Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010075582025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2090/2025 SANOWAR HUSSAIN S/O ABUL HUSSAIN MONDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ALOPATI CHAR N C , PS ALOPATI, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM 781127 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DM DEPT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 2:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI-32 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781314. 4:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781314. 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BAGHBAR REVENUE CIRCLE MANDIA P.O.- MANDIA DIST.- BARPETA Page No.# 2/6 ASSAM PIN- 781314. 6:IKRAMUL HUSSAIN S/O- ABUL HUSSAIN MONDAL VILL- ALOPATI CHAR NC P.O- ALOPATI DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78112 Advocate for the Petitioner : B BARMAN, MR. H ALI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. N UDDIN,MR. M ISLAM,MR S K CHHETRY,FOR CAVEATOR,SC. REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 13.06 .2025 Heard Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Ms. U. Sharma, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner putting to challenge the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, the Director of Land Records & Surveys, Assam in Appeal No.121 of 2024. 3. The gist of the matter is that the petitioner applied for in response to an advertisement No.BRKG-57/2022/27-29 for selection and appointment as a Gaon Pradhan in Charge No.17, Lot No. 1 & 2 under the Baghbar Mouza, Baghbar Revenue Circle in the District of Barpeta. Amongst the eligibility criteria Page No.# 3/6 prescribed, one of the criteria prescribed is that the candidate should have landed property/immovable property in his or her name when he or she intends to be appointed as a Gaon Pradhan. 4. Pursuant to the selection process undertaken, the petitioner was shortlisted and appointed for the Charge No.17 under the Baghbar Mouza, Baghbar Revenue Circle for the Lot No. 1 & 2 as a Gaon Pradhan. His appointment however, was challenged by the private respondent by filing WP(C) No. 1148 of 2023. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 01.03.2023 disposed of the writ petition in view of the submissions made before the Court that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1148 of 2023 had also preferred an appeal before the respondent No.3 challenging the selection of respondent No.6 for appointment as a Gaon Pradhan. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of by directing the appeal should be considered and disposed of by respondent No.3 as expeditiously as possible but not later than eight(08) weeks and until such an appeal is disposed of, no order of appointment is to be issued in favor of the respondent No.6 therein, namely the petitioner herein. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred a Writ Appeal being No. 119 of 2023. The Appellate Court by order dated 04.04.2023 modified the interim order granting and permitting the petitioner herein to join the post of Gaon Pradhan. The directions of the learned Single Judge towards disposal of the appeal by the respondent No.3 was not modified. Subsequently, the appeal came to be disposed of on the ground that the Appellate Authority of the Department has passed an order. The Appellate Authority by the impugned order disposed of the appeal preferred by the private respondent rejecting the claim of the private respondent to be appointed as Gaon Pradhan, in view of the fact that the private respondent not having the required educational qualification at the time of submission of his Page No.# 4/6 application for appointment to the post of Gaon Pradhan. The Appellate Authority also upon careful examination of the materials available including the reports of the concerned Circle Officer returned the finding that the land which was stated to have been mutated in the name of the petitioner, private respondent and their other siblings was done by mistake and the Circle Officer had cancelled the said order on 10.05.2023 and consequently, no land is mutated in the name of either the petitioner or the private respondent. Under such circumstances, the Appellate Authority came to a finding that the private respondent is also not qualified for the post of Gaon Pradhan due to non- fulfillment of Clause 7, that there is no land holding in the name of the present writ petitioner and consequently the appointment of the writ petitioner has been set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pleadings are complete and the respondent No.6 has filed his affidavit objecting to the contentions made in the writ petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order needs to be interfered with as there is no dispute that the petitioner and the private respondent are siblings and the land is in the name of their father namely Abul Hussain Mondal who is still alive and since they are the legitimate children of Abul Hussain Mondal and their father is the owner of the land and also the petitioner lives with his father he cannot be termed to be as a landless person. The learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to persuade this Court that the Clause 7 of the advertisement has to be construed liberally, as it cannot be understood to mean that every applicant must have landed property in his or her name. What is required to be seen is that whether the person belongs to Page No.# 5/6 the locality and consequently has some landed property in his name. There is every possibility that after the demise of the petitioner’s father a portion of the land will devolve to the writ petitioner by virtue of inheritance and at present the petitioner resides in the same household with his father and therefore, it cannot be said that he does not own any land in his name. 7. The learned counsel for the private respondent on the other hand submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order as the order of mutation issued by the Circle Officers stood cancel by order dated 10.05.2023 which as of now has not been challenged. Consequently there is no land in the name of the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the department on the other hand submits that there is no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority as the said authority has passed the order after considering the relevant materials available on the case record. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the materials available in the case record it is seen that the advertisement itself contains several conditions that are required to be fulfilled by the candidates. One of the conditions specified is the requirement to hold landed property. It is not in dispute that none of the conditions including Clause No.7 has been challenged or questioned by the petitioner or the respondent in a case proceeding. 10. The Circle Officer by order dated 23.05.2022 cancelled the earlier order by which the names of the petitioner, his siblings including the private respondent were mutated. The learned counsel fairly submits that this order is not assailed Page No.# 6/6 in any proceedings as on date. 11. The interpretations sought to be given to Clause 7 is not called for at this stage in view of the fact that there is no ambiguity in the clause specified in the advertisement seeking invitations for selection and appointment to the post of Gaon Pradhan. That apart these clauses including Clause 7 have not been assailed before this Court calling upon it to interpret the clauses as sought to be interpreted by the writ petitioner. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the Appellate Order dated 17.03.2025 passed in Appeal No. 121/2024 and the writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 13. It is also seen from the Executive Instructions appended to the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation that under Clause 162(D) there is a provision for review for the petitioner, if so advised, may take recourse to the provisions of Clause 162(D). 14. Dismissal of the writ petition shall not be considered as a bar, if the writ petitioner decides to file review. JUDGE Comparing Assistant