Chattisgarh High Court
Raturam vs The Board Of Revenue & Others on 22 July, 2009
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition No.1042 of 2005
Raturam
...Petitioners
VERSUS
The Board of Revenue & others
...Respondents
! Shri Rajeev Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner
^ Shri Shashank Thakur, P.L. for the
respondents No. 2, 3 & 4
Smt Sudha Agrawal, counsel for respondent No. 5
Hon Mr Justice Pritinker Diwaker
Dated:22/07/2009
: Judgment
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA
O R D E R
(22.07.2009) 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 03.11.1989. 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 13-01-2005 allowed the appeal of respondent No. 5 and quashed the order dated 30-05-2000 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 24-01-2005 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.
4. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that initially village Madanpur was a dependent village of Kherdongari but with effect from 06-03-1991 a separate post of Kotwar was sanctioned for village Madanpur and the petitioner was appointed as Kotwar of this village after following due procedure of law. He submits that subsequently appointment of the petitioner was confirmed on 17-06-1998 and thus under no circumstance the post of the petitioner can be filled up by respondent No. 5 as directed by Board of Revenue. He submits that at best Board of Revenue could have directed for appointment of respondent No. 5 as Kotwar of village Kherdongari where his son is already working as Kotwar.
5. On the other hand counsel for respondent/State as also counsel for respondent No. 5 submit that appointment of the petitioner was temporary in character and once the respondent No. 5 was appointed as Kotwar of village Kherdongari and was taking care of the dependent village Madanpur also, he has a right to be appointed as Kotwar of village Madanpur.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. Admittedly respondent No. 5 was appointed as Kotwar of village Kherdongari and he was taking care of its dependent village Madanpur also. It is also not disputed that when the criminal proceedings were initiated against respondent No. 5, he was removed from the post of Kotwar of village Kherdongari and his son Shatrughan was temporarily appointed as Kotwar of that village.
8. After creation of new post of Kotwar for village Madanpur vide Revenue Case No.13-B/21/90-91 w.e.f. 26-03- 1991 and after following due procedure of law as prescribed in the Rules framed under Section 230 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, the petitioner was appointed as Kotwar of village Madanpur. It is nobody's case that appointment of the petitioner on the post of Kotwar was illegal in any manner. The only grievance of respondent No. 5 is that after his acquittal in the criminal case he has a right to be appointed as a Kotwar of village Madanpur.
9. I find force in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that post of Kotwar of village Madanpur w.e.f. 26- 03-1991 has nothing to do with the earlier appointed Kotwar of village Kherdongri. Once after following due procedure, the petitioner was appointed as Kotwar of Madanpur, respondent No. 5 has no right whatsoever to be appointed or even to be considered for appointment as Kotwar of village Madanpur. Respondent No. 5 was Kotwar of village Kherdongari and against the said post his son Shatrughan was temporarily appointed in his absence. If respondent No. 5 has any grievance, he can claim the post of Kotwar of village Kherdongari and not for village Madanpur.
10. The direction given by the Board of Revenue to respondent No. 5 for filing an application within seven days there from for consideration of his case regarding appointment to the post of Kotwar of village Madanpur being unjustified is totally uncalled for and therefore, it can not be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order of Board of Revenue to this effect is set-aside.
J U D G E