Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This petition is filed by the petitioner who happens to be daughter of Ex- Kotwar, Late Shri Jaggan, of village Bakud, Tehsil Ghodadongri, District Betul being aggrieved of order dated 31.12.2018 (Anneuxre P-3) passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram, Division Hoshangabad in Case No.251/Appeal/2017-18 whereby the learned Additional Commissioner has set aside the orders of the Tehsildar Godadongri and the Sub Divisional Officer, Shahpur, District Betul. Vide order dated 28.09.2017 passed by the Tehsildar - Godadongri, District - Betul in Case No.01v/56/2016-17, it was directed to appoint petitioner as a 'Kotwar'. This order was put to challenge before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Shahpur, District - Betul in Revenue Case No.0005/appeal/2017-18 by Rakesh S/o Ranglal.

Learned Sub Divisional Officer, vide order dated 30.11.2017, dismissed the appeal.

Against the order of dismissal of appeal Rakesh preferred Second Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram, Division Hoshangabad which was registered as Case No.251/Appeal/year 2017-18 wherein learned Additional Commissioner recorded two findings before arriving at a conclusion namely; present petitioner is married in Chhindwara District and after marriage her husband started living in the village Bakud with a view to obtain appointment as 'Kotwar' and, secondly, that a criminal case was registered against the present petitioner in the Court of J.M.F.C., Betul under Section 420, 467 and 468 of IPC and, on these grounds, impugned orders of the Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer have been set aside and matter is remitted to the Tehsildar to conduct an enquiry afresh.

Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that Rules framed under Section 230 of MPLRC regarding appointment, punishment and removal of 'Kotwars' and their duties in Rule 4(1) specifically provides for a resolution of Gram Sabha.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and gong through the record, it is evident that Rules made under Section 230 of MPLRC provides for a resolution duly passed by the Gram Sabha for Gram Sabhas in whose area the post of 'Kotwar' is vacant.

Fourth ground is that sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Rules so framed for appointment of 'Kotwar' provides that preference may be given to the near relative of the Ex-Kotwar, other things being equal.

It is true as submitted by Shri Prakash Gupta that even private respondent was acquitted on the basis of a compromise but consideration of this fact that he had performed last rites of Jaggan or somebody else will not be sufficient evidence to treat him to be the near relative of Ex-Kotwar, when petitioner is the daughter of Ex-Kotwar, Jaggan, and there is no such genealogy available on record to note the same about the respondent and, therefore, in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, appointment of the petitioner has been wrongly set aside by the Additional Commissioner and, therefore, the order of the learned Additional Commissioner being cryptic and having been passed without appreciation of the Rules so framed under Section 230 of MPLRC and without making appreciation of the legal provisions cannot be given seal of approval.