Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010145362025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4346/2025 ABUL KASHEM CHOUDHURY S/O ABBAS ALI GAONBURA, R/O VILL- UTTAR KHATOWAL, P.S.- RUPAHIHAT, PIN-782125, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ,REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS ASSAM RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI-781032 3:THE SELECTION BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001 4:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COOMIISSIONER (REVENUE) NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER RUPAHI REVENUE CIRCLE RUPAHI NAGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 PIN-782128 6:ASSADUL HOQUE S/O ABDUL MANNAN VILL AND P.O.- UTTAR KHATOWAL P.S.- RUPAHIHAT PIN-782125 DIST- NAGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ALIM, DR. C R BORUAH,MR. M H ANSARI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, MS M DAS (FOR CAVEATOR),GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 04.08 .2025 Heard Mr. S. Alim, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. J. Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Ms. M. Das, learned counsel for the caveator. The petitioner has assailed the appointment of the private respondent who was selected as the Gaonburah, pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.09.2022 in respect of Lot No.3 of Uttar Khatowal Kisamat under Saidoria Mouza in the district of Nagaon, Assam. Although the petitioner was applied for the post of Gaonburah, the private respondent was selected. His appointment was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was made in violation of the notification dated 10.04.2018 as well as advertisement itself, where one of the condition of eligibility is that the incumbent should not be a member of any political party. The petitioner has Page No.# 3/4 referred to a certificate issued by the President Rupahi Mondal Minority Morcha of the BJP, certifying that the private respondent is a member of the said political party. Under such circumstances the petitioner has challenged his appointment by filing an appeal as prescribed under Regulation 162-C of the Executive Instructions appended to the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the appeal filed by the petitioner was heard by the authority who was holding the office at the relevant point in time as the Director of Land Records & Surveys, however, he could not deliver orders as he was transferred and his successor officer delivered the order who never undertook any hearing in the matter. Being aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by the Telangana High Court in Mohammed Jahangir v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation reported in (2022) 1 ALT 580 : (2022) 2 AndhLD 324 as well as the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation reported in AIR 1 959 SC 308. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the manner in which the appeal was heard by one officer and disposed of by the another officer is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. It is contrary to the basic principal of natural justice. Being aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed. During the course of hearing and on a pointed query made by the Court as to why the petitioner did not take recourse to the provisions of filing a review under Regulation 162-D of the Executive Instructions, the learned counsel for Page No.# 4/4 the petitioner fairly submits that he would like to take recourse to the said provisions and file a review before the State Government and he be permitted to take all objections before the said authority. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, the writ petition therefore, stands closed permitting the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under Regulation 162-D by filing the review. Once the review is filed, the authority concerned will examine the matter in its entirety taking into consideration the judgments pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The authority will proceed to hear the matter after giving opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned including the petitioner and the private respondent and thereafter, pass appropriate order. This writ petition accordingly, stands closed in terms of the above. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant