that the earlier Kotwar has misbehaved or any irregularity, for which the writ petitioner / Respondent No.04 cannot be liable for any punishment. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No. 4 herein, in which no interference is called for. 5 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No. 4 herein observed that it is not disputed in this case that Nayab Tahsildar appointed the respondent No.4 as Kotwar by order dated 27.09.2003 on this ground that he has passed Class 12th and he is more competent and experienced than the writ petitioner. This order was subjected to appeal by the the writ petitioner before Sub Divisional Officer and the learned Sub Divisional Officer allowed the appeal of the writ petitioner. Thereafter, Rajesh Kujur filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner and the Commissioner by order dated 24.12.2010, dismissed the appeal of Rajesh Kujur. Further, against this order, Rajesh Kujur filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue set aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 14.09.2004 and order of Commissioner 24.12.2010 & restored the order of Naib Tahsildar dated 27.09.2003. 10. Learned Single Judge further noticed the Rules framed under Section 230 of the CGLR Code i.e. the Rules Regarding Appointment, Punishment and Removal of Kotwars and Their Duties known as 'the Kotwari Rules’ and held that the Naib Tahsildar did not consider the Rule 4 of the Kotwari Rules, which is evident from the operative para of the order passed by the Nayab 6 Tahsildar, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- 11. " ्ቚकरण में ्ቚस्तुत दस्तावेजों के अवलोकन एवं साቌኌ(cid:24)यों के परिरशि(cid:29)लन उपरान्त यह स्प्ቖ होता है किक ्ቇाम सिसकरी में रिर्ሹ कोटवार पद पर किनयुकि्ሹ हेतु dze’k% जेम्स एवं राजे(cid:29) ने आवेदन ्ቚस्तुत किकया। जेम्स क(cid:24)ा चौथीं तक पढ़ा है, जबकिक राजे(cid:29) क(cid:24)ा 12 वी तक पढ लिलया है। राजे(cid:29) को कोटवारी काय4 का पूण4 अनुभव ्ቚा् है। वह पूव4 कोटवार जोन को किनकट संबंधी है। पूव4 कोटवार जोन रिरश्ते में उसका चचेरा भाई लगता है। कोटवारी पद हेतु वह जेम्स वल्द पोलिलकार टोप्पो से अቌኌधक योग्य ्ቚतीत होता है। वह किवगत दो वኘ᭩@ से किबना किकसी पारिर्ቦकिमक के गांव के कोटवार का काय4 करता रहा है। कोटवारी काय4 के ्ቚቌኌत उसकी किन्ा एवं लगन को दृकि्ቖगत रखते हुये, तथा उसका चाल चलन नेक पाये जाने पर राजे(cid:29) वल्द ज्वाकिकम कु जूर को ्ቇाम सिसकरी प.ह.न. 5 रा.किन. मं मनोरा का ्ቇाम कोटवार भू. राजस्व संकिहता 1959 की धारा 230 के तहत स्थायी रुप से किनयु्ሹ किकया जाता है। त्ुसार आदे(cid:29) परिरत एवं घोकिኘ᭩त ।" 12. Learned Single Judge further relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Daya Das Panka vs. Nirmaldas & Others and Rule 4(2) of the Kotwari Rules, and has concluded that it is clear that Rajesh Kujur is not entitled for appointment on the post of Kotwar as he is kin relative of earlier Kotwar who was removed from his post on account of misconduct committed under the influence of liquor. As such, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition of the writ petitioner by setting aside the order dated 28.08.2015 and order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Sarguja. 13. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel 7 appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet