Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010046712026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1427/2026 ABDUL REJAK LASKAR SON OF LATE SIRAJ UDDIN, RESIDENCE OF VILLAGE KANDULIMARI, P.O JUGIJAN BAZAR, P.S. HOJAI, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OF HOJAI DISTRICT- HOJAI ASSAM PIN-782435 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER HOJAI REVENUE CIRCLE HOJAI DISTRICT- HOJAI ASSAM PIN-782435 4:SRI NARAYAN CHANDRA DEBNATH S/O LATE MONMOHAN DEBNATH R/O PUB KANDULIMARI VILLAGE P.O. JUGIJAN P.S. HOJAI DISTRICT- HOJAI ASSAM PIN-782435 5:KASHI RAM HARIJAN SON OF LATE RAM CHARAN HARIJAN 6:PRANAB JYOTI BARKAKATI Page No.# 2/3 SON OF DHIREN JYOTI BARKAKATI BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PUB-KANDULIMARI POST OFFICE-JUGIJAN POLICE STATION- AND DISTRICT-HOJAI PIN-782435 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA, AMAN ALI,MR B HAZARIKA,MR SOHAING Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 11.03.2026 Heard Mr. J Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner and the Private Respondent No. 4 applied for being selected and appointed as Gaon Pradhan pursuant to a recruitment process undertaken. The Respondent No. 4 was appointed as a Gaon Pradhan. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director of Land Records. By the speaking order dated 11.02.2026, the appeal came to be dismissed and the appointment of Respondent No. 4 was upheld. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed. Mr. S Dutta, learned standing counsel, Revenue submits that there is a provision for a review as prescribed under Executive Instructions 162 D. He therefore, submits that the petitioner should be relegated to file a review. Upon perusal of the provisions of Section 162-D appended to the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, it is seen that although it is termed as a ‘review’, in essence the language of Executive Instruction 162-D appears to the Court to provide for a further appeal against the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority, namely the Director of Land Records. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is granted liberty to file review under Page No.# 3/3 executive instruction 162-D against the order dated 11/02/2026 passed by the appellate authority. Needless to say, in the event petitioner is still aggrieved by orders passed by the authority under review, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach this Court. The review authorities will condone the period. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant