Appeals against rejected Composite Land Sale Transfer applications lie before the Director of Land Records and Surveys.

The petitioner, an intended purchaser, entered into an agreement for sale concerning 2 Kathas 10 Lessas of land covered by Dag No. 88, Patta No. 176, at Village Paka Betbari, Barpeta District.

Before execution of the agreement, he applied through the Sewa Setu portal on 02.08.2024 for the notified public service of “Composite Land Sale Transfer.” The application was rejected on 14.10.2024, allegedly through a non-speaking order.

A second application filed on 18.11.2024 was likewise rejected on 07.01.2025.

The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal under Section 8 of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 (“ARTPS Act”) before the District Commissioner, Barpeta, on 10.08.2026. As the appeal was not considered, he approached the High Court seeking directions for disposal of the appeal and delivery of the notified service.

The State contended that the District Commissioner was not the competent First Appellate Authority; under the applicable notification, the First Appellate Authority was the Director of Land Records and Surveys, Assam.

Whether the District Commissioner, Barpeta, had jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the petitioner’s first appeal under Section 8(1) of the ARTPS Act concerning the service of “Composite Land Sale Transfer”.

Whether the petitioner could pursue a first appeal before the Director of Land Records and Surveys, Assam after expiry of the statutory limitation period, by seeking condonation of delay.

Whether the High Court should direct the respondent authorities to deliver the notified public service of “Composite Land Sale Transfer”.

The Court applied Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, as amended. Section 8(1) permits a person aggrieved by rejection of an application by the Designated Public Servant, or by non-delivery of a notified service within the prescribed period, to file a first appeal before the notified First Appellate Authority within 30 days; its proviso permits delayed admission where sufficient cause is shown.

Section 8(4) provides for a second appeal before the notified Second Appellate Authority.

The Notification dated 09.07.2024, published on 12.07.2024, notified “Composite Land Sale Transfer” as a public service, prescribed a 45-working-day timeline, designated the Director of Land Records and Surveys, Assam as the First Appellate Authority, and identified the AAT/RTPS Commission as the Second Appellate Authority.

The governing principle applied was that an appeal must be filed before the authority expressly vested with statutory appellate jurisdiction; a forum lacking such jurisdiction cannot be directed to adjudicate the appeal.

Although the petitioner filed his first appeal before the District Commissioner, the applicable notification specifically designated the Director of Land Records and Surveys, Assam as the First Appellate Authority for “Composite Land Sale Transfer”.

Consequently, the District Commissioner lacked statutory authority to entertain or dispose of the appeal, and the High Court declined to issue such a direction.

Since the petitioner’s appeal before the competent authority was filed beyond the 30-day limitation prescribed by Section 8(1), he was required to submit an application seeking condonation of delay and demonstrate sufficient cause under the proviso to that provision.

The First Appellate Authority was directed to determine the delay-condonation application first and, if delay were condoned, examine the appeal on its merits in accordance with law.

The Court therefore did not itself direct delivery of the land-transfer service.

The petitioner was permitted to file a first appeal before the Director of Land Records and Surveys, Assam, together with an application for condonation of delay explaining the circumstances preventing timely filing.

The competent authority was to decide the condonation application and, if satisfied that sufficient cause existed, proceed to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law.

No direction was issued for immediate delivery of the “Composite Land Sale Transfer” service, and no order as to costs was made.