RATURAM Vs. THE BOARD OF REVENUE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 3.11.1989. 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 13.1.2005 allowed the appeal of respondent No. 5 and quashed the order dated 30.5.2000 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 24.1.2005 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.