1 - Kuwar Das S/o Shri Sukhdas Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Lakhasar v. 1 - Gyan Das S/o Vishal Das Village Lakhasar, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5325 of 2017 1 - Kuwar Das S/o Shri Sukhdas Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Lakhasar, Post Kathakoni, Tahsil Takhatpur, Police Station Hiri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Gyan Das S/o Vishal Das Village Lakhasar, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Gram Panchayat Through Sarpanch, Village Lakhasar, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate holding the brief For State For other respondents : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer : None appears though served of Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 15.07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order of C.G. Land Revenue Board Bilaspur, passed on dated 11/11/2016 in case of Gyandas Vs. Gram Panchayat & others in Revenue revision Case No. R/02/R/A-56/38/2009 Village Lakahasar, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) and order dated 20/02/2017 passed by Court below Tahsildar 2 Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct authority to reinstate Petitioner with all consequential benefits. 10.3 Any other relief may also be granted to the Petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially, respondent No.1 was appointed as Kotwar of Gram Panchayat Lakhasar, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur. A resolution was passed for his removal on 22.06.2006 by the Gram Panchayat and it was referred to the Tehsildar. He would further submit that the Tehsildar vide its order dated 23.07.2007 removed respondent No.1 from the post of Kotwar on the ground that he had encroached over Government land and a proceeding under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’) was initiated and a fine of Rs.1500/- was also imposed. He would also submit that the order was challenged by respondent No.1 before the Sub-Divisional Officer by filing an appeal and it was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2008. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a second appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2008. Mr. Singh would contend that the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and it has been dismissed vide order dated 11.11.2016 and against the said order, this petition has been preferred. Mr. Singh would argue that a proceeding under Section 248 of the Code of 1959 was initiated against respondent No.1 and a fine of Rs.1500/- was also imposed and a resolution was passed against him by the concerned Gram Panchayat, therefore, his removal was strictly in accordance with law and the 3 Revenue Courts committed an error of law in dismissing the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner. He would further argue that the petitioner is eligible and qualified to be appointed to the post of Kotwar and he is a resident of the concerned Gram Panchayat. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State would oppose. He would submit that respondent No.1 was removed from the post of Kotwar only on the ground that a proceeding under Section 248 of the Code of 1959 was initiated and a fine of Rs.1500/- was imposed. He would further submit that no inquiry was conducted according to Rule 5 of the Rules framed under Section 230 of the Code of 1959. He would contend that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Commissioner and the Board of Revenue recorded categorical findings in favour of respondent No.1 and against the petitioner. He would submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Rule 5 of the Rules made under Section 230 of the Code of 1959 says that the appointing authority may fine, suspend or dismiss a Kotwar for being of bad character, actually participating in any kind of undesirable activities or acting in any manner which, in the opinion of the appointing authority, is not in public interest or for willful breach of rules. 6. Rules 5 & 6 of the Rules made under Section 230 of the Code of 1959 are reproduced herein below:- “5.(1) The appointing authority may fine, suspend or dismiss a Kotwar for,-(i) being of bad character, actually participating in any kind of undesirable activities or acting in any manner which, in the opinion of the appointing authority, is not in public interest; 4 (ii) wilful breach of rules: Provided that the amount of fine imposed at any one time shall not exceed Rs. 5 (2) Action should be taken on reports made by the Police against Kotwars and result thereof be intimated to the police forthwith. 6.The appointing authority may terminate the services of a Kotwar whenever, owing to age or to mental or physical infirmity, he is no longer fit to perform the duties of the post.” 7. In the present case, initially, respondent No.1 was appointed as Kotwar of the Gram Panchayat Lakhasar, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). A proceeding under Section 248 of the Code of 1959 was initiated against him and a fine of Rs.1500/- was imposed by the Tehsildar. The Gram Panchayat passed a resolution against respondent No.1 on 22.06.2006 and it was forwarded to the Tehsildar for appropriate action. The Tehsildar registered a Revenue Case no. No. 3/A-56/2006-07 and finally, passed an order of removal against respondent No. 1. The said order was set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the appeal as well as revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 8. Respondent No.1 was removed only on the ground that a fine of Rs.1500/- was imposed in a proceeding initiated under Section 248 of the Code of 1959 but on this ground alone, the services of respondent No.1 could have not been terminated. 9. According to Rule 5 of the Rules made under Section 230 of the Code of 1959, the appointing authority may fine, suspend or dismiss a Kotwar for,-(i) being of bad character, actually participating in any kind of undesirable activities or acting in any manner which, in the opinion of the appointing authority, is not in public interest and for wilful breach of rules. 5 10. In the present case, as there is no allegation with regard to bad character or registration of any FIR or participating in any kind of undesirable activities, the order passed by the Tehsildar was rightly set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer and subsequently by the Board of Revenue. With regard to encroachment of government land, penal consequences are provided in the section itself. Thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned. 11.Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Rekha Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE