Revisional jurisdiction Cannot Re-Appreciate Facts to Unsettle Long-Standing Kotwar Appointments Under Land Revenue Code.

The petitioner, Shaukilal Chauhan, sought appointment as a Village Kotwar following the illness and subsequent death of his father, the previous Kotwar, on 16.03.2007.

Prior to the death, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 28.02.2007 favoring the petitioner.

However, the Nayab Tahsildar appointed Respondent No. 6 (Setram) on 06.06.2007.

This was overturned by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) on 17.07.2007, who appointed the petitioner; a decision affirmed by the Commissioner on 28.03.2011.

After 12 years, Respondent No. 6 moved the Board of Revenue in revision.

On 02.08.2023, the Board set aside the appellate orders and restored Respondent No. 6’s appointment, citing the petitioner's initial resolution was premature and alleging improper conduct regarding Kotwari land.

The petitioner challenged this revisional order via the present writ petition.

1. Whether the Board of Revenue exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, by re-appreciating factual findings after a decade of the petitioner’s service.

2. Whether a near relative of an ex-Kotwar has a vested hereditary right to appointment under Section 230 of the Code and the Kotwari Rules.

The court applied Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and Rules 2 and 4 of the Kotwari Rules, which establish that Kotwar is a statutory post, not a hereditary one.

Rule 4(2) mandates that preference to a near relative is discretionary and applicable only "other things being equal".

Regarding judicial review, the court relied on *Municipal Council, Neemuch v. Mahadeo Real Estate* (2019) and *Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair* (2020), stipulating that High Courts under Article 226 should not act as courts of appeal or re-appreciate evidence unless the lower bank's decision is perverse, arbitrary, or suffers from a patent error of law.

The Court observed that the post of Kotwar is a statutory creation regulated by the Code, and no person can claim it as a matter of right through lineage.

It found that the Board of Revenue’s decision to interfere was based on a plausible legal interpretation: the petitioner’s Gram Panchayat resolution was passed before a legal vacancy existed (pre-death), rendering it invalid under Rule 4(1).

Furthermore, the Board had considered the comparative suitability and conduct of the candidates, which are factual determinations.

The Court reasoned that while the petitioner had served for many years, passage of time cannot sanctify an appointment that the competent revisional authority found to be fundamentally flawed.

Since the Board’s view was a "plausible and legally sustainable one," the High Court determined it could not substitute its own subjective satisfaction for that of the statutory authority.

It held that the petitioner had no indefeasible right to the post based on being the son of the ex-Kotwar.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Board of Revenue's order dated 02.08.2023, which restored the appointment of Respondent No. 6.