Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/4585/2023 of BASANT KUMAR SONWANI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 21 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4585 of 2023 1 - Basant Kumar Sonwani S/o Shri Kartikram Sonwani, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Tikrapara, Post Tikrapara, Tahsil Devbhog, District Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of
CGHC010343112023
2026:CGHC:41235
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4585 of 2023
1 - Basant Kumar Sonwani S/o Shri Kartikram Sonwani, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Tikrapara, Post Tikrapara, Tahsil Devbhog, District Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Collector Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.
3 - Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Gariyabandh, City-, District :
Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh
4 - Tahsildar, Devbhog, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
( Cause title taken from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate
For Respondent/State
: Mr. Vivek Singh Ojha, Panel Lawyer
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RUCHI
YADAV
Digitally
signed by
RUCHI
YADAV
22/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
(i) “To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents.
(ii) To kindly quash the impugned notice issued by the respondent Tahsildar.
(iii) To kindly direct the respondent Tahsildar Devbhog to allow the petitioner to use the aforesaid land as sevabhoomi as the petitioner's ancestors had been using the aforesaid land as kotwars.
(iv) Any other relief/s which in the light of present facts and circumstances deems fit by this Hon'ble Court may also be granted.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving as a Kotwar and, by virtue of such service, certain land has been allotted to him as Kotwari/service land for carrying out agricultural operations. He submits that the land originally comprised Khasra No.48, admeasuring 3.37 acres, Khasra No.86, admeasuring 3.43 acres, and Khasra No.108, admeasuring 0.36 acres, totaling 7.16 acres. Upon renumbering, the said land now comprises New Khasra Nos.61, 81, 86, 124, 132/1, 140 and 208, admeasuring 0.35, 0.10, 1.26, 1.11, 0.24, 0.14 and 0.92 hectares, respectively, comprising total Khasra number 7 and having a total area of 4.12 hectares.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents are, however, restraining the petitioner from carrying out agricultural operations over the said service land on the ground that a Kotwar has no right therein. He further submits that the petitioner is not claiming any right, title or ownership over the said land, but is claiming only the right to remain in possession thereof and to carry out agricultural operations thereon during the subsistence of his service as Kotwar.
4. Learned State counsel submits that time was sought for filing the return; however, the same could not be filed. He further submits that the order passed by the concerned Tehsildar permitting the petitioner to carry out agricultural operations over the land bearing the aforesaid Khasra numbers is in accordance with law and, therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving as a Kotwar and that the land in question is recorded/treated as Kotwari service land. It is also not in dispute that the said land was earlier held by the petitioner's grandfather, who was also serving as a Kotwar, and thereafter by his father, who was appointed as a Kotwar, and subsequently by the petitioner upon his appointment to the said post.
6. In view of the nature of the tenure of the land in question and the undisputed status of the petitioner as a serving Kotwar, the petitioner is entitled, subject to the applicable rules and conditions governing Kotwari/service land, to remain in possession thereof and to carry out agricultural operations thereon during the subsistence of his service as Kotwar. However, such possession shall not confer any right, title or ownership upon the petitioner in respect of the said land.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
8. The respondents shall not interfere with the petitioner's possession over the aforesaid Kotwari/service land or obstruct him from carrying out agricultural operations thereon, so long as he continues to serve as a Kotwar, subject to his rights and obligations under the applicable law, rules and conditions governing such service land.
9. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not claim any right, title or ownership over the aforesaid land merely on the basis of his possession thereof or on account of having carried out agricultural operations thereon in his capacity as a Kotwar. This order shall not be construed as conferring any right of ownership or title upon the petitioner in respect of the said land as the Full Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.07.2026 passed in WPC No. 1571 of 2020 has held that the Kotwari land is service land and Kotwar cannot not claim title upon the said land. Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ruchi