CHHUNKU @ BHISHM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case are that the petitioner Chhunku @ Bhishm was appointed on 29.05.1993 (Annexure P-3) as a permanent Kotwar at village Kosamkunda, Tahsil Bilaigarh in exercise of power under Section 230, Rule 4 (2) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 by the Naib Tahsildar, Bilaigarh. Subsequently, certain enquiry was started against the petitioner and by an order of the Tahsildar dated 28.06.1994 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was removed from service and one Bodhiram was appointed as Kotwar in his place. The primary removal was on the ground that a case under Section 107 and 116 of Cr.PC, an Istagasa was filed against the petitioner. The allegation was further that the earlier Kotwar Budhram has made exchange of his service land with one Sattu for Rs. 40,000/- and the petitioner was a witness to such agreement. The order of removal was subject of challenge before the SDO, Balaigarh and the SDO, Bilaigarh by order dated 19.01.1999 (Annexure P-5) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, as it was delayed by four years as the appeal was filed on 16.03.1998. The said order of the SDO was subject of challenge before the Upper Collector in the second appeal and the Upper Collector, Baloda Bazar too by order dated 04.10.2006 (Annexure P-6) had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the original claim of reinstatement is barred by time. The said order was further subject of challenge before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 24.01.2008 (Annexure P-7) observed that in place of petitioner one Bodhiram was appointed since the subsequent Kotwar has died, therefore, the cause of action itself has come to an end and dismissed the revision of the petitioner. The said review petition was filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue passed the order dated 29.09.2015 (Annexure P-1) after hearing the petitioner and gave a finding that the earlier order passed by the Board of Revenue in revision was not on the merits. It further observed that the issue was with respect to the legality of the appointment of subsequent Kotwar Bodhiram to the post for which petitioner Chhunku @ Bhishm was also a candidate and if held that the revision would have allowed, the petitioner would have been appointed; therefore, allowed the review petition thereby the ground of delay for dismissal was condoned with respect to the appointment of petitioner it held that though the case was registered against applicant under Section 107 and 116 of Cr.PC, an Istagasa was filed against the petitioner and mere filing of Istagasa under Section 107 and 116 of Cr.PC cannot be treated that the petitioner is of a bad character. The reliance was placed on 1993.R.N.293 and it was observed that the pendency of a case under Section 107 and 116 of Cr.PC would not come into way of the petitioner which warrants dismissal. With respect to the academic qualification, the Board of Revenue believed in the certificate issued by Panchayat in favour of petitioner and held in the certificate Chhunku @ Bhishm was named as Bhishmlal there by validity of educational certificate was held in favour of petitioner. Furthermore, with respect to exchange of service land along with Sattu for Rs. 40,000/- it was observed that it was against the Budhram, the father of the petitioner and petitioner (Chhunku) was only the witness. Consequently, the disqualification for appointment as Kotwar was not held to be attached with the petitioner. Eventually, it was held that the appointment of petitioner was proper. Further it held that however the order of the Tahsildar and thereafter the Upper Collector to dismiss the petition was proper. The Board of Revenue thereby reviewed its earlier order and held that since the subsequent appointed Kotwar Bodhiram has died and Ganeshram was working as temporary Kotwar, it directed to appoint regular Kotwar, by a cut off date.

(2.) The record Annexure P-2 would show that after the order of Board of Revenue was passed on 29.09.2015, a fresh order was issued in favour of Ganesh Ram and he was appointed as Kotwar .

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that before dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Kotwar no opportunity of hearing or any enquiry was conducted, therefore, the order itself bad in law. It is submitted that the principal of natural justice too was not followed by the Respondent and he would submit that though irrespective of the fact that Ganesh Ram (Respondent No. 2) has been appointed, the petitioner too can also be appointed as Kotwar as one or more Kotwar can be appointed for the same village as per Section 230 of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1950.