Page 1 of 6

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

WA No.54/2024

Date of CAV: 01.07.2025

Date of pronouncement: 11.07.2025

Shri Abdul Mannaf ..... Appellant

Vs.

1. The Garo Hills Autonomous District Council represented by its

Secretary to the Executive Committee, Garo Hills Autonomous District

Council, Tura.

2. The Secretary to the Executive Committee, Garo Hills Autonomous

District Council, West Garo Hills, Tura.

3. The Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District

Council, West Garo Hills, Tura.

4. The Executive Member (Land and Revenue), Garo Hills Autonomous

District Council, Tura.

5. Shri Mohubul Sheik ..... Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:

For the Appellant : Mr. A.H. Hazarika, Adv with

Ms. E. Pajuh, Adv

For the Respondents : Mr. S. Dey, SC GHADC

Mr. S.K. Hassan, Adv for R/5

i) Whether approved for Yes

reporting in Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No

in press:

For proper public information and transparency, any media

reporting this judgment is directed to mention the

composition of the bench by name of judges, while reporting

this judgment/order.

Serial No.01

Daily List 2025:MLHC:603-DB

Page 2 of 6

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered by the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)

This is an appeal from a judgment and order dated 23

rd

August,

2024 passed by a learned single judge, dismissing the writ petition of

the appellant.

Initially, there were two issues involved in the appeal. The first

was bifurcation of Borshibandha and Goladigli Part-II village by

creation of Goladigli Part-II village. The second was the appointment of

respondent No.5 as Goanbura of Goladigli Part-II village after this

bifurcation.

During continuance of the appeal, it transpired that the term of

the respondent No.5 had expired on 30

th

November, 2024 and not

renewed by the authorities. Therefore, the first issue became dead.

The appeal proceeded on the issue of bifurcation of the said

village only as recorded in our order dated 20

th

May, 2025.

First of all, this writ petition ought not to have been entertained.

It is too trivial an issue for the Court to exercise its extraordinary

jurisdiction of high prerogative writs.

Some Executive Instructions relating to Land Laws of Assam

have been adopted by this State. Under Instruction 160, a village

headman or gaonbura is appointed in a village which has 150 or more 2025:MLHC:603-DB

Page 3 of 6

families and one for 150 families. These gaonburas are appointed by the

Deputy Commissioner. The legal heirs of a deceased gaonbura has a

stake. The views of locals are also taken into account. The Deputy

Commissioner may also dismiss a gaonbura (Instruction 162). Such

power may also be exercised by the Sub-Divisional Officer under

Instruction 162A. An appeal against such dismissal by the Sub-

Divisional Officer lies to the Deputy Commissioner and from the order

of the Deputy Commissioner to the Commissioner (Instructions 162B

and 162C). A petition for review lies to the State government

(Instruction 162D).

Instructions 160, 162A, 162B, 162C and 162D are set out

below:

“160. Appointment of gaonburas.– In the Lakhimpur,

Sibsagar, Nowong, Darrang and Kamrup districts a staff of

village headmen (or gaonburas) is maintained, there being as a

general rule, one for every 150 families. It is not necessary that

the staff of gaonburas should cover the whole of the area of

district, or that gaonburas should be appointed to petty outling

hamlets isolated in the jungle or for the temporary abodes of

pam cultivates.

162(A) Appointment and dismissal of Gaonburas. –

Gaonburas shall be appointment, suspended and dismissed, in

case of Sadar Sub-Division by the Deputy Commissioner or the

Sub-Divisional Officer (sadar) and in case of outlying Sub-

Divisions by the Sub-Divisional Officers.

***** ****** ******

In the matter of appointment of a Gaonbura, the following

factors shall be taken into consideration:-

2025:MLHC:603-DB

Page 4 of 6

(1) The claims of the family of the Gaonbura.

(2) The views of the Mouzadar.

(3) The suitability of the persons for the post.

Gaonburas shall be entitled to the protection provided under

Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

162(B) An appeal against the order of appointment, suspension

and dismissal of a Gaonbura by the Sub-Divisional Officer

(sadar) and the Sub-Divisional Officers of the outlying Sub-

Divisions shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner within a period

of 60 days from the date on which the appellant receives a copy

of the order.

162(C) A second appeal from the order of the Deputy

Commissioner shall lie to the Commissioner of Divisions within

a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of passing of the order

by the Deputy Commissioner .....

162(D) A petition for review the order of the Commissioner of

Divisions shall lie to the State Government within a period of 90

(ninety) days from the date of passing of such order by the

Commissioner. .....”

Division of a village into two and appointment of an additional

gaonbura is an administrative decision of the State. It is also a policy

decision. Unless gross error, unfairness, discrimination, mala fide or

reasonableness is proved in such bifurcation, a gaonbura has little or no

say in this administrative policy decision. Bifurcation of a village may

directly or indirectly have an impact on the functioning of a gaonbura.

The administrative instructions say that a gaonbura is protected under

Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India is reproduced herein

below: 2025:MLHC:603-DB

Page 5 of 6

“311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons

employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.–

(1) ......

(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed

or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been

informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable

opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.”

An illegal or irregular bifurcation of a village might be

interpreted as imputing fault on the existing gaonbura. Bifurcating the

village to accommodate another gaonbura may be interpreted as

reducing the rank of the existing gaonbura. This would entitle him to an

inquiry and proof of charges against him and an opportunity of being

heard before such bifurcation is made.

At this stage of the matter, there is no point in referring the

appellant/writ petitioner to the lower level of adjudication by the

Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner and so on.

Let the writ petition be treated as a petition for review under the

Instruction 162D and be tendered before the State government which

shall within 90 days of receipt of the papers upon hearing the

appellant/writ petitioner and other interested parties and by a reasoned

order decide the question of bifurcation of the appellant’s village

namely, Borshibandha and Goladigli Part-II.

2025:MLHC:603-DB

Page 6 of 6

This appeal is accordingly disposed of by modifying the

impugned judgment and order dated 23

rd

August, 2024.

(W. Diengdoh) (I.P. Mukerji)

Judge Chief Justice

2025:MLHC:603-DB