ANAND DAS Vs. MUKHIRAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The root question involved in this writ petition is whether the respondent No. 1 duly elected Panch can be validly appointed as Kotwar under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, Code).

(2.) Post of Kotwar of village Laria, Tehsil Palari, District Raipur, fell vacant on account of removal of ex Kotwar Aghan Das. The Tehsildar, being appointing authority, registered a revenue case No. 2/A-56/2007-08 and issued notification inviting applications for the said post of Kotwar. The present petitioner, respondent No. 1 herein and four other persons namely Chhannu lal, Balbhadra, Gopaldas and Sonkunwar made applications claiming their candidature. Thereafter, the Tehsildar, Palari, verified their credentials and also called resolution from Gram Panchayat, Sitapar, as provided in Rule 4(1) of the Kotwari Rules, and accordingly resolution No. 1 dated 31.03.2008 was sent in favour of respondent No. 1 herein for his appointment on the post of Kotwar. The Tehsildar found that respondent No. 1/Mukhiram doesn't suffer from any ineligibility and fully eligible candidate for the said post, appointed him as Kotwar by order dated 20.05.2008 (Annexure P/4) in exercise of powers conferred under Section 230 of Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, Code) read with Section 4(1) of the Kotwari Rules.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2008 appointing respondent No. 1 as Kotwar, present petitioner filed an appeal being revenue Appeal No. 43/A-56/2007-08 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue (for short, SDO). The said appellate authority, by its order dated 20.08.2008 (Annexure P/6) came to a conclusion that resolution passed as provided in Rule 4(1) is not in accordance with Kotwari Rules, and set aside appointment of respondent No. 1 and appointed the petitioner herein as Kotwar holding that he being relative of ex-Kotwar is entitled for preference under Rule 4(2) of Kotwari Rules. Against the said order, the respondent No. 1 preferred Second Appeal before the Commissioner under Section 44(2) of the Code. The Commissioner accepted the finding of SDO resulting into dismissal of appeal and in affirming of order passed by the SDO appointing petitioner herein on the post of Kotwar.