Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010082292025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2125/2025 DIPAK KUMAR MEDHI S/O- LATE GIRISH CHANDRA MEDHI, VILL.- MANDIA GAON, P.O. MANDIA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS ETC RUPNAGAR GHY-32. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301. 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BAGHBAR REVENUE CIRCLE DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781308 Advocate for the Petitioner : M ALAMGEER, MR. A H M R CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 25.04 .2025 Heard Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. This writ petition is filed putting to challenge the order dated 05.03.2025 passed in Appeal No.122/2023 by the Director of Land Records & Surveys Etc. Assam, Rupnagar, Guwahati-32. By the said impugned order the respondent No.5 before the Appellate Authority namely the present writ petitioner was appointed as Gaon Pradhan of Charge No.10, covering village Mandia and Mandia Pathar under the Baghbor Mouza in the Barpeta district vide select list dated 03.01.2023 was set aside and quashed with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by the order interfering with the appointment order the petitioner is before this Court. The learned counsel representing the respondents jointly submit that in terms of the executive instructions under the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886, as per Clause 162-D a review of the order passed by the Director of Land Records & Surveys Etc. Assam can be preferred before the State Government within a period of 90 day from the date of receipt of the order by the applicant. It is submitted that since there is a provision for review the petitioner be directed to take recourse to the same. Page No.# 3/3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground on which the appointment is interfered with namely that a criminal case was pending at the time when the petitioner was selected is incorrect and not supported by the records. If that be so, since there is a provision for review under Clause 162-D the petitioner may approach the statutory authority prescribed for filing a review. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly seeks liberty of this Court to approach the authorities and file a review application. The prayer is allowed. The writ petition stands dismissed as on withdrawal with liberty. If any, such review petition is filed under Clause 162-D the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously by the authorities concerned preferably within the outer limit of 90 days from the date of filing such a review. JUDGE Comparing Assistant