##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010286962025

2026:GAU-AS:1159

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/388/2026

MR SHARIFUDDIN KHANDAKAR

S/O MD. ABDUR RAHMAN, R/O VILLAGE SUTAR GAON, LOT NO. 1

SUTARGAON MURAMARI PAM, P.S. DHING, P.O. DHING, DISTRICT -

NAGAON, PIN -782123, ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE

REVENUE DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT., ASSAM SECRETARIAT,

DISPUR, DISTRICT KAMRUPM, GUWAHATI - 781006, ASSAM.

2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

NAGAON

CHRISTIANPATTY

DISTRICT - NAGAON

PIN - 782001.

3:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS

ASSAM

RUPNAGAR

GUWAHATI - 781032

DISTRICT - KAMRUPM

ASSAM.

4:SHARIFUL ISLAM

S/O LATE ABDUL GAFUR

VILLAGE - SUTARGAON

P.O. GAYAN GAON

DISTRICT - NAGAON

Page No.# 2/5

PIN - 782123

ASSAM. ... PRO FORMA RESPONDEN

For the petitioner (s) : Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate

For the respondent (s) : Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, Govt. Advocate

Mr. S. Dutta, SC, Revenue

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

O R D E R

30.01.2026

Heard Mr. M. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appears

on behalf of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department

and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appears on behalf

of the respondent No.2.

2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to

pass, the service of notice upon respondent No.4 is dispensed

with.

3. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the inaction on the

part of the Respondent Authorities in not appointing the

petitioner as the Gaon Pradhan pursuant to the setting aside of

the selection of the proforma respondent No.4 as the Gaon

Pradhan. It is under such circumstances that the present writ

petition has been filed.

Page No.# 3/5

4. This Court has duly perused the materials on record. From a

perusal of the materials on record, it is apparent that the

proforma respondent No.4 was selected as the Gaon Pradhan in

respect to Lot No.1 Sutargaon, Muramari Pam Village in Dhing

Mouza under Dhing Revenue Circle. The petitioner thereupon

challenged the said selection of the proforma respondent No.4

before this Court by way of a writ petition which was registered

and numbered as WP(C) No.1587/2023.

5. This Court did not enter into the said dispute and gave

liberty to the petitioner to file an Appeal in terms with Executive

Instruction No.162(C) of the Assam Land and Revenue

Regulation, 1886. Pursuant thereto, on the basis of the said

leave, the petitioner preferred an Appeal which was registered

and numbered as PR(CAD) 11/2023. The Director of Land

Records and Surveys by the speaking order dated 26.09.2025

held that the selection of the proforma respondent No.4 was in

violation of the Executive Instructions and, more particularly

Clause 162(v), and accordingly, set aside the selection of the

proforma respondent No.4 as the Gaon Pradhan of Lot No.1

Sutargaon, Muramari Pam Village.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant thereto, the

Director of Land Records and Surveys, Assam should have

directed the concerned authorities to appoint the petitioner as

Page No.# 4/5

the Gaon Pradhan of Lot No.1 Sutargaon, Muramari Pam Village

and in that regard, submitted a representation which not being

considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

7. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on

behalf of the parties and has perused the materials on record.

8. It is the opinion of this Court that upon setting aside the

appointment of the proforma respondent No.4 as the Gaon

Pradhan, the non-exercise of the jurisdiction by the Appellate

Authorities to direct the concerned authorities to appoint the

petitioner as the Gaon Pradhan does not call for any interference,

taking into account that the Director of Land Records and

Surveys, i.e. respondent No.3 has only decided as regards the

legality and validity of the selection process.

9. This Court further, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, cannot

direct the Respondent Authorities to appoint