Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010037692026 2026:GAU-AS:10091 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1239/2026 BONGAIGAON DISTRICT GAONBURAH ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENTGIRINDRA SINGHA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O MRIGENDRA NARAYAN SINGHA, R/O VILLAGE - MULAGAON, P.O.-MULAGAON, P.S.- BONGAIGAON, DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE AND D.M. DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS. ETC ASSAM RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI-32. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OF BONGAIGAON DISTRICT P.O. P.S. AND DISTRICT BONGAIGAON Page No.# 2/7 ASSAM PIN-783380 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, D BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 22-07-2026 Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. J. Handique, learned standing counsel, Revenue & DM Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. The petitioner association in the present proceeding has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the members of the petitioner association who are rendering honorary services as Gaon Burah in their respective revenue villages. Alternatively, the members of the petitioner association have also prayed for relaxation of the minimum qualification and upper age limit of the members of the petitioner association who are rendering honorary services in their respective revenue villages and for attachment of their services in the available post of Gaon Burah/ Gaon Pradhan. 3. The members of the petitioner association have projected that the Gaon Burah system was not prevalent in the district of Bongaigaon along with few other districts, although the said system was prevalent in the upper Assam districts. Vide a notification dated 05-01-2015, posts came to be created in 08 (eight) districts including Bongaigaon. 262 (two hundred sixty two) posts of Gaon Burah were created in this connection. It is further projected that in terms Page No.# 3/7 of the said notification dated 05-01-2015, the members of the petitioner association were appointed by the villagers of the respective village by holding meetings for the purpose. It is projected that no formal order of appointment was issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon. The members of the petitioner association not being adjusted against the posts of Gaon Burah available and the respondent authorities having proceeded to issue notifications for recruitment against the posts in question by applying the Executive Instructions in vogue; the representations submitted by the petitioner association for the regularization/ absorption of its members against the vacant posts of Gaon Burah available, not being considered the petitioner association on behalf of its members has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the above facts has submitted that the members of the petitioner association being duly selected as Gaon Burah of their respective villages, by the villagers in a general meeting held for the purpose and thereafter, continuously performing duties as a honorary Gaon Burah, the respondent authorities ought to have issued order(s) towards appointing them against the posts, which have been created in the district of Bongaigaon. It is submitted that the members of the petitioner association are having a legitimate expectation to get formally appointed to the post of Gaon Burah, inasmuch as, they were appointed on the basis of instructions issued in this connection by the Revenue & DM Department, Govt. of Assam. 5. Mr. J. Handique, learned standing counsel, Revenue & DM Department, Assam and Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam have jointly submitted that the existing provision in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (as amended) and the Executive Instructions as provided in Clauses- 160 to 177, inter alia, provide the minimum qualification, Page No.# 4/7 age of superannuation, removal from service, duties and responsibilities and capacity buildings of the Gaon Burah. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the members of the petitioner association were not appointed by any authority of the Government, rather they were so appointed by the villagers of their respective villages and accordingly, they would have no right to claim for regularization. It is submitted that under Executive Instructions, a procedure is laid down for recruitment and appointment as Gaon Burah. It is further submitted that the prescription of minimum qualification and other provisions for the post of Gaon Burah is within the domain and power of the State Government, which has been appropriately provided in the Executive Instruction. It is submitted that the present writ petition would mandated to be rejected. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 7. The members of the petitioners’ association on creation of posts of Gaon Burah in the district of Bongaigaon were found to be working as honorary Gaon Burah in pursuance to their selection by the villagers of the respective villages. The Executive Instructions holding the field prescribes the procedure for appointment of Gaon Burah. The members of the petitioner association in the present writ petition are primarily seeking regularization of their services in view of their long continuance as honorary Gaon Burahs of their respective villages/ Lots. 8. The said authorities vide a notification dated 05-01-2016, had amended the existing provisions of the Executive Instruction by introducing a new Clause-161(A) and deleting the earlier Clauses- 162 and 162(A). Subsequently, another notification was issued whereby Page No.# 5/7 notification dated 06-01-2016 was cancelled and Clauses- 162 to 164 of the Executive Instructions were substituted. The said notification dated 10-04-2018 has introduced a procedure for selection in the shape of Executive Instructions 162(2). The said instruction is, however, prospective in nature. 9. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the post of Gaon Burah is a civil post. It is also not disputed by the members of the petitioner association that at the time of their appointment by the villagers, the competent authority to appoint, dismiss and/ or suspend a Gaon Burah was the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. The materials brought on record reveals that at the relevant point of time directions were issued to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to appoint Gaon Burahs. However, the members of the petitioner association were appointed by the villagers and were approved by the Association of Gaon Burahs. The said course of action followed for appointment of the members of the petitioner association, is in clear violation of the Executive Instruction holding the field at that point of time. The appointment of the members of the petitioner association, accordingly, can be safely held to have not been so effected by following the procedure mandated in this connection. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 256/2023 had considered the claims of similarly situated honorary Gaon Burahs appointed in the district of Bongaigaon and on noticing the submissions advanced before it had drawn the following conclusions:- “11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kandarpa Sarma Vs. Rajeshwar Das and Ors. reported in (2011) 14 SCC 752, while dealing with the interpretation of “family” used under Executive Instruction 162, observed that as the Gaonburahs hold a civil post, there need to be some service conditions governing their services. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that since such determination is within the domain of State Government, the court expects and left it to the state Government to Page No.# 6/7 frame such service condition as expeditiously as possible. 12. Be that as it may, by a notification dated 16.01.2016 the Executive Instruction 162 and 162A were deleted and new clause 161(A) was inserted. Such amended clause 161(1) mandated for minimum qualification. 13. Subsequently, yet another notification was issued, whereby notification dated 06.01.2016 was cancelled and the Executive Instruction 160 to 164 were substituted. The said notification dated 10.04.2018 introduced a procedure for selection in the shape of Executive Instruction 162(2). 14. The Executive Instruction in question clearly shows that it is prospective in nature. Mr. Mahmud is correct in submitting that even in case of a retrospective legislature or Executive Instruction, vested and concluded right cannot be taken away. Therefore, this court is to look into whether the petitioners are having a vested and concluded right to continue to serve as Honorary Gaonburahs and get appointed. 15. As discussed herein above, it is undisputed that the post of Gaonburah is a civil post. It is also not in dispute that at the time of appointment of the petitioners by the villagers, the competent authority to appoint, dismiss and suspend Gaonburah was the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. 16. The communication of the respondent No.1 dated 10.01.2000, upon which the petitioners are placing heavy reliance, also discloses that instruction was given to the Deputy Commissioner to appoint Gaonburahs. However, the petitioners were appointed by the villagers and were approved by the association of Gaonburahs. Such course of action was not permissible under the Executive Instruction holding the field at that point of time. Thus, the appointment of the petitioners itself had no sanctity under law. Therefore, the question whether their terms of service shall be governed by the pre amended Executive Instruction or subsequent amended Executive Instruction, is not at all relevant for determination of the prayer made in the writ petition. 17. The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Monet Ispat and Energy Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in (2012) 11 SCC 1 at paragraph 183 held that there are parallels between the doctrines of promissory estoppels and legitimate expectation as both these doctrines are founded on the concept of fairness and arises out of natural justice. It was further held that in no case, such principles can be pressed to compel the government or public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the government. It was further held that there cannot be any legitimate expectation which is statutorily prohibited or is against public policy. 18. In the case in hand, the petitioners cannot have any legitimate expectation to get appointed as Gaonburahs for the reason that their appointment as Honorary Gaonburhas by villagers was not permissible under Executive Instruction 162 holding the field at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any legitimate expectation to get appointed as Gaonburah in derogation of the Executive Instruction.” 11. Applying the said conclusions drawn by the Division Bench of this Court vide order Page No.# 7/7 dated 17-07-2023 to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioners cannot project to have any legitimate expectation to get appointed as a Gaon Burah in derogation of Executive Instructions. 12. In view of the above discussions and applying the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 256/2023, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners do not have indivisible right to claim for regularization, only on the ground that they were appointed by the villagers of their respective Lats, in clear violation of the provisions of the Executive Instructions holding the field, at the relevant point of time. The prayer of the members of the petitioner association for relaxation of the age limit as well as the educational qualification, given the importance attached to the post of Gaon Burah, does not also mandate acceptance from this Court. 13. In view of the above conclusions, this Court is of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the members of the petitioner association for regularization of their services as Gaon Burah, as the members of the petitioner association have not been appointed by any authority or in terms of any provisions of law. 14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant