[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Laxman Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2026
1
Digitally signed by
YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI
2026:CGHC:12561
TIWARI Date: 2026.03.16
17:58:28 +0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 35 of 2026
Laxman Prasad S/o Shri Madho Diwaker Aged About 53 Years R/o
Village Udka, Gram Panchayat Tarwarpur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli,
P.S. Setganga, Tahsil and District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue Department
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh
3 - Tehsildar, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh
4 - Smt. Suniti Kurre @ Sunti Bai W/o Mahendra Kurre Aged About 42
Years R/o Village - Udka, Gram Panchayat Tarwarpur, Janpad
Panchayat Mungeli, P.S. - Setganga, Tahsil And District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh
5 - Arjun Kurre S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Kurre R/o Village- Udka, Gram
Panchayat Tarwarpur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, P.S. - Setganga,
Tahsil And District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh
6 - Same @ Jyoti Kurre D/o Shri Hinchha Kurre R/o Village- Udka,
Gram Panchayat Tarwarpur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, P.S. -
Setganga, Tahsil And District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh
7 - Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Gofelal R/o Village- Udka, Gram Panchayat
Tarwarpur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, P.S. - Setganga, Tahsil And
District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh
8 - Yogendra Kumar S/o Shri Arjun Ratre R/o Village- Udka, Gram
Panchayat Tarwarpur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, P.S. - Setganga,
Tahsil And District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh
2
9 - Premkumar Diwaker S/o Shri Mahesh R/o Village- Udka, Gram
Panchayat Tarwarpur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, P.S. - Setganga,
Tahsil And District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh
10 - Ramesh Kumar Anchal S/o Shri Jeewan Lal Anchal R/o Village-
Udka, Gram Panchayat Tarwarpur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, P.S. -
Setganga, Tahsil And District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh
11 - Kuldeep S/o Laxmi Prasad R/o Village- Udka, Gram Panchayat
Tarwarpur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, P.S. - Setganga, Tahsil And
District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh
12 - Gahsidas Diwaker S/o Shri Piladas Diwaker R/o Village- Udka,
Gram Panchayat Tarwarpur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, P.S. -
Setganga, Tahsil And District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh
13 - Narayan Diwaker S/o Shri Gayaram Diwaker R/o Village- Udka,
Gram Panchayat Tarwarpur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, P.S. -
Setganga, Tahsil And District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh
14 - Raj S/o Shri Madho R/o Village- Udka, Gram Panchayat Tarwarpur,
Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, P.S. - Setganga, Tahsil And District -
Mungeli Chhattisgarh
15 - Arjun Kurre S/o Kalyan Kurre R/o Village- Udka, Gram Panchayat
Tarwarpur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, P.S. - Setganga, Tahsil And
District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government
to 3/State Advocate
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
16.03.2026
1. By this petition, the review petitioner seeks review of the order
dated 19.12.2025 passed in WPS No.1663 of 2023, whereby this
Court had dismissed the writ petition by holding that the material
produced by respondent No.4, including the voter list, is a primary
public document, prepared in the discharge of statutory functions
and carrying a presumption of correctness unless disproved by
cogent evidence. The petitioner was unable to rebut the said
presumption or produce any unimpeachable material to
demonstrate his residence in Village Udka. In such circumstances,
this Court found no infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the Board
of Revenue and concluded that, considering residence within the
same village is a mandatory criterion for appointment of a Kotwar,
the order passed by the learned Board of Revenue did not suffer
from any legal or factual error warranting interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, no case for
exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction was made out, and the
writ petition was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case, as presented before this Hon'ble Court, are
that the earlier Kotwar of village Udka, one Mahendra Kurre,
resigned from his post following several complaints regarding his
conduct, and it also came to light that he had illegally sold portions
of the Kotwari land. Subsequently, one Raju Diwaker was
appointed as a temporary Kotwar under Section 230 of the
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Respondent No.4, Smt.
Suniti Bai @ Sunti Bai, wife of the former Kotwar, challenged this
temporary appointment through an appeal and subsequent
revisions, which culminated in an order dated 30.10.2015 passed
by the learned Board of Revenue directing that a regular Kotwar
be appointed strictly in accordance with the rules.
3. Pursuant to this direction, an advertisement was issued inviting
applications from eligible candidates, and thirteen candidates,
including the petitioner, submitted their applications. The Tahsildar
sought reports from the concerned Police Station and called for
the Gram Panchayat's proposal regarding the conduct and
suitability of all applicants. The Police Station, as well as the
Secretary and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, submitted their
reports and forwarded a recommendation in favour of the
petitioner. After considering these materials and complying with
the procedure prescribed under the rules framed under Section
230 of the Code, the Tahsildar appointed the petitioner as Kotwar
of village Udka by order dated 30.01.2016.
4. Respondent No.4, who was also an applicant and the wife of the
ex-Kotwar, challenged this appointment before the SDO
(Revenue) on the ground that she was entitled to preference
under Rule 4(2) of the Kotwar Appointment Rules. The SDO, after
examining the entire record, dismissed her appeal on 27.06.2016,
holding that the petitioner was more eligible and meritorious. Her
second appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division was
also dismissed on 24.07.2018, affirming the findings of the
Tahsildar and SDO. Thereafter, Respondent No.4 preferred a
revision before the Board of Revenue, which allowed the revision
by setting aside all previous orders and directed the Tahsildar to
reconsider all applications afresh on the basis of a fresh proposal
from the Gram Panchayat. This direction was issued solely on the
erroneous assumption that two different proposals had been
passed by the Gram Panchayat on the same day, despite there
being only a single valid proposal passed in an adjourned meeting
and forwarded by the Secretary and Up-Sarpanch. The Board of
Revenue also failed to consider the mandatory legal bar that
prevents the appointment of relatives of an ex-Kotwar who has
resigned due to misconduct or negligence.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.02.2023, the petitioner
filed the writ petition bearing WPS No.1663/2023, which was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated
19.12.2025.
6. Calling in question the impugned order dated 19.12.2025, the
review petitioner has filed the present review petition.
7. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a permanent resident of village Udka and satisfies the
mandatory criterion for appointment to the post of Kotwar. At the
time of his appointment, the petitioner's ancestral land records in
village Udka, along with a spot inspection report, Aadhar Card,
Voter Identity Card, and primary school mark sheet, were verified
by the appointing authority. These documents clearly demonstrate
the petitioner's residence in the concerned village. Copies of these
documents are annexed as Annexures P/2, P/3, P/4, and P/5
respectively. He further submits that during a period when the
petitioner was temporarily residing in the nearby village
Parasakapa, District Mungeli, for livelihood purposes, he did not
become a permanent resident there. Respondent No.4 relied on
the petitioner's voter identity card showing his presence in Village
Parasakapa. However, the petitioner had submitted Form 7
applications for deletion of his name from the electoral roll of
Village Parasakapa on 15.10.2016 and 20.07.2017, copies of
which are annexed as Annexures P/6 and P/7. The petitioner
ensured that his name was validly and legally registered in the
voter list of Village Udka.
8. Learned counsel submits that following the deletion of the
petitioner's name from the voter list of Village Parasakapa, the
petitioner's name is correctly recorded in the voter list of Village
Udka, Gram Panchayat Tarwarpur, Tehsil Mungeli, District
Mungeli. This is confirmed by the Special Intensive Revision report
dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure P/8), which clearly establishes the
petitioner's permanent residence in the concerned village. He also
submits that the petitioner had duly complied with all the statutory
and procedural requirements for appointment under Section 230
of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Tahsildar,
SDO, and Commissioner had examined all applications and
records and had rightly found the petitioner to be more eligible and
meritorious than other candidates, including Respondent No.4.
The order of the learned Board of Revenue, which set aside all
previous orders on the erroneous assumption of multiple Gram
Panchayat proposals, did not consider the petitioner's verified
residence and the mandatory legal bar against appointment of
relatives of an ex-Kotwar who resigned due to misconduct.
9. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the above-mentioned facts
and circumstances constitute important evidence that was not
available or could not be produced during the pendency of the
original writ petition. The petitioner's corrected voter records,
verified ancestral land documents, and other proof of residence
are crucial for the adjudication of the matter and directly impact
the petitioner's eligibility. In light of this newly available evidence, it
is respectfully submitted that the order dated 19.12.2025 in WPS
No.1663/2023 warrants reconsideration by this Court.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State
submits that the order of the learned Board of Revenue, as upheld
by this Hon'ble Court in WPS No.1663/2023, was passed after
due consideration of all relevant materials. The State submits that
the eligibility for the post of Kotwar is dependent on residence
within the concerned village, and the petitioner has not been able
to rebut the presumption of correctness attached to the records
maintained by the Revenue authorities, including the voter list of
village Udka. It is further submitted by the State that the decision
of the Board of Revenue was based on an erroneous assumption
that two separate proposals had been passed by the Gram
Panchayat regarding the petitioner's appointment. The Board, in
the exercise of its statutory powers, directed the Tahsildar to
reconsider all applications and verify the proposals afresh. The
State submits that such directions were within the legal mandate
of the Board and cannot be interfered with lightly.
11. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the petitioner's
temporary stay in the nearby village Parasakapa does not
conclusively establish permanent residence there, but the
documents produced in support of residence in village Udka,
including land records, school records, and voter identity
documents, must still be examined in accordance with the
prescribed procedure. The State submits that any review must
take into account that the original writ petition was dismissed by
this Hon'ble Court after full consideration of these factors. As such,
there is no sufficient ground for review, and the order dated
19.12.2025 in WPS No.1663/2023 ought to be maintained. The
State further prays that any relief sought by the petitioner be
considered strictly in accordance with law and the established
rules for the appointment of a Kotwar.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that he adopts the
submissions made by the State and further submits that the
petitioner was not a permanent resident of village Udka at the
relevant time and therefore did not satisfy the mandatory eligibility
criterion for appointment as Kotwar. It is submitted that the
documents relied upon by the petitioner, including the voter list
and other records, were either not available or did not conclusively
establish residence during the original proceedings, and the
subsequent deletion of the petitioner's name from the voter list of
Village Parasakapa cannot retrospectively validate his claim.
Learned counsel further submits that the order of the learned
Board of Revenue, as upheld by this Court, was passed in
accordance with law and proper verification of records, and no
grounds exist to interfere with or review the same.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the
pleadings and documents annexed with the review petition.
14. Upon careful consideration of the review petition, the documents
filed therewith, and the submissions of learned counsel for the
review petitioner, the State, and respondent No.4, this Court finds
that the review petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any
error apparent on the face of the record or bring forth any new
evidence of such a nature that could justify interference with the
order dated 19.12.2025 passed in WPS No.1663/2023. The review
petition primarily seeks re-evaluation of factual findings and
conclusions already recorded by this Court, which is impermissible
in review proceedings.
15. The review petitioner's principal grievance relates to his alleged
permanent residence in village Udka and his eligibility for
appointment to the post of Kotwar. It is, however, evident from the
record that the original writ petition was dismissed after thorough
consideration of all relevant material, including land records, voter
lists, and other official documents maintained by the competent
authorities. The presumption of correctness attached to such
primary public documents, as emphasized in the order dated
19.12.2025, has not been effectively rebutted by the review
petitioner through cogent and unimpeachable evidence. Mere
submissions or subsequent actions regarding voter lists or
temporary residence in a nearby village cannot dislodge this
presumption.
16. This Court further observes that the arguments raised by the
petitioner regarding temporary residence in village Parasakapa,
including subsequent submissions concerning deletion of his
name from the electoral roll of that village, do not constitute
sufficient grounds for review. These matters were either already
available or could have been produced during the pendency of the
original writ petition. The so-called "new evidence" does not
materially alter the factual matrix considered by this Court and
does not bring to light any error apparent on the face of the record.
17. The submissions advanced on behalf of the State and respondent
No.4, including verification of documents, the procedure followed
by the Tahsildar, SDO (Revenue), and Commissioner, as well as
adherence to the statutory framework under Section 230 of the
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, are persuasive. The
Board of Revenue, in its order dated 15.02.2023, acted within the
bounds of its statutory jurisdiction and directed the Tahsildar to
reassess proposals in accordance with the rules. The review
petitioner has not been able to point out any jurisdictional error or
illegality in this regard that would justify interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
18. It is well settled that the scope of review jurisdiction under Order
XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is extremely limited.
Review is permissible only to correct a manifest error or an error
apparent on the face of the record. Re-appreciation or re-
evaluation of evidence, reassessment of facts, or substitution of
one conclusion for another amounts to appellate jurisdiction, which
is impermissible in review proceedings. (Devaraju Pillai v.
Sellayya Pillai1, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury (Smt)2, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and
others3, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others4,
Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others 5 and
Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others6.)
19. The grounds raised in the present review petition, including
submissions relating to the petitioner's alleged residence in village
1 (1987) 1 SCC 61
2 (1995) 1 SCC 170
3 (1996) 10 SCC 174
4 AIR 2000 SC 1650
5 (2013) 2 SCC 1
6 (2017) 4 SCC 692
Udka, the voter records, and the purported errors committed by
the Board of Revenue, essentially amount to an attempt to re-
appreciate and re-assess the evidence that has already been
considered and evaluated by this Court and by the authorities
below. It is settled law that review jurisdiction under Order XLVII of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is narrowly confined to
correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, and does not
extend to the re-examination of facts, re-evaluation of evidence,
or substitution of one conclusion for another. The review
petitioner's submissions, which seek to challenge the correctness
of findings on matters of fact specifically the petitioner's residence
and the validity of the Gram Panchayat proposals, fall squarely
outside the permissible scope of review.
20. Even if the arguments advanced in the review petition are
examined on merits, no error that is apparent on the face of the
record is discernible in the impugned order dated 19.12.2025. The
original order was passed after careful consideration of all
relevant documents, including land records, voter lists, and other
official records, as well as the reports and recommendations
submitted by the competent authorities. The presumption of
correctness attached to such primary public documents remains
intact, and the review petitioner has not brought forth any
evidence of sufficient weight or authenticity to rebut the same.
The alleged "new evidence" regarding temporary residence and
subsequent deletion of the petitioner's name from the voter list of
another village does not materially alter the factual matrix that had
been duly considered in the original proceedings.
21. In view of the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that the review
petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error,
illegality, or manifest perversity in the impugned order. There is,
accordingly, no ground to interfere with the order dated
19.12.2025 passed in WPS No.1663/2023. The review petition is,
therefore, dismissed, being wholly devoid of merit.
22. No order as to costs is made, as the parties are left to bear their
own expenses.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh
